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

Posted by  $  Dobrien 2 months, 3 weeks 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.”
SOURCE URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-blocks-bill-on-medical-care-for-children-born-alive-after-attempted-abortion/2019/02/25/e5d3d4d8-3924-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html?noredirect=on


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 3 weeks 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months, 3 weeks 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    Is our world tilting and no one told me? Why wouldn't they allow Medicaid for these aborted babies that survive? Help! I think a page flipped and we didn't know it! How crazy can people get? Oh, don't answer that!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 2 months, 3 weeks 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      It is the role of government to protect life. Of course if abortion were illegal, there would be a very simply line of reasoning for acts like this and a very simple chain of responsibility.

      Beyond that, however, you are assuming that neither the woman nor the doctor have any responsibility - both fallacious premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  edweaver 2 months, 3 weeks ago
        Really I don't think we need a law against abortion. It's already illegal to kill someone unless it's self defense. If someone kills a child in the womb of a women who wants the baby, it is murder, manslaughter or wrongful death. If someone kills the child of someone who doesn't want it, it not?? Double standard, don't you think?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          Some people obviously don't respect the unborn as real people with real rights, which is why this debate exists at all. If they did, this would be a moot discussion because everyone would recognize such and it would be considered murder across the board.

          Either way, however, the desires of the woman are quite frankly irrelevant to whether or not the baby is a human life with the appropriate rights. Rights don't care about a person's feelings one way or the other.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -3
      Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 3 weeks ago
      If you chose to have a child, you have to take the appropriate actions to either raise it or give it up for adoption. Failing to provide care for a newborn is a rights violation.
      Having said that, an abortion is not a rights violation, so should be perfectly legal.
      The religious leftists that have put on this show, are trying to conflate, two completely unrelated issues, in order to appeal to peoples emotions and set them against the right to have abortions.
      People who think you can force someone to carry to term, of course have no argument against "compel money and resources."
      Anti-abortionists are basically socialists, but much more confused and dishonest.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by PeterSmith 2 months, 3 weeks ago
    The Objectivist position on abortion is that it should be perfectly legal.
    It is already illegal to harm newborns/fail to offer them medical care, so this bill is nothing more than theater, from the religious left, that want to ban abortion.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo