Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion

Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 2 months ago to Culture
31 comments | Share | Flag



What is the objectivists viewpoint on this failed legislation?

In remarks on the Senate floor ahead of Monday’s vote, McConnell described the measure as “a straightforward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies.” Democrats, he argued, “seem to be suggesting that newborn babies’ right to life may be contingent on the circumstances surrounding their birth.”

“I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re okay with infanticide,” Sasse said on the Senate floor Monday. “It is too blunt for many people in this body, but frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today. . . . Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?”
“I want to ask each and every one of my colleagues whether or not we’re okay with infanticide,” Sasse said on the Senate floor Monday. “It is too blunt for many people in this body, but frankly, that is what we’re talking about here today. . . . Are we a country that protects babies that are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion?”

But that characterization has infuriated abortion rights supporters, who note that infanticide is already illegal and argue that Sasse’s bill is actually meant to dissuade doctors from performing late-term abortions in the first place.

“We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights,” Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”
According to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1.3 percent of abortions in 2015 were performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later. About 91 percent took place at or before 13 weeks of gestation.

The issue was thrust further into the national debate when Northam discussed in a January radio interview what would happen if a child were born after a failed abortion attempt. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” he said — a statement that many Republicans cast as endorsement of infanticide.

That included Trump, who said in his State of the Union address that Northam “basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.” Since then, House Republicans have attempted, and failed, to get a bill similar to Sasse’s taken up in the Democratic-controlled chamber. McConnell, meanwhile, scheduled valuable Senate floor time to put that chamber’s Democrats on the record on the issue.

In response, Democratic lawmakers have made an aggressive and often-exasperated case that infanticide is already illegal and that the “born alive” bills are a stalking horse for more-thorough abortion restrictions.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) described the bill Monday as “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.”

“It has no place becoming law. Its proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal,” Murray said on the Senate floor. She added that the legislation would “do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you are unconscious from an accident and needing lifesaving resources should we just wait and not act until we get your consent? Any time the government acts in a life saving fashion I will gladly accept it. 1 Life. 2 Liberty. 3. Pursuit of happiness
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If we don't want the government involved, we have to keep them out by never making it an issue. Individual responsibly would solve most of the problems we deal with today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 6 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Personally I don't consider compassion to be part of the equation. Once a fetus is able to survive consistently outside the womb using current technology, it is a life. It must be killed to be aborted or it comes out alive. Makes no difference to me, it is killing and that is not a standard I can live with. I don't want to see the government involved. For me it comes back to, just because a person can, doesn't mean they should.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 6 years, 2 months ago
    Is the role of government to compel money and resources be used to save these infants by any means necessary for the greater good?
    Or, is it the role of each individual to choose whether or not to voluntarily supply the resources to do this?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 2 months ago
    We should be able to tell, Dan, just from the responses here, where America stands on this issue...are we morally compassionate humans here, do we have the requisite mutuality for others to be human or do we not.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 2 months ago
    From some recent statistics gathered by whistle blowers state that in the last year, 500 newborns of failed abortions were left on cold tables and closets to die. (this is NOT a rarity as the demoncraps in congress will chant).

    Now, I don't care Who you are, or what definition of LIFE or HUMAN you hold, (legal or not)...This should raise very loud alarm bells within you.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo