Liberal columnist Nat Hentoff has made it clear in a new column that he has no intention of supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election because of the massive pro-abortion record Obama has compiled.
Those reasons also include the fact that Obama failed to support legislation, while he served in the Illinois state legislature, that would protect babies who survive failed abortions.
I have other reasons for not possibly voting for him. One is that no previous president has been so radically pro-abortion as Obama, who, when he was in the Illinois Senate, voted three times against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill would have ensured that if a live baby fully emerged before an abortion was successfully completed, he or she was to be saved.
However, according to the Chicago Tribune, “In 2005, when additional language was added to a ‘born alive’ bill in Illinois that explicitly spelled out that it would not impact abortion rights in any way, the law passed easily” (“Executive summary: What you need to know about the ‘born alive’ issue,” Eric Zorn, blogs.chicagotribune.com, Aug. 22, 2008).
Years ago, as I reported in an article for the Human Life Review on the highly disproportionate number of abortions on blacks (“President Obama and ‘Black Genocide,'” Winter/Spring 2009), I had interviewed a registered nurse who had worked in the Labor and Delivery Department of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., and had participated unwillingly in one of these botched abortions.
I honor Jill Stanek for what she revealed.
Some of what she told me of the dispositions of these abandoned babies appeared in a September 2000 House Judiciary Committee report. One of the babies persisting in being alive was “left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. The baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they were later going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.”
Another nurse “happened to walk into a Soiled Utility Room and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.”
Nonetheless, then-state Sen. Obama, who dissented against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, had opposed what he called the view that “you have to keep alive even a previable child.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
But the fetus on the metal counter had become one of us, its fate like that of another baby I’ve written about previously, who “was disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors’ orders to put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child” (my column, “Infanticide Candidate for President,” April 24, 2008.)
Yet state Sen. Obama insisted that the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act interfered with a woman’s reproductive rights. But wanted or not, the child had been born, and preventing him or her from continuing to live was infanticide!
I should point out that although I am obviously a pro-lifer (not for religious reasons, but because I’m an atheist who can read biology), I have voted for pro-choicers with whom I have otherwise agreed on the First and Fourth Amendments and other constitutional rights, among them the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. He was pro-abortion, except for partial-birth abortion, which he described as “only minutes away from infanticide.”
Obama, however, has firmly opposed any action taken against partial-birth abortion, including action taken by the Supreme Court.
Hentoff wrote a similar column in April 2008 indicating why, after seriously considering supporting Obama, he changed he mind.