(CNSNews.com) – While the Obama administration will not comment on the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, charged in Philadelphia for the murder of seven born babies and one woman, President Barack Obama said when he was a state legislator in Illinois that no laws are needed to protect babies born alive after a botched abortion.
“It’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births,” then Illinois state Sen. Obama said on April 4, 2002. “Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”
Obama opposed the Illinois state born alive infant protection bills in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The legislation stated “that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child.” This would be the opposite of what Gosnell is alleged to have done.
In 2002, Congress passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Action in 2002 by a wide bipartisan margin, before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.
The 2003 version of the Illinois proposal was assigned to the Senate Health and Human Services committee that Obama chaired. The 2003 bill mirrored the federal law in that it had specific language stating that nothing in that law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision on abortion. Despite the language in the amendment, the bill failed in committee on a 4-to-6 vote. Obama, in the majority, voted no.
Jill Stanek, the Chicago nurse who helped raise concerns in Illinois about babies born alive after botched abortion, was not surprised the Obama administration sought to avoid commenting on the Gosnell murder trial.
“Kermit Gosnell would have been one of the abortionists in which Obama had ‘confidence,’” Stanek wrote on her website Monday. “Gosnell was committing abortions in Pennsylvania at the very time this bill was being debated in Illinois. Who knows, perhaps Gosnell was ‘snipping’ the spinal cord of an abortion survivor at the moment Obama testified to his sterling character. After all, the grand jury report stated Gosnell likely killed ‘hundreds’ of abortion survivors during the three decades he was in business.”
Gosnell’s murder trial began in March and is expected to last at least until the end of April. The grand jury report released in January 2011 provided gruesome detail of “live, breathing, squirming babies” being born and then terminated. While he is being prosecuted for the deaths of seven babies, the grand jury report estimates hundreds were killed.
“By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care,” the grand jury report said. “But that was not what the Women’s Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn’t call it that. He called it ‘ensuring fetal demise.’ The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ‘snipping.’”
“Over the years, there were hundreds of ‘snippings,’” the report continued. “Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the ‘snipping’ was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff. But all the employees of the Women’s Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn’t murder at all. Most of these acts cannot be prosecuted, because Gosnell destroyed the files.”
On Monday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the trial and Obama’s position in the Illinois legislature. “The president is aware of this. The president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial,” Carney responded.
“Of course the White House wants to avoid this topic,” Stanek wrote. “What a disaster Gosnell is for Obama. Gosnell first brings to Obama’s door the uncomfortable topic of infanticide.”
In the same speech in April 2002, Obama said: “The only plausible rationale, to my mind, of this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, that labor is being induced, that the physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment, and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error or she made an error, and in fact that this was not a nonviable fetus but in fact a live child that the physician of his own accord or her own accord would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.”