* The Tribune had this bit today on Hillary Clinton’s latest attack on Barack Obama…

[Clinton] also raised a new front on the issue of Obama’s use of “present” votes — rather than “yes” and “no” votes — on legislation when he was in the Illinois Senate, including on measures that dealt with Republican-led efforts to restrict abortion rights. […]

Obama has defended his “present” votes on abortion-related bills in the Illinois legislature, contending it was part of a strategy fashioned with abortion-rights advocates to help give some Illinois Senate Democrats political cover and to avoid looking harsh by casting “no” votes that would create a re-election risk.

But the Tribune earlier this year found few lawmakers remembered such a strategy and many of those who joined with Obama to vote present were, like him, in politically safe districts.

* Maybe only a few members the Tribune contacted remember this ploy, but I do. It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip’s barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point - and by not contacting the groups involved, flubbed the story.

Besides passing bills he supported, Pate’s idea was to cause a controversy by splitting “moderate” Democrats away from the abortion rights groups, thereby causing a rift on that side, and, more imporantly, to put some political targets on the hot seat. So, as they also did in the House a few years back, Planned Parenthood was encouraging “Present” votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well.

* For instance, Senate Bill 1661, introduced in 2002, would have created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”

Provides that, if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian may maintain an action on the child’s behalf for damages…

The bill passed with 31 votes, but it received 11 Present votes. Among those voting “P” were Republican Senators Christine Radogno and Adeline Geo-Karis. Moderate Democrats voting “P” were Molaro and Viverito. Sen. Pat Welch, a perennial political target who was finally defeated in 2004, also voted Present.

A companion bill, SB 1662, was also hugely controversial at the time…

Defines “born-alive infant” to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

The roll call on that proposal was pretty much the same as the other one.

* Was the strategy a success? Planned Parenthood claims it was, but the bills still passed the Senate and not all politically vulnerable people stuck to the program. Sen. Debbie Halvorson voted “No” on both of those bills in 2002, when she was up for reelection, but voted “Present” the year before on pretty much the same legislation, SB 1094 and SB 1095

* Pam Sutherland of Planned Parenthood said today that Pate Philip “couldn’t use those votes against the moderates or against pro-choice people.” Sutherland also slammed Clinton. “Having come from Illinois, she doesn’t understand Illinois politics.” And Sutherland had this to say in today’s Sun-Times…

“The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did,” said Pam Sutherland, president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.

Also, none of those aforementioned bills made it to a floor vote in the House, a development that surprised and angered some pro-life activists who had believed that Speaker Madigan was an ally, or at least a sympathizer. It shows you just how controversial these bills were, because Madigan had allowed pro-life bills to the floor before that package of legislation was introduced.

* Despite all this, Present votes, particularly repeated Present votes, are almost always fair game in campaigns. I’ve seen them used time and time again. So Clinton’s attack is perfectly understandable and within the bounds of political tradition (unlike that kindergarten nonsense), even if her facts are off on this one. The Tribune’s coverage played right into her hands.

*** UPDATE 1 *** Perhaps the Tribune should have looked at their own paper’s archives. Eric Zorn covered this very same issue well over three years ago…

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,’” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”

Sutherland said this tactic makes the “present” vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

Hat tip: ArchPundit, who adds…

The irony is that pro-life groups in Illinois attacked him for killing later versions of these bills when he was a Committee Chair by not letting them out of committee.

*** UPDATE 2 *** Alan Keyes claimed that Obama’s voting history on that particular legislative package was why he was recruited to run in the first place…

Last year, however, BAIPA regained prominence when State Senator Barack Obama’s vote against allowing babies born alive to be deemed as “persons” made statewide headlines during his run for U.S. Senate. Republican candidate Alan Keyes repeatedly told the press he accepted the invitation to come from Maryland to run against Obama based primarily on Obama’s vote on the BAIPA while in the State Senate.

Obama recently stated that if the state legislation were to be identical to the federal language, he would vote for passage.

He went on to say, “I believe that position should be the one Democrats should take,” [pro-life activist Jill Stanek] reports Obama said to her in January while on a visit to the Capitol.

*** UPDATE 3 *** Zorn has now reposted his entire column on this issue. It had disappeared from the Intertubes, but you can read it here…

Obama’s “present” vote on that bill is one Hull is attacking him for in a flier decorated with rubber duckies.

Sutherland just laughs. “We also had [Democratic Senate leader] Emil Jones, [current Atty. Gen.] Lisa Madigan, Miguel del Valle, Rickey Hendon and other very strong pro-choice legislators voting `present’ on that one,” she said. “It was all done to pull `present’ votes off the fence.”

Obama confirmed Sutherland’s account of the legislative strategy and said, “No one was more active to beat back those bills than I was.”

“Criticizing Obama on the basis of `present’ votes indicates you don’t have a great understanding of the process,” said Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.