Infidels Are Cool found the audio of Obama arguing in the Illinois Senate against protecting babies who survived abortions.
In his own chilling words:
Obama considers life saving measures to protect a child outside of the womb, a “burden” to the decision of the woman and her physician to have an abortion. That’s what this is really about. He was never really concerned that the wording in the bill would somehow have “undermined Roe V Wade”, as he told David Brody:
And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say —that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.
That was smoke and mirrors. If the woman wanted a dead baby, dammit, she was gonna have her dead baby, if Obama could help it.
“…the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama –- the proud father of two little girls –- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting,”
Nope. It’s Obama’s position on infanticide and his continuous lies that are deeply offensive and insulting.
Via Gateway Pundit.
Ed Moressey at Hot Air has verified the authenticity of the tape, as well as a transcript from the IL Legislature of Obama making the most nonsensical and obtuse argument against the bill that can be imagined. Here it is (see if any of this makes any sense to you):
[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.
Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a — an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
Now, if that’s the case –and — and I know some of us feel very strongly one way or the other on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.
What a load of crap….the whole reason for the bill was that doctors WERE NOT TREATING THESE BABIES AND ALLOWING THEM TO DIE IN THE SOILED UTILITY ROOM, as whistleblowing Christ Hospital nurse, Jill Stanek HAD ALREADY TESTIFIED.
Ramesh Ponnuru making some good points about this at NRO.