OR, I can infer differently from what they wrote, and here we'll be, stuck arguing who has a better understanding of what dead people would've thought about something that they never saw, let alone wrote about.
Can you cite any writings by them, or for that matter any other Supreme Court justice, that leaving an infant born alive to die is protected by the Constitution and
Roe? I think not, since I am aware of no such writings in existence. We can judge what they thought based on what they wrote. This happens not infrequently when these matters come before the court.
From MM's link:
Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion.
That article also provides this link to a full statement by the Obama campaign which explains, in excrutiating detail, exactly what was in play at the time. It also details the other State Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, who similarly voted against the bills. And, back to MM's article, where it states "And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation"
See that? Not once have I tried to extrapolate what anyone else was thinking. I just used what was said and by whom. Now, feel free to go ahead and tell me that this isn't really what they meant, and that you knew all along about Obama's little baby-killing circus going on down there in Librillinois.
This is erroneous for at least two reasons. First, the Obama campaign itself keeps changing the reasons why he voted against the legislation. It's morphed from (a) the assertion that the legislation didn't have the
Roe disclaimer to (b) the assertion that the legislation would have a different effect at the state level than at the federal level to (c) the assertion that existing law already protects infants in these circumstances. The moving target strongly suggests that they're struggling to come up with a viable excuse to justify votes way out of the mainstream on this issue.
Second, and more substantively, each of these defenses of Obama's votes is problematic: (a) turned out simply to be false; (b) is a weak excuse because it implies that he would vote for federal law because it wouldn't have any actual effect, but he wouldn't vote for a state law because it would have actual effect, which is another way of saying that he doesn't want to vote for the law if it actually does what it's intended to do; and (c) begs the question of why he should oppose the law at all, if he is content that there are already other laws that do the same thing (critics assert that these other laws have loopholes).
In the end, whatever the shifting reasons trotted out by the Obama campaign, you get back to the same place: Obama didn't want to vote for a law that would be effective in granting rights to infants born alive during an abortion because he was concerned that this would lead to a slippery slope. To repeat, I think Obama's so extreme in his support of
Roe that he didn't want to cast a vote that would in any way be construed as weakening it. The fact check sustains this conclusion:
"Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing 'born-alive' bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden."
The campaign should just come clean: Obama is so committed to upholding
Roe that he opposes any legislation that could be used or perceived to undermine
Roe.
