What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion.
I just wanted to clarify, because I have seen on other websites people claiming that the bills Obama voted against were unnecessary because there were "already laws in Illinois that protect these children". That is, I have seen people claim that what happened at Christ Hospital (leaving aborted babies to die, unattended, in the hospital's dirty linens room) was clearly illegal under existing laws, and no additional laws were necessary.
The laws already in effect in Illinois covered "viable fetuses", or what FactCheck, above, calls "infant[s] that would otherwise live." The babies left to die at Christ Hospital were deemed "pre-viable", and thus were not protected by current Illinois law.
It is my understanding that the determination as to whether these babies were "viable" was not done on an infant-by-infant basis. That is, prior to being aborted, the babies (based, I assume, on the number of weeks of pregnancy) had already been deemed "pre-viable". According to nurse Stanek's testimony, these babies were issued birth certificates upon their birth, and, when they died they were issued death certificates.
Unless FactChecks has data to back up their claim, I think the assertation that "perhaps most" people would not call what happened at Christ Hospital infanticide is more opinion (dare I say bias?) than fact. It is certainly true that "many" don't. I will say those who *do* consider it infanticide are sincere in their beliefs... that is, they are not merely playing games with words in order to smear Obama.
