I’m a little confused…in the first paragraph David Freddoso writes that Barack Obama was the only State Senator to vote present, but in the last paragraph he writes that Obama voted “present” with 11 other Senators. Or was it that he was the only Senator offered testimony in opposition to the bill, and his 11 like-minded colleagues stayed silent?

There were 11 Senators that voted “present”, which as Freddoso accurately states, was effectively a “no” vote. Freddoso, however, wants us to believe that Obama was extraordinarily “extreme” in opposing the bill, for that reason he neglects to mention that several Senators also voted a flat “No”, thereby positioning themselves quite clearly more “pro-abortion” than Obama. For the same (disingenuous) reason, Freddoso emphasizes that only Obama spoke against the bill, but the reason only Obama spoke against the bill was that previous, similar bills had already been discussed at length and, as I recall, Obama had a position of leadership on the state Health and Human Services Committee - and was, therefore, expected to comment.

Doctors, nurses, and even patients, now have a HUGE incentive to behave differently if the unborn child is born. Any attempt otherwise could result in doctors and nurses to lose their license - a terrifying thought to nurses and doctors, and something they would not risk over a cost they do not directly bare.

I’m a little confused…in the first paragraph David Freddoso writes that Barack Obama was the only State Senator to vote present, but in the last paragraph he writes that Obama voted “present” with 11 other Senators. Or was it that he was the only Senator offered testimony in opposition to the bill, and his 11 like-minded colleagues stayed silent?

This bill is ridiculously impossible to enforce and is as effective as a flag-burning ban. Assuming that the bill would have provided penalties for a doctor who allowed a born alive aborted fetus to die, who would tell the authorities? The doctor who wants the baby to die or the patient who wants the baby to die? No one in the operating room would snitch to the cops if the fetus was still alive as it was being ripped out of the womb.

And what if the doctor insists on not allowing the aborted fetus to die but the patient insists on doing so? Also, the medical insurance is paying for an abortion, not a delivery, which is probably more expensive. If the patient cared so much about the fetus dying, she wouldn’t be in the abortion clinic in the first place.

There are so many reasons for doctor and patient to allow the fetus to die, with the law being the only reason to keep it alive.

Obama should’ve used some judgment in this case and just voted yes on the bill, knowing it has absolutely no teeth anyway.

So, if McCain chose not to sign such a bill on the grounds that lawyers might interpret the word “intentionally” in such a way as to gut the war effort, I would respectfully disagree with his assessment (as I disagree with Obama’s), but I would certainly not make the claim that McCain is a bloodthirsty killer who has complete disregard for Iraqi lives (much as I don’t believe that Obama disregards the lives of the babies in question).

Remember, the born alive infant protection act has no side effects…aside from slippery slope arguments. What Obama was (presumably) afraid of is what the slippery slope argument would be from this bill.

That is not the case with the analogy you give. The legal requirement would be so stringent that its direct effect would be to gut the war effort completely…as you cant guarantee that no innocent lives will be lost.

A better analogy would be: A bill comes through Congress stating that army personnel are legally required to not intentionally kill innocent lives in Iraq, and John McCain refuses to sign it.

Drop a bomb intended to kill Osama Bin Laden and a large number of his supporters and the bomb accidentally kills some innocent people and you can get legally prosecuted by your bill…but not by mine.

The best analogy is: A bill comes through Congress stating that army personnel are legally required to not kill innocent lives in Iraq, and John McCain refuses to sign it. As he should. While the direct purpose of the bill is indisputably to save innocent lives, the practical implications would be to gut the war effort completely. There’s no doubt in my mind that McCain would not support such a bill.

The direct purpose of this bill is to save the lives of newborn premature infants…he chose not to sign the bill, regardless of what he was afraid might result because of the bill.

It’s like a bill coming through congress stating that army personal should do everything in their power to not kill innocent lives in Iraq…and say, John McCain refusing to sign it because of the impact on the Iraq War. Now that’s a proper analogy.