With only three years in the United States Senate, and with stunning victories and endorsements to his credit in the presidential primaries and caucuses, it is not too early to begin evaluating Barack Obama’s voting record in the Illinois State Senate. Three votes on abortion-related bills from the 2001-02 sessions are of particular interest.

For example, on March 27, 2001, in the early days of Obama’s second term, the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member, considered Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1093. And so that my readers won’t get lost in the cumbersome legislative language of the amendment, I will paraphrase in 69 words what the lawyers who drafted the amendment said in 143 words.

The amendment provided that, if a physician performing an abortion suspected that the abortion might produce a live infant, he/she must have another physician in attendance who could then evaluate the viability of the newborn child, that a physician performing an abortion resulting in a live born child must seek the assistance of another physician at the earliest possible time, and that a live born child resulting from an abortion would be "fully recognized as a human person."

Anything wrong with that? Not according to any right-thinking person, but according to Barack Obama and his Democratic colleagues there was a lot wrong with it. The official Illinois Senate Committee Action Report shows that Amendment 1 to SB 1093 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 27, 2001 by a vote of 7-4. All 7 committee Republicans voted "aye," all four Democrats, including Barack Obama, voted "nay."

Less than a year later, the Judiciary Committee of the Illinois Senate considered Senate Bill 1663, a bill containing language identical to the language of Amendment 1 of Senate Bill 1093. SB 1663 passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002 by a vote of 6-3. Six Republicans voted "aye," one Republican voted "present," and three Democrats, including Barack Obama, voted "nay."

Just days later, on March 30, 2002, the full Illinois Senate considered Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1094. Paraphrasing the legislative language, the amendment was intended to create a new statute, the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act, the purpose of which was to force healthcare providers to give proper medical attention to a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion.

Under the Induced Birth Liability Act, a parent or a public guardian of a child born as a result of an induced labor abortion would have a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider that failed to provide medical care for the child after birth.

Senate Bill 1094 passed the Senate on March 30, 2002 by a vote of 33-6. Barack Obama was one of 13 senators who could not commit themselves on the question of whether or not a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion should be guaranteed appropriate medical attention. Obama and 12 other senators voted "present."

But what is his current position on the issue? Obama’s official website contains policy positions on dozens of issues in twenty separate categories from civil rights to veterans’ affairs, but not a word on the question of abortion. It’s as if the issue is not of sufficient importance to merit a concise paragraph or two.

Everyone understands that, among the special interests who dictate Democratic Party policy are the many elements of the pro-choice movement, including those who support abortion from the perspective of a woman’s "right to choose" what to do with her body; those who see abortion as child abuse prevention, preventing the birth of unplanned children who may become a "burden" to their parents; those who see abortion as an effective method of birth control, and those who see abortion as a means of population control.

Obama’s votes on the issues cited above go far beyond any commitment to a pro-choice agenda. His votes on these issues go to a question of whether or not a new human life can be allowed to exist. His votes are not pro-choice, they are anti-life and pro-death… they are no less obscene than to steal food and water from a starving man.

By voting against these issues Obama was, in effect, playing God. He was establishing himself as the arbiter of whether or not a helpless infant could receive lifesaving medical attention. A man who has such high regard for himself and so little regard for the most helpless among us is indistinguishable from those who would strap bombs to the bodies of mentally retarded women and send them to blow up crowds of children. He must never be allowed to sit in the Oval Office.