Bloomington Herald-Times, September 10, 2008
To the Editor:
David Hart brings up the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act in response to my letter questioning why Barack Obama opposed legislation that would prohibit killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born. But there are actually three distinctive pieces of legislation that dealt with born alive infants.
SB1093 and SB1095, both of which Obama opposed as a state senator, made it illegal to kill a baby that survives an abortion and is born. Obama recognized this in remarks against SB1093, warning on the floor of the house that the "equal protection" language in the bill "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 antiabortion statute."
Obama was, of course, wrong. The bill specifically prohibited killing a baby that survives an abortion and is born.
So we are back to where we started. Baron Hill endorsed Barack Obama in the primary over Hillary Clinton, who supported similar legislation at the federal level. Why did Hill endorse a candidate who defended infanticide? Why did Baron Hill, who claims to be a "moderate", endorse a candidate who is anything but moderate?
Scott Tibbs
Previous articles:
♣ What is the most important issue in 2008? -- July 11, 2008
♣ Baron Hill says killing newborns is just "one issue" -- August 8, 2008
♣ Questioning Baron Hill's endorsement of Obama -- August 11, 2008
♣ Fact: Barack Obama voted against banning infanticide -- August 24, 2008
♣ More on the Leftist "bait and switch" regarding the Obama infanticide scandal -- August 25, 2008
♣ Obama's supporters display hypocrisy on infanticide -- September 5, 2008
♣ Will Obama's record on infanticide sink Democrats? -- September 6, 2008
