Newt and the Associated Press Distort Obama’s Born-Alive Abortion Record

Agresti, J. D. (2012, February 24). Newt and the Associated Press Distort Obama’s Born-Alive Abortion Record. Retrieved from
Agresti, James D. “Newt and the Associated Press Distort Obama’s Born-Alive Abortion Record.” Just Facts. 24 February 2012. Web. 19 June 2024.<>.
Chicago (for footnotes)
James D. Agresti, “Newt and the Associated Press Distort Obama’s Born-Alive Abortion Record.” Just Facts. February 24, 2012.
Chicago (for bibliographies)
Agresti, James D. “Newt and the Associated Press Distort Obama’s Born-Alive Abortion Record.” Just Facts. February 24, 2012.

By James D. Agresti
February 24, 2012

CORRECTION: Just Facts has rewritten and retitled this article based upon a more thorough examination of the laws entailed. This revealed that Newt’s characterization of Obama’s votes is better described as “debatable” rather than “inaccurate.” Just Facts also found two more distortions in the AP’s coverage of this issue. The original article is shown below. The corrected article is here.

In a fact check of Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate on CNN, Associated Press reporters Calvin Woodward and Tom Raum take Newt Gingrich to task for stating:

If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama, who as a state senator voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.

Citing the above statement in a list of what they call “head-scratching claims,” Woodward and Raum challenge it as follows:

THE FACTS: As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted against legislation promoted by anti-abortion activists that would have conferred protection to fetuses showing any signs of life after an abortion, even if doctors did not believe the fetus was viable. Obama pointed to an existing Illinois law requiring doctors to protect fetuses they believed were likely to survive after an abortion, and said he was concerned the proposed new law was so broad it could interfere with routine abortions. Obama said he would have supported federal legislation President George W. Bush signed in 2002 that would protect a viable fetus but reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion.

These assertions miss the truth in three key respects, which are covered in Just Facts’ research on abortion in the sections dealing with live births and terminology.

First, although Obama has said that he would have voted for the bill that Bush signed in 2002, Obama’s claim is at odds with the fact that he later voted to kill legislation with the same operative language. This vote took place on March 12, 2003 in an Illinois Senate committee that Obama was chairing. The bill was practically a word-for-word replica of the federal bill that Bush had signed, except that it applied on a state level.

Second, Woodward and Raum parrot Obama’s stance that existing Illinois law already offered protection for infants who were born alive after an abortion. However, the law did not require care for such infants if there wasn’t a “reasonable likelihood of sustained survival” in the judgment of the abortion provider. Consequently, aborted infants in Illinois sometimes lived for hours after birth while being abandoned to die without any care or comfort provided to them.

Finally, Woodward and Raum label live-born humans as “fetuses,” when in fact, the term “fetus” refers to “humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.” All of the legislation in question was applicable to humans who are “born alive” after “complete expulsion or extraction” from their mothers. Hence, these are not fetuses but newborns. Notice in the following statement about this issue how the Royal College of Obstetricians uses the word “fetus” before birth and the word “baby” afterwards:

If the fetus has had a lethal injection, it will normally die. However, there are some instances when there are signs of life at birth. All babies must be treated with dignity and respect. Palliative care should be provided till the baby dies where relevant.

Although journalism guidelines disparage the use of medical jargon in articles for the general public, journalists selectively employ and misuse such verbiage in their coverage of the abortion issue. It is not just the Associated Press that has misapplied the word “fetus” but also the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN.

Regardless of the AP’s errors, Newt’s statement is inaccurate. Obama did not vote to “protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion.” The preexisting law did not allow doctors to kill babies after they were born, but neither did it prohibit doctors from leaving nonviable newborns to suffer and die without care.

In sum, Obama voted against three bills stating that anyone “born alive at any stage of development” is considered a “person” under Illinois state law including those born as a result of “abortion.” He did this in the face of sworn testimony from Illinois nurses who witnessed aborted newborns living and being neglected for up to eight hours after birth. These are the straightforward and unadorned facts of the matter.

  • March 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM

    Just the fact that as a “civilized” people, have allowed the killing of babies into our society is uncomprehensible. We use technical terms such as “fetus” and viable tissue mass” to sweep under the rug the fact that a baby dies because of a voluntary action by someone who should be protecting it. It is a growing human no matter what anyone says. It is hard to imagine how we allow such a barbaric practice to continue. If we were to read a history book about cultures such as the Mayans who practiced infant sacrifice by throwing babies in burning fires we would cringe in horror at the barbaric action. Yet today, a doctor, with the blessing of a so-called “mother”, can abandon a baby on a table until it dies an agonizing death by starving or dying of thirst. What an amazing people we are.

  • May 28, 2012 at 1:51 PM

    I’ve written a detailed analysis of the controversy here if you are interested, providing over 50 major sources:

    Included are Illinois Senate transcript quotes, showing Obama’s remarks on the Illinois Senate floor in full, and revealing that he recognized at the time newborn children were being left to die but opposed the bills for various reasons, including that (a) the child wasn’t born to a full 9-month term and therefore is a pre-viable fetus, (b) The Illinois Medical Society opposed the bill, and (c) if children were being left to die an abortion physician would care for the child and requiring a 2nd physician verify the child is alive just burdens abortion doctors.

    Obama at the time headed an Illinois Planned Parenthood strategy to vote ‘Present’ on the controversial bills to provide political cover for other Illinois Senators since in the words of Pam Sutherland, head of the IL Planned Parenthood Council, “He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so” because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means.”


Make a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Topic