I do find it interesting that Obama voted against the bill even when all his colleagues were voting for it. Even after the language he insisted on was added, he voted "no." Seems kind of extremist to me.
My caveat, as usual, if you're
pro-life, certainly. It's always extremist then by definition.
But if one is "pro-choice" (here are the terms of my argument), one of the important things to consider when evaluating Obama's "extremism" is the reality that a vote in these matters means to protect "choice." That's what pro-choice means in terms of
legality and work in legislature as I understand it.
So I dug a little further and the
history says that there were actually valid concerns on the issue of choice. It's super long, but well documented with quotes from the bills and background on the writers and participants.
The
summary gives some necessary background for informed judgement:
When pro abortion-rights [federal] lawmakers were satisfied that the "born alive" bills would not compromise abortion rights guaranteed under Roe, they voted overwhelmingly to approve the idea.
Illinois' liberal lawmakers needed more reassurance than federal lawmakers before agreeing to pass a "born alive" law. In part this was because abortion practice is regulated mainly by state laws, not federal laws, so seemingly benign changes in wording stand to have far-reaching consequences. And in part because the proposals were usually introduced with companion legislation that revealed a stronger intent behind the law by exposing doctors who perform mid-term abortions to additional legal risk.
So "born alive" bills failed repeatedly in Illinois from 2001 to 2004 in both chambers, with and without the involvement of then State Sen. Barack Obama.
I get from this that there are more attacks on "choice" at the state level. Also, in speaking of language added at the federal level:
Why wasn't the Federal "neutrality language" good enough?
Because the Federal bill was widely seen as window dressing; a proclamation more than a law with almost no potential impact on abortion law in the states. At the state level, particularly with the companion bills for punishing doctors, the proposal looked significantly more fraught.
Apparently SB 1082's companion bill was
SB 1083 which did have extra alarming language
not in the Federal BAIPA (mind you the
federal vote is that of people like Sen. Boxer and Sen. Clinton used as the yardstick to brand Obama an abortion extremist).
Anyway, yes, SB 1082 was ammended, but it's companion SB 1083
was not, even though Obama offered Sen. Winkel (writer of SB 1082) the opportunity to do so as it was his right. But he didn't. In fact, Sen. Winkel tried to pass it (without any change) in 2004 as is
and failed again along with five other "born alive" bills. (Obama was campaigning for US Senate and
didn't take part in these decisions)
That's a whole lot of extremists.
Note the Illinois Planned Parenthood made the distinction between SB 1082 and SB 1083 in it's documents (which are incidentally linked to on factcheck--I can forgive them for not blaring this, the matter is just complicated
).
The article concludes:
The history makes it clear that Obama's role in delaying "born-alive" legislation was minor and based on very understandable reservations of many pro abortion rights legislators in Springfield. There is simply no way to paint him as an "extremist" when multiple versions of this same legislation failed in both chambers, often over bi-partisan concerns
Again, if you know this and read his record and still think he's extremist, then *shrug* that's what you believe. Logically, that might make Illinois' Planned Parenthood extremists and the rest of the General Assembly that voted against these bills. Nevermind that Illinois' Planned Parenthood actually approved of "compromise bill" with HB 984, I believe, which passed in 2005 (after fully clearing it, which Stanek reportedly did not want to do because she felt it "redundant").
From a pro-choice standpoint, after viewing a lot of the context, I don't find the evidence of "extremism" all that persuasive.
But "oversimplification?" Yes. Although I guess I'm a bit more sympathetic.
alcyone
