In my last post, I explained why Barack Obama’s declared reason for voting against the Illinois BAIPA – namely, that the law would be held unconstitutional – did not hold water.

With that rationale shot down, that leaves open the question: Why did he oppose the bill?

Possibilities:

(1) Although mistaken, Obama honestly believed that the law would effectively prohibit pre-viability abortions and therefore be unconstitutional.

This seems quite implausible for a couple reasons.  First, as I explained previously, the bill quite clearly limited its scope to members of the species homo sapiens “born alive.”  Since pre-viable fetuses in their mothers’ wombs are not yet born, there is simply no way to construe the BAIPA to grant them any protection from the act of abortion.  The only thing they are given is the right to medical care should they actually survive the abortion.  If Obama was thoughtful enough to speak on the floor about the constitutional dimensions of the bill, he had surely studied it enough to notice the inclusion of the limitation “born.”

Second, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Obama was certainly educated enough in constitutional law generally, and abortion jurisprudence particularly, to navigate the nuances of the issue.  The (actually rather basic) constitutional analysis I set forth in my prior post would not have been lost on him.  Therefore, one can only interpret his invocation of constitutional principles in his statements before the Illinois State Legislature to be for the purpose of obfuscating the issue to others, not supporting his own position.

(2) Barack Obama hates babies and thinks they should not be given any medical treatment.

Hmmm … while this explanation would certainly be sensational and would perhaps excite the passions of those who, like me, diametrically oppose Obama because of his positions on abortion, it is almost certainly not true, and therefore must be dismissed.

(3) Obama feared it might eat away at the abortion right.

Bingo.  Obama probably would have supported mandating medical care for infants who survived abortions, all things being equal.  Yet he likely worried that if the bill passed and became law, it could possibly work contrary to a generally liberal abortion policy for a couple reasons.

First, it might have added momentum to the pro-life movement.  Social movements are often won gradually, with incremental victories that set the baseline for future goals and spur proponents to continue to fight for the cause.  Few things will re-energize a despondent movement like a victory, however small or symbolic, after years of making no real progress.  Likewise, few things will discourage activists to continue to contribute time, money, and emotional energy to a cause like one more defeat after years without any significant victories.  Perhaps Obama simply didn’t want to embolden pro-lifers to seek even more, and he was willing to take no chances.

Second, mandating protection for infants who survive abortions would probably have contributed to a “culture of life” or, as I call it, a “pro-life orthodoxy.”  Think about it.  If a law requires that medical care must be administered to infants surviving abortions, it is implying that those lives have instrinsic worth and therefore are worthy of protection.  That then raises a quandry in the minds of citizens: if a fetus is indeed a human life and is even considered a person with a vested right to medical care when he survives an abortion, why is he not protected from the abortion itself?  Why would an infant born as the result of an induced abortion (where the fetus is fully delivered) at 20 weeks of gestation be protected by the law, while the fetus of 22 weeks could be legally dismembered within her mother’s womb and vaccuumed out through a tube?  If a human life is valuable outside the mother’s womb at one point, why is it not valuable inside the mother’s womb five minutes prior?

There are countless ways to formulate these kinds of questions, many of which might pose themselves in the minds of citizens hearing about such a law.  Although the BAIPA clearly distinguished between born and unborn life, such that it was not in danger of being found unconstitutional, for most people the distinction is hard to maintain both intellectually and emotionally.  Hence, by affirming the value of life immediately subsequent to abortion, the law would help contribute to a pro-life orthodoxy that affirms the value of life immediately prior to abortion.  And Barack Obama did not want that.

But even if Obama honestly believed that abortion was a fundamental right, or a good thing, how far could he in good conscience go to protect it?  Take various things that you believe are right and good.  How far would you go to protect them?  You believe that free speech is good.  Would you die to protect it?  I commend you if you would.  But would you kill to protect that right?  Would you take innocent life?  Would you allow other innocent people to die rather than allow events to come to pass that would threaten that right?

In the end, that’s the problem with Obama’s votes against the Illinois BAIPA.  Even assuming for a moment that abortion were a fundamental good, Obama should never have used the lives of innocent children as shields to protect it.  If Obama wants to die for what he believes in, fine.  But shame on him for substituting helpless infants to make that sacrifice in his place.

So, for those who’ve read all of my posts on this subject so far, I hope it’s been apparent that I have not sunk to the level of demonizing Barack Obama in order to strengthen my criticism against him.  While it would be quite easy to allege, as others have, that Obama disregarded infant life as having any value whatsoever (the “monster” rationale), I have not done so.  Instead, I have given Obama the benefit of the doubt in assuming that he would have supported medical care for these infants were it not for his concern for the effect it might have on the so-called right to abortion (the “strategist” rationale).

But, you know, it’s strange.  Because even after I have discounted the “monster” rationale in favor of the “strategist” rationale, I wonder if I have done Obama any favors.  We may think that a man who regards infant life as worthless is a monster and a villain.  But, when you think of it, in the end, which is really worse?  The man who refuses to protect life because he deems it worthless, or the man who knows quite well the value of life but refuses to protect it because it isn’t expedient?  I’m not so sure.