Back when he was a young, strapping state senator for Illinois, Barack Obama fought fang and claw against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA).
What was going on in Illinois was nurses were giving the medicine to the pregnant mothers to induce labor so that the doctor could swoop in and kill the little tykes as they were being born. But sometimes the labor would begin before the doctor arrived and, whoops, the baby would actually be fully born! What to do, what to do?
“I don’t know,” says the Democrat. “I guess just put the baby in a storage closet until he dies on his own?”
“Say, that’s a capital idea!” says another Democrat.
So that’s what was happening. The purpose of BAIPA was to outlaw such willful neglect and to provide medical care to those babies who were accidentally born alive and healthy before they could be slaughtered.
Obama, being a good, moral man and everything, strongly opposed such medical care, seeing no reason why an end should be put to the practice of leaving babies on shelves to die. They’re just babies, people, lighten up.
He had some very creative reasons for opposing BAIPA.
One of them was that, sure, even though this bill would save the lives of human babies born completely healthy, the possible negative consequences to the abortion industry as a whole wasn’t worth saving them. “I mean, it would essentially bar abortions,” he complained. Killing the undesirables was more important to him than protecting the lives of the innocent defenseless (fully-born infants, not fetuses).
Obama also believed that requiring born-alive babies to be taken care of would put unfair burdens on their mothers. “What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that,” he said. Even though the baby has already been born and separated from the mother, Obama believed their murder-by-neglect was okay because their mothers didn’t want to be mothers.
It’s no different, then, from the same logic that a mother of a 17-year-old can use if she ever decides she doesn’t want to be burdened with motherhood anymore, and therefore cracks the daughters skull open with a paperweight, throws her in the trunk of a car, and sends the car careening into a quarry. Easing the burdens of motherhood wins out against not killing that burden.
But it seems Obama, now President of the United States and thus a manifestation of this country’s evil, seems to have changed his mind on the whole matter.
Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday morning (clinging to religion, like a bitter rube, on the one day of the year he ever pretends to believe in God), Obama said that “the killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will; in fact, it’s the ultimate betrayal of God’s will.”
He was referring to the killing of civilians by foreign governments and by “man-caused-disaster causers” (known in the ante-Obama days simply as terrorists).
But the principle is the same, isn’t it? Are not the unborn the epitome of purity and innocence, never having even the briefest thought of malevolence, totally uncorrupted and incorruptible?
In making this statement at the Prayer Breakfast, I think it’s safe to assume that President Obama has now become a pro-lifer, right? I mean, it’s either that or he’s a flaming hypocrite.