In her nearly 10 year career at U of C, Michelle Obama instituted community service programs, helped to restore community relations with the University, and established a network of health care clinics to provide patients with primary care.

Sun-Times, Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages Say Attacks On Michelle Obama Are Without Merit

Chicago Sun Times Editorial Defended University Of Chicago Policy, Describing It As “Good Public Policy.” On August 27, 2008, the Chicago Sun Times defended the University of Chicago Medical Center’s policy, describing it as “good public policy.” The Sun-Times editorial stated “Mrs. Obama and the South Side teaching hospital are being accused -- sincerely by some, for cynical political gain by others -- of essentially turning their back on the urban poor. On the contrary, we believe the university hospital's efforts to essential outsource non-urgent medical problems to neighborhood clinics is good health care policy, with the potential to become a model for the nation. If done right, it could help contain the escalating costs of medicine that burden all Americans while providing quality primary medical care for the poor and uninsured.” [Chicago Sun Times, 8/27/08]

American Enterprise Institute Medical Fellow Wrote a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Saying “Michelle Obama Is Right About Avoiding The ER.” An op-ed from Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute argued, “When Michelle Obama was an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center, she worked to expand a program that encouraged uninsured patients on Chicago's South Side to visit local health clinics in lieu of her hospital's emergency room. That "Urban Health Initiative" saved her hospital money, and it also surely improved the health of the people it served.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/2/08]

The Real Story From Those Who Worked With the University Of Chicago Medical Center

Statement from Senator Dick Durbin: "The fact that Sen. Grassley is questioning the work of the University of Chicago Medical Center -- especially those programs aimed at reducing emergency department overcrowding and promoting preventive health -- is troubling and shows that he simply doesn't understand the problems facing our hospitals today. Far too many of the 1.1 million people who live on Chicago's South Side depend on the emergency room for their primary medical care, rather than getting the health care they truly need. Residents of the South Side have rates of diabetes, asthma, hypertension and other debilitating chronic conditions that are as much as five times higher than the rest of Illinois. UCMC is providing more than $64 million a year in charity and unreimbursed care and has received high marks from everyone from community groups to the Illinois Attorney General for their efforts. I am prou d to have helped secure federal funds in support of that work."

Statement from Attorney General Lisa Madigan: "Compared to other hospitals in Illinois, University of Chicago Medical Center clearly provides care to a great number of low income patients. And you can see that in the large number of Medicaid patients the hospital serves." [Statement From Attorney General Lisa Madigan, 8/22/08]

ACCESS Community Health Network Statement on UCMC: “The University of Chicago Medical Center and Access Community Health Network share a common objective: primary care services for south side residents. The Medical Center has involved Access Community Health Network in efforts to expand access to primary health care. We are pleased with our strategic partnership with Medical Center.” [Statement From ACCESS Community Health Network Media Coordinator Elaine Hegwood, 8/22/08]

Health Care Consultant: UCMC’s Institutional Interests “End Up Being The Right Thing For The Community.” Pat Terrell, a consultant at Health Management Associates, said, “This is driven by their own institutional interests, but those interests end up being the right thing for the community.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

Holy Cross Hospital CEO: It’s Best For The Local Hospital And “It’s Best For The Patient” For Each Hospital To Treat Those Patients That It Is Best Suited To Handling. Crain’s reported, “‘There’s no question that it’s better for both of us if we handle more of these routine cases,’ says Holy Cross Hospital CEO Wayne Lerner, who is in talks to accept some U of C pediatric cases and expectant mothers. ‘And it’s best for the patient.’” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

In One Year, UCMC Went From Turning Away Half Of Critical Care Patients To Taking Ninety Percent. Crain’s reported, “A year ago, [U of C] was turning down half the requests from other hospitals to transfer critically ill patients for complex treatment because it didn’t have space. Today, with partners taking care of routine cases, U of C can take 90% of the more-complicated transfers.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

Rhetoric and Reality

RHETORIC: Dan Shomon is a University Lobbyist.

REALITY: Shomon Was Registered To Lobby For The University At The State Level; The University Of Chicago And The University Of Chicago Medical Center Use Separate Governmental Relations Teams

2005 – Current: Dan Shomon Was A Registered Lobbyist In Illinois For The University Of Chicago. According to Illinois lobbying disclosures, Dan Shomon was a registered lobbyist in Illinois for the University of Chicago from November 2, 2005 to current. State lobbyist cannot lobby the Senate without registering as a federal lobbyist. [Illinois Lobbying Disclosures]

RHETORIC:Michelle Obama Recommended That The Hospital Hire David Axelrod's Firm

REALITY: Neither Michelle Obama nor Valerie Jarrett Reached Out To Ask Or Encourage Axelrod’s Firm To Apply For A Contract. As A Prominent Chicago Consultant With Decades Of Experience In Town, David Axelrod And His Firm Have Relationships At Institutions Around The Chicago Area That Are Completely Independent Of The Obamas. Susan Sher, Chief Counsel And Government Relations Director For UCMC, Knew David Axelrod From Her Work As Corporation Counsel For Mayor Daley While David Served As His Consultant, And She Encouraged Ask To Apply For A Contract. The Hiring Decision Was Made By UCMC CEO Jim Madara.

RHETORIC: The Hospital Spent Less Than The Average For Nonprofit Hospitals In Cook County

REALITY: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER PROVIDES MORE UNCOMPENSATED CARE THAN PEER INSTITUTIONS.

The University Of Chicago Medical Center Provides More Uncompensated Care Than Peer Academic Medical Centers (AMA). In 2004, the average academic medical center provided a mix of 50 percent private insurance and 50 percent government insurance, which included Medicare and Medicaid. At the University of Chicago Medical Center, the patient mix is 35 percent private and 65 percent government pay, of which 37 percent is from Medicaid, compared to the AMC average of roughly 20 percent. According to John Easton, the Director of Communications at the University of Chicago Medical Center: “The University of Chicago Medical Center is one of the largest providers of unreimbursed care in Illinois. The Medical Center provides more days of inpatient care for those covered by Medicaid than any other private hospital in Illinois. In fiscal 2006, for example, UCMC provided more than 70,000 days of inpatient care to those covered only by Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals only a fraction of the costs of care.” [The University of Chicago Medical Center Director of Communications John Easton, 7/28/08]

The University Of Chicago Hospitals Was Second In The State In Total Medicaid Patient Days In 2006. In 2006, the University Of Chicago Hospitals was second in the state of Illinois in the number of Medicaid patient days, a total of 71,633. [Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, for the state fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.]

The University Of Chicago Hospitals Admitted 11,818 Medicaid Patients, Third In The State Of Illinois In 2006. In 2006, the University Of Chicago Hospitals admitted 11,818 Medicaid patients, the third largest provider of care in the state of Illinois. [Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, for the state fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.]

Urban Health Initiative

THE URBAN HEALTH INITIATIVE IS PREMISED ON PROVIDING THE BEST HEALTHCARE TO THE SOUTH SIDE BY RECOGNIZING SERVICES AND OPTIMIZING EXPERTISE, INCLUDING PROVIDING UCMC RESOURCES TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Crain’s: UCMC Was The “White Knight For Small Health Centers And Cash-Strapped Hospitals On The South Side.” Crain’s reported, “U of C is assuming the unlikely role of white knight for small health centers and cash-strapped hospitals on the South Side.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

The Urban Health Initiative Is The Product Of A Realignment Of Thinking That Places UCMC Into A Community Context. “The new attitude embedded within the UHI represents the contemporary place of an academic medical center in an urban setting. We now look beyond our own four walls and view ourselves as just one piece of a larger healthcare network. Given finite societal resources, we must steward them so that each provider plays the right role at the right time.” [Urban Health Initiative Memo]

UCMC Was “Forging Alliances” With Other Health Care Providers To Help “Solve A Growing Health Care Crisis On The South Side.” Crain’s reported, “Seeking to free up beds to take more complicated cases like organ transplants or brain surgeries, the medical center’s CEO, James Madara, is forging alliances to treat the rising number of poor patients needing routine care. While the effort is aimed at stemming the tide of these patients coming through its own doors, U of C is also helping to solve a growing health care crisis on the South Side.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

100 UCMC Physicians Have Moved Into Clinics And Local Hospitals; UCMC Has Invested $2 Million In Clinics. Crain’s reported, “Almost 100 U of C physicians have been scattered across neighborhood clinics and a few hospitals on the South Side in the last year. The medical center also has spent more than $2 million in the last six months to expand walk-in clinics like Dr. Walker’s and relocate some of its own doctors and patients to other facilities, including moving its 10-bed psychiatric unit to nearby Mercy Hospital.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

UCMC Gave Access Community Health A $350,000 Grant To Expand A Nearby Clinic Where UCMC Specialists Will Begin To Treat Patients. “A $350,000 grant was provided from UCMC to Access Community Health (our largest clinic partner) to build out and expand its Grand Boulevard location near campus; several UCMC faculty specialists will begin caring for community patients at Grand Boulevard in the first quarter of CY ‘08.” [Urban Health Initiative Memo]

THE URBAN ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER’S MISSION IS COMPROMISED WHEN ITS BEDS ARE FILLED BY PRIMARY CARE PATIENTS ADMITTED THROUGH THE ER

JAMA Paper: Using The Emergency Room For Primary Care Is Inefficient And Displaces Patients In Need Of More Complex Care. Laurence D. Hill and James L. Madara wrote, “Urban academic medical centers frequently become default providers of routine primary care through emergency departments overcrowded with patients who often could be treated more effectively in neighborhood health care settings, absorb specialized patient care resources, and may displace access for patients more in need of complex care.” [JAMA, November 2, 2005—Vol 294, No. 17]

JAMA Paper: When Urban Academic Medical Centers Compete With Federally Qualified Health Centers, The Community Loses. Laurence D. Hill and James L. Madara wrote, “This is a particularly acute problem for organizations such as Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are provided a competitive advantage through governmental financial incentives to provide primary care to inner-city patients. When urban academic medical centers directly compete with Federally Qualified Health Centers, either through lack of appreciation of their existence or through advertising that inadvertently stimulates patients to bypass local health care centers, academic centers can drive these clinical care centers out of business. This in turn detracts from the neighborhood economy and places additional financial stresses on the academic medical center due to its intrinsically high cost structure.” [JAMA, November 2, 2005—Vol 294, No. 17]

South Side Health Collaborative

Initiated The South Side Health Collaborative, A Network Of 19 Community-Based Primary Care And Social Services Providers To Care For The Uninsured On The South Side.. Michelle Obama initiated the South Side Health Collaborative (SSHC), a network of 19 primary care and social services agencies that provide care for patients who have visited the University of Chicago Medical Center with medical ailments better treated at community health centers, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. More than 4,000 patients have been linked with SSHC sites to better address their primary care needs. The SSHC has also successfully moved patients to community primary health sites, which, due to the prominence of the University of Chicago Medical Center, were operating under capacity and losing essential government funding. [The University of Chicago Medical Center Medical Center by Michelle Obama “Letter To The Community]

University Of Chicago Received A Two-Year Healthy Communities Access Program Federal Grant. In 2005, the University of Chicago received a two-year Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP) federal grant, one of 230 received nationwide, totaling $430 million. The Medical Center used the grant to implement the South Side Health Collaborative in February 2005. [University of Chicago Medicine On The Midway Journal, Spring 2007]

South Side Health Collaborative Has Provided A Medical Home To More Than 15,000 Previously “Medically Homeless” Patients. According to the University of Chicago Medical Center, “Since 2005, more than 15,000 patients who came to the UCMC emergency department and self-identify as not having a regular doctor-the ‘medically homeless’-have found medical homes and received the primary and preventive care from SSHC facilities.” [John Easton, Director of Communications, The University of Chicago Medical Center, 7/25/08]

In First Year Found “Medical Homes” For More Than 1,200 Patients. According to the University of Chicago Medical Center 2006 Annual Report, “the South Side Health Collaborative, which, after a year of establishing relationships between the Medical Center and various neighborhood health centers, has found primary care “medical homes” at nearby clinics for more than 1,200 patients, substituting routine preventive measures for emergency care.” Michelle Obama stated of the program “We’ve been able to survive like an island, but now the world is seeping in, and our salvation will be the success of our partners. Now we’re working together to get people to the right place,” Obama says, “to make sure everyone stays generally healthy with routine care.” [The University of Chicago Medical Center: 2006 Annual Report]

STATEMENT
"Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."

2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS

Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.” [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]

• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]

• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]

• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]

Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, 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 address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable 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 child. Also provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion, provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

• 17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen, Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094. [92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]

• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]

• Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093. Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094 and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted against Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]

OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’s FEDERAL BAIPA

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

• NARAL Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” [CNN, 8/5/02]

• NARAL Statement: “In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01]

2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]

Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]

2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003, WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS

2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation that says any live birth - even one that occurs during an abortion - is a person with legal rights. The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased. ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]

The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally Accepted Medical Standards.” In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards. [94th GA, HB 984, PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

READ PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S HISTORY OF "BORN ALIVE" LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS

SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT "BORN ALIVE" BILLS--WHY OBAMA OPPOSED SOME AND SUPPORTED OTHERS