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.
But this is the problem, because this wanders into the pro-life/pro-choice debate and we shouldn't, because we have even less chance of reaching a common ground. That was never my point and I would suggest it is not the point of the misrepresentation, either (otherwise the accusation would be of being pro-choice, not "infanticide" which has a different weight)
If you're pro-life, as factcheck states with the example of Alan Keyes, it will always be infanticide. If you're pro-choice, this is a situation where it is important to consider what is at stake with the right to choose, etc, etc. I do not have the legal background to be able to dive into that argument, nor do I think that it's a discussion I should have with people not in the pro-choice camp.
Note that factcheck also tries to stay clear from the pro-life/pro-choice debate. It says on top:
Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation.
So what happened at the hospital is not the issue (again, that's the realm of the pro-choice/pro-life debates), the issue for factcheck's clarification is what the bill is being used for in
politics--it's used as evidence of Obama's extremism towards the wide public (echoed by the TimesOnline article, for ex.).
However,
within the realm of "pro-choice," there's considerable evidence against this--suggested by the fact that the bills were opposed by pro-choice orgs like Planned Parenthood, not just Obama acting alone (as the extremist wing of the pro-choice stance). The insinuations surprise me, considering the earlier critique that Obama was not pro-choice enough because he claimed to be ok with to the state restricting late term abortions (making exceptions for the woman's health). I looked at his record and am at pains to see how he's any more extremist than your average pro-choice--his record mirrors Hillary as far as my untrained eye could see.
In my view, it is a case of distortions and oversimplifications, considering that the accusation means to scare off the center, which might assume that the bills
directly promote infanticide. These are in fact:
definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place.
Now, if you're staunchly pro-life they do
lead to infanticide by your worldview. For many pro-choice, however, there are shades of gray. If one is pro-life, it might make no difference ("pro-choice all support infanticide"), but if you're pro-choice, especially, I think it's a good idea to get the full story and not just the keyword, before taking it as gospel, like the news has.
Considering the near half divide of pro-choice/life in female voters (50%-43% pro-choice from Gallup (published Sept. 3), making the details known is important. Many polled don't consider it a dealbreaker, but labeling it "infanticide" might push it there. So even if the people are genuine the claim is misleading (again parting from the premise that it's directed at independent women who lean pro-choice (statistically).
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.
I don't think factcheck made any claims like the one you express here. The line is:
perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live.
I think that's an accurate statement. Then they speak of the existing laws and, note, they also point out the space for the critique you seem to be voicing for those laws:
NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
Which would explain what happened with Illinois law from your perspective (again keeping it within the legal frame), if I'm reading you right.
So overall, I think you misunderstood factcheck, because you went at it from the pro-life perspective. Like I said factcheck is not interested in debating "viability" or "life" (they know that if you see these as clear-cut you're already in another issue), they're interested in looking at how these claims misrepresent Obama and the
legal situation, which is significantly more complicated than killing infants (as the push and pull over definitions show). So I don't think factcheck shows bias here. They simply carve out a space where the interpretation is not so solidly in "infanticide" or "not infanticide." Those are not the terms of their argument.
Those are not the terms of my argument either--those belong in the pro-choice/pro-life debates like I said. My objection is to the claims of "extremism" put forth through incendiary language and its implications.
Yes, it's to be expected that the campaigns do this,
both obviously, but I deplore it all the same, especially for how it spreads.
alcyone
