Okay I have to type this in since the file is protected.
My apologies for headings and such not looking identical, the html formatting codes of center and such don't seem to work.
The original trascript is located here http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
"Pg 84-88, 03/30/2001 in the Illinois, 92nd General Assembly" wrote ...
ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER:
Senate Bill 1093.
(Secretary reads title of bill)
3rd Reading of the bill.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentleman of the
Senate. Senate bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion
procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending
physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born
child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a
physician other than the physician performing or inducing the
abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide
medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if
There is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing
an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for
the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the
physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately
assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the
[P.84]
child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a
result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully
recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection
under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good
medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical
records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the
child. I'd be pleased to answer any question there may be.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Any discussion? Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for
questions?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
He indicates he will.
SENATOR OBAMA:
This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary
Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just
make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is
about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during
the committee indicated that on of the key concerns was -- is
that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where
the -- the fetus of child, as -- as some might describe it, is
still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns
that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not
being properly cared for during that brief period of time that
they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate
sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill?
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator O'Malley.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the
way children are treated following their birth under these
[P.85]
circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my
opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that
appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of
the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it
deserves under the Constitution of the United States.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Senator Obama.
SENATOR OBAMA:
Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of
members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an
abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that
your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the
testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to
craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect
to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this
fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and
so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much
difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not
going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we
define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the
equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution,
what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that
are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to
a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to
term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by
a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it
would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection
clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a
child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that
purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The
Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is
that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide
[P.86]
treatment to a previable childe, or fetus, however you want to
describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the
Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or
cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor
that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as
possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is
necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably
crossing the line in terms of constitutionality. Now, as I said
before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the
last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of
here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it
was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh
Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I
-- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important
to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we
might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt
with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child
was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're
going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I
think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we
often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting
Present.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close.
SENATOR O'MALLEY:
Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this
is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's
challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was
described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution
does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and
be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be
[P.87]
born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we
need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and,
frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of
Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those
rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure
and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in
America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate
your support.
PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL)
The question is, shall Senate Bill 1093 pass...."
And they went forward with the normal voting procedure. I apologize for typos.
Please consider this opposing view to what Senator Obama eluded to above [Updated: The following link no longer works and can't find alternate, was a CNSnews interview with Martin Luther King's niece, Dr. Alveda King, regarding abortion, and her disgust with the democrat party hypocrisy to claim they championed civil rights, yet could be so against The Civil Rights Of The Unborn, could be so against the fact of conception being the beginning of independent individual life and thereby the beginning of their Civil Rights. I applaud her efforts, as I see no other time than Death where we are closer to God than the point of conception, when God's plan begins for the Soul sent to Earth.]
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/cnsnewstv/video.aspx?v=e4kUnzuzaG
Thanks for reading.