It’s clear that abortion is a hotly debated issue, with strong feelings on either side, but it has always been my understanding that the termination (or intentional neglect) of a living, breathing infant, outside the womb — regardless of the circumstances — was universally regarded as murder. I have believed that, as a civilized nation, we denounced such actions socially and legally. That was until I learned of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act: Legislation that aims to protect the lives of infants born after botched abortions, by requiring that they receive medical treatment, rather than allowing them to die.

Why would such a bill even need to be introduced? Putting the abortion issue aside, aren’t human lives already protected by our laws no matter what? Well, despite these questions, the legislation was introduced at the federal level and in at least one state (Illinois). Unsurprisingly, the federal bill (HR 2175 [107th]) passed unanimously in 2002. An essentially identical bill introduced in Illinois (Three consecutive years beginning in 2001) however, had some dissenters. Among them; Barack Obama who claimed that the state bill did not include text preventing the undermining of Roe v. Wade, like that in the federal bill, which he said he would have voted for.

Just recently the Obama campaign has admitted that the state bill was identical to the federal bill, and that Obama had “misstated” this fact:

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law….

I find the need to introduce such legislation disturbing. What’s more disturbing is the fact that a congressperson would vote against it, and then lie about his position, which amounted to what I see as allowing infanticide. I welcome any defense of Obama’s position regarding this situation. I’d gladly concede my misunderstanding to know that a legislator and possible future president does not believe it’s acceptable to take the life of an infant, living outside the womb.

Notice in the following video, James Carville’s pathetic attempt to defend Obama by avoiding the issue and criticizing Rick Santorum.