Obama says Yes to post-birth abortion.

Do abortion rights extend to babies who are already born alive? According to Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (D), they should.

From "More on Obama and Babies Born Alive":

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Except it has nothing to do with abortion. Don't believe me, the article quote from well-known pro-abortion democrat Barbara Boxer, describing the federal bill that the Illinois bill copied:

"(H)is amendment certainly does not attack Roe in any way," said Boxer. "His amendment makes it very clear that nothing in this amendment gives any rights that are not yet afforded to a fetus. Therefore, I, as being a pro-choice senator on this side, representing my colleagues here, have no problem whatsoever with this amendment."

In 2003, Barack again voted for killing newborns:

According to the records made by committee Republicans, the amendment to include in the Illinois bill the language Boxer said protected Roe was approved by a 10 to zero vote of the committee. (This vote, Republicans say, was a common procedural courtesy extended to the sponsoring senator.) The bill as amended was then put to a committee vote. It lost four to six, with Obama voting "no."

Even in a party which is largely pro-abortion, Obama manages to be to the left of even the most ardent liberals, supporting post-birth abortion.

However, in the 2004 election, Obama claimed he would support the exact bill that he rejected in his committee:

"At the federal, level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade," Obama said. "I would have voted for that bill."

And yet when that same amendment was added to the bill in his committee, he still voted no. Any way you look at it, Obama was for killing the post-born babies, simply because their mothers had decided to terminate them.

It is unfortunate that it is not a rare occurance that babies survive their abortions, and are then killed either directly or through neglect. See for example "66 babies a year left to die from NHS abortions", "Baby Hope left to die", "Hospital left aborted babies to die". It is worse that a man who wishes to be President has such a callous disregard for human life that he sees nothing wrong with letting human beings die like that.

These are not just babies who are damaged in an abortion procedure. In some cases, the "abortion" is nothing more than an induced labor. From a nurse who testified about the Illinois Law Obama voted against:

"These were not botched abortions," Stanek said in an interview with HUMAN EVENTS. "They induce labor as a form of abortion. The induction-labor pregnancy termination procedure has been in effect at Christ Hospital for over a decade. When I arrived there eight years ago, it was already old hat. The doctor deliberately induces labor too early and the baby usually dies in the process, but sometimes the baby is born alive. They used to leave them in the soiled utility room, but a few months ago they created a `comfort room.'"

Barack would allow the deaths of the innocent in these "comfort rooms". He talks of the audacity of hope, but apparently that is nothing compared to the audacity of a man who would talk about hope but be so beholden to his pro-abortion views that he extends them to post-born babies.