Ken Berwitz

Most people, I suspect, have no idea of what BAIPA is.  But if Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination for President, I guarantee that everyone will.  So I'm going to tell you what it is now, as a prelude to one of the most damning attacks that will be made against Mr. Obama - and one that you won't hear at all during the primaries (I'll explain why shortly).

BAIPA is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  In simplest terms, it is legislation that prohibits the killing of live children if they survive an abortion procedure.  In other words, if the abortion fails and the child is delivered live, the doctor has no right to kill that live child outside the womb.

Let's stop right here and think about this.  Is it just me, or does the idea of killing a live child in your arms sound like something out of the third reich playbook?   Is it even imaginable that a licensed, accredited doctor in the USA could legally kill a live child because the child was SUPPOSED to die inside the woman it came from (I refuse to call her a mother)?

Well it is imaginable.  And it has been done.  A lot. 

This is why BAIPA legislation was created.  To, literally, prevent the killing of live children for the crime of surviving an earlier attempt on their lives.

With the above in mind, please read the following account by Jean Stanek, a nurse and pro-life advocate, of the procedure in action.  And of then -State Senator Barack Obama's efforts to prevent BAIPA from passing, so the baby killings could continue.  The curdling blood will be yours.  The bold print is mine:

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

If you are horrified by this information, I'm glad.  You should be.

If you are not horrified by this information I'm appalled.  You should be.

Earlier I noted that this has not been a part of the primary campaign between Senators Clinton and Obama. 

The reason, in my opinion, is that if Ms. Clinton goes after Mr. Obama on BAIPA the Lunatic-left and Mega-moonbat Brigade within her own party will attempt to characterize her, not as pro-life (that would be impossible), but as more towards a pro-life position than Mr. Obama.  And in the LAMB-dominated hardline Democratic base, any vestige of being pro-life, however reasonable or minimal, constitutes a net loss of votes.

But now picture a general election.  One in which candidates are not competing for the Democratic party's hardline base, but for all voters in both parties as well as independents.  How do you suppose Obama's opposition to BAIPA will play then?

The answer, self-evidently, is that it will be a political disaster.  Why?  Because the position Mr. Obama took was (and is) sick and depraved. 

I read a Chicago Tribune blog from 2004 about this, written during Obama's run for the US Senate.  The writer, Eric Zorn, was very sympathetic to Obama's votes against BAIPA because the Illinois state version did not have a declarative statement that it would not infiringe on abortion rights.  This is probably the tack Obama will take as a presidential nominee. (See update below)

But it is a bunch of baloney that will not fly among even minimally intelligent voters.  The added statement was nothing other than political window dressing to reassure the pro-choice crowd.  With or without it, the Illinois BAIPA legislation made no mention of infringing on any abortion procedure.  Only the killing of live babies outside the womb.  

So I ask you again:  Do you think that Barack Obama's votes against BAIPA will hurt him in a general election?  Some questions just plain answer themselves, don't they?

-------------------------------------------------

(UPDATE ADDED AUGUST 12:  IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DECLARATIVE STATEMENT WAS ADDED, AND OBAMA VOTED AGAINST IT ANYWAY.  CLICK HERE TO SEE FOR YOURSELF.  WHEN OBAMA SAID HE VOTED AGAINST BAIPA BECAUSE THE ABORTION LANGUAGE WASN'T THERE, HE WAS LYING.)