I absolutely agree about saving the baby if it is alive after it is aborted. I doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with that (including Obama). And I know about the intent of the bill and its history.

However, there are plenty of well-intended bills which are badly written enough to cause far more harm than they ameliorate. This was a badly written bill, and it did not pass in the form it was written in 2001 (which required two doctors for every abortion) or 2003 (which had this language). If you believe that Obama was pro-infanticide, then you must also believe that more than half of the Illinois legislature was also pro-infanticide. After some changes it passed in 2005, after Obama had already left the Illinois legislature for the US Senate.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. My point was that the definition of "alive" in the bill was so broad that even a dead frog twitching its legs would qualify as "alive". Therefore it is likely that a great many abortions would result in required lifesaving measures even if the doctor knows that it will not save a life and will most likely simply prolong any pain that the fetus feels. Doctors already have a fairly stringent definition of "alive" in determining whether to declare person dead, so why not simply refer to that instead of trying to institute another definition via law?

I personally do not like abortion much at all, also not for religious reasons. However, I disagree with the pro-life movement in how best to reduce its frequency. Better education, easily available contraception, and reducing the stigma associated with contraception would be much more effective in reducing the number of abortions.