Looking back over Obama's record, there is one significant case that comes to bear from his days in the Illinois state senate, such a long, long time ago (2002), and his challenging of a bill that would protect the lives of infants who had survived the abortion procedure, called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation was created after Illinois nurse Jill Stanek had held a baby for 45 minutes that had been left to die after surviving a late term abortion procedure, and her subsequent reporting of the incident to the Illinois Department of Human Services, who determined that no laws had been broken in the incident (see her commentary here).
What is disturbing about all of this in the case of Senator Obama is his stand on the issue, as shown in statements made while challenging the passage of this legislation in the Illinois Senate.
So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
"Not coming out limp and dead?" Would "limp and dead" not imply that there had been life to begin with? Apparently the Senator from Illinois believes that it is more important to protect the physician performing the abortion than the life of the child, it would seem. Is this a position that Christians, evangelical or otherwise, are willing to support and promote out of a candidate?
Personal note: I'm sure that there are going to be those who come out with the tired old "separation of church and state argument" on this issue. Let me make one clear little reminder before that is bandied about on here: there is absolutely no wording in the United States Constitution that proclaims such a thing. The Constitution clearly states that there shall be no laws enacted that protect or promote any one religion as being a state institution.
Once and Always, an American Fighting Man