![\"Screen](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Screen-Shot-2016-05-09-at-3.44.55-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLiberal columnist Nat Hentoff has made it clear in a new column<\/a> that he has no intention of supporting President Barack Obama\u2019s re-election because of the massive pro-abortion record<\/a> Obama has compiled.<\/p>\n Those reasons also include the fact that Obama failed to support legislation, while he served in the Illinois state legislature, that would protect babies who survive failed abortions.<\/p>\n I have other reasons for not possibly voting for him. One is that no previous president has been so radically pro-abortion as Obama, who, when he was in the Illinois Senate, voted three times against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act<\/a>. The bill would have ensured that if a live baby fully emerged before an abortion was successfully completed, he or she was to be saved.<\/p>\n However, according to the Chicago Tribune, \u201cIn 2005, when additional language was added to a \u2018born alive\u2019 bill in Illinois that explicitly spelled out that it would not impact abortion rights in any way, the law passed easily\u201d (\u201cExecutive summary: What you need to know about the \u2018born alive\u2019 issue,\u201d Eric Zorn, blogs.chicagotribune.com, Aug. 22, 2008).<\/p>\n Years ago, as I reported in an article for the Human Life Review on the highly disproportionate number of abortions on blacks (\u201cPresident Obama and \u2018Black Genocide,’\u201d Winter\/Spring 2009), I had interviewed a registered nurse who had worked in the Labor and Delivery Department of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., and had participated unwillingly in one of these botched abortions.<\/p>\n I honor Jill Stanek for what she revealed.<\/p>\n Some of what she told me of the dispositions of these abandoned babies appeared in a September 2000 House Judiciary Committee report. One of the babies persisting in being alive was \u201cleft to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. The baby was accidentally thrown in the garbage, and when they were later going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.\u201d<\/p>\n Another nurse \u201chappened to walk into a Soiled Utility Room and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs.\u201d<\/p>\n Nonetheless, then-state Sen. Obama, who dissented against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, had opposed what he called the view that \u201cyou have to keep alive even a previable child.\u201d<\/p>\n But the fetus on the metal counter had become one of us, its fate like that of another baby I\u2019ve written about previously, who \u201cwas disposed of as a horrified nurse who was not necessarily pro-life followed the doctors\u2019 orders to put the baby in a pail or otherwise get rid of the child\u201d (my column, \u201cInfanticide Candidate for President,\u201d April 24, 2008.)<\/p>\n Yet state Sen. Obama insisted that the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act interfered with a woman\u2019s reproductive rights. But wanted or not, the child had been born, and preventing him or her from continuing to live was infanticide!<\/p>\n I should point out that although I am obviously a pro-lifer (not for religious reasons, but because I\u2019m an atheist who can read biology), I have voted for pro-choicers with whom I have otherwise agreed on the First and Fourth Amendments and other constitutional rights, among them the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. He was pro-abortion, except for partial-birth abortion, which he described as \u201conly minutes away from infanticide.\u201d<\/p>\n Obama, however, has firmly opposed any action taken against partial-birth abortion<\/a>, including action taken by the Supreme Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a>To let this legislation die would be an act of infanticide, but it did not pass while Obama was in the Illinois Senate.<\/p>\n