Abortion Survivors?

I came across 2 videos that were posted on a friend's facebook which revealed something that I didn't know was possible - that there people, albeit probably very small number of people, who have survived abortions. Apparently this can happen in at least 2 types of abortions,

This is Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, Christian, and pro-life advocate:

These videos then sparked a search on the issue of abortion is the US, which led me to the website of www.bornalivetruth.org, the opposition to Obama's presidency on his views on the abortion issue and his voting history on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act ("BAIPA") which was signed into law by President George Bush in 2002.

The Born Alive Infant Protection Bill was proposed as a direct response to the experience of Jill Spanek, a nurse who discovered that the hospital that she was working inwas leaving babies who survived induced labor abortions to die in the soiled utility room. Everyone would/should be appalled by such practices taking place (pro-life or otherwise).

I have previously heard during the US Presidential race of Obama being described as "pro-choice". I didn't bother with it at the time as I'm not American and not much interested in American politics. However, today, I decided to have a look at the bills in question and Obama's speeches in the Senate too have a better picture of his position. This is my understanding of Obama’s speeches in the Senate in 2001 and 2002, is this:

Senate Bill 1093, 1094 & 1095.

1. Obama 1^st attempts to set the context of the bill:

“This bill was fairly extensively debated in the judiciary Committee, and so I won’t belabour the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it… the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was.. that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the.. fetus or child,… is temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?...”

2. Once he clarified this position, he goes on to state that if this was the objective, these concerns would also be shared by pro-choice advocates. He also states that some amendments would have to be made to the language of the bill as the bill, as it stood, went beyond this objective and would run the risk of being unconstitutional. It would be unconstitutional because (1) it would classify the previable fetus as a person, according it the rights and protection of children brought to full term or older (thereby being a law against abortion); and (2) because it would requires a doctor to provide treatment to a previable child or fetus (the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade draws the line at viability).

“Well, it turned out – that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favour of a woman’s right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that… you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny…

I recognize that this is a passionate issue, and so I – I won’t, as I said, belabour the point. I think its important to recognize that that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and – and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a – previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We’re going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I’ll be voting Present.”

Senate Bill 1661, 1662 & 1663.

3. Obama seeks clarification on the duties and liabilities on doctors imposed by the bill.

“I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities that doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements that you’ve set forth?”

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined… that… this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child… is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that its nonviable but there’s… movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limo and dead, that… they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?”

“Essentially, I think, as.. this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor… who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health,… labour is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labour 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 that 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. Now, if… you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I… suspect and my impression is,… that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding… an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labour and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case… that’s fine, but I think its important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. 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…”

While I'm a Christian and, I suppose by default, pro-life, I don't have a problem with this position for these reasons:

It is clear that the language of the bills in question goes much further than the stated objective of ensuring that the situation at that hospital never happened again. Obama suggested that amendments could be made that would make the legislation constitutional and acceptable to all, including pro-choice advocates. However, this was not adopted. Perhaps it was because it was an attempt to enact an anti-abortion legislation through the back door, as Obama suggested. Since that was the reason he voted "Present" (which in effect is a "No" vote) I can respect that.

As for duties on doctors, I cannot see the rationale for requiring a 2nd opinion on the viability of the baby born alive during a botched abortion. If there is already a duty on them to provide life saving treatment to children, even those born alive from a botched abortion, and if that is why Obama voted "No" to this amendment, then I am incline to agree with his reasoning and decision.

Finally, I guess Obama, like all politicians in a pluralistic society and/or representative democracy, is placed in an unenviable position. I'm a firm believer that while its inevitable that legislators legislate morality (as much as some might deny this), a politician, whether Christian or not, in a representative democracy should resist the temptation to legislate according to his particular religious views and thereby impose it on others who may not share his religious beliefs. He represents all citizens and should therefore legislate the minimum standard of morality acceptable to all (not even merely those of the majority or the side that voted him in office). This, I guess, is where I differ from many other Christians who believe in political activism.

I am glad to read that Obama seems too share this view. In an article on USA Today, he says:

[The separation of church and State] is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.