So recently I've done some research on the controversial Born Alive Act of Illinois (BAI) that was presented in the Illinois legislature and on the federal level. I was curious, because, as an Obama supporter, I wanted to know what was up with his "Present" vote on the issue. Quick Disclaimers: I support the general Three Exceptions approach to abortions (rape incest, physical health). However, abortion is not one of those hot-seat issues with me, because I do know that should Roe fall, it would just go to the state level anyway, effectively ending Republican grandstanding on the issue.

Anyway, to hear each side: the National Right to Life foundation contends that Obama opposed the bill (by voting present) on extreme grounds. NARAL and other women's groups saw a threat to Roe and dinged Obama for not outrightly opposing the bill. So why did he oppose it? Obama's reason was that it did not provide protection of Roe. After thinking "those are two separate issues," I then forgot about Big Litigation and how they love finding loopholes. You see, apparently the bill left open the opportunity for someone to sue a mother who decides to have an abortion because said abortion could prevent the fetus' access to BAI. [The obvious follow up is that I thought the law says if and only if the fetus survives the abortion it should get medical care, but the abortion has to happen first. Anybody have a different view on that?]

So anyway, the bill then included the same language as the federal bill, including the provision to protect current law. Obama voted it down, and the campaign provided the following reason:

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law. - Source .

In my opinion, this is another case of the government playing to the line and wasting our time with "Check Here" simplicity laws. The bill would've added nothing to the current Illinois law protecting said abortion survivors. But hey, it's fodder for partisan debate I guess.

If any of you have more clarity on this, I'd love to hear it.