Democrats block Senate bill requiring medical care for babies that survive abortion

[jmotivator]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

 

[prometeus]

Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore...

So what are they CPAs? How did you come up with that?

 

[Lutherf]

I really don't understand this need for Democrats to be so pro-abortion that they can justify the taking of a viable life just because it's inconvenient or might be a mental strain on the mother. What's next for them? How much farther are they willing to go?

 

[Praxas]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

Those seeking late term abortions are doing so because the baby is not viable or has a severe life threatening defect. Why would you want the child to be forced to be kept alive and in pain? That is the sickening part. This bill is just to play politics with abortion and nothing more.

 

[Lutherf]

So what are they CPAs? How did you come up with that?

It's in the law. The law only requires a "health care practitioner" -

A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/S2796

Also, note that the law doesn't require the imminent threat of death of the mother or the baby. It only requires that the abortion be necessary to protect the patient's life or health. Basically, if a patient feels that actually having that baby that's currently crowning in her cervix is a threat to her long term mental health and the medical practitioner agrees then there is no crime if they terminate the life of that baby.

 

[Lutherf]

Those seeking late term abortions are doing so because the baby is not viable or has a severe life threatening defect. Why would you want the child to be forced to be kept alive and in pain? That is the sickening part. This bill is just to play politics with abortion and nothing more.

Then why doesn't the law limit things to that situation? Why does the law open up the opportunity to have that later term abortion for pretty much any reason the patient and abortionist decide is reasonable?

 

[Praxas]

Then why doesn't the law limit things to that situation? Why does the law open up the opportunity to have that later term abortion for pretty much any reason the patient and abortionist decide is reasonable?

Because there are times that a woman’s life is in jeopardy and it isn’t up to you to decide the acceptable risks that she should be forced to take. Again this is all political to attack abortion and nothing more.

 

[prometeus]

I really don't understand this need for Democrats to be so pro-abortion that they can justify the taking of a viable life just because it's inconvenient or might be a mental strain on the mother. What's next for them? How much farther are they willing to go?

It is not that simple. Given the fact that elective abortions are performed well before viability, the odds of a fetus surviving that are next to none, but even if so, do you realize that long term survival is also nil and normal life is out of the question. So in light of that who will pay for the medical care both immediate and long term? For late term abortions, which are not elective but necessitated by severe health reasons the question still remains, who will pay for that care? Did the bill anywhere offer provisions for care?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

I think that we need to seriously think about reversing the draconian ban on fully automatic weapons.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Because there are times that a woman’s life is in jeopardy and it isn’t up to you to decide the acceptable risks that she should be forced to take. Again this is all political to attack abortion and nothing more.

So you defend full term abortions?

 

[year2late]

Those seeking late term abortions are doing so because the baby is not viable or has a severe life threatening defect. Why would you want the child to be forced to be kept alive and in pain? That is the sickening part. This bill is just to play politics with abortion and nothing more.

Exactly. If the baby was born alive, it is more than possible the MD, might discuss comfort measures with the parents. They would discuss risks and benefits of procedures and it is up to the parents to decide how to proceed based on their beliefs. Not pursuing aggressive care in a baby (or child or adult) in a person with catastrophic illness is always on the table.

 

[sangha]

It's in the law. The law only requires a "health care practitioner" -

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/S2796

The same applies to delivering a baby

Also, note that the law doesn't require the imminent threat of death of the mother or the baby. It only requires that the abortion be necessary to protect the patient's life or health. Basically, if a patient feels that actually having that baby that's currently crowning in her cervix is a threat to her long term mental health and the medical practitioner agrees then there is no crime if they terminate the life of that baby.

Which happens exactly never

 

[sangha]

Then why doesn't the law limit things to that situation? Why does the law open up the opportunity to have that later term abortion for pretty much any reason the patient and abortionist decide is reasonable?

For the same reasons the law does not limit gun ownership to responsible gun owners

 

[prometeus]

It's in the law. The law only requires a "health care practitioner" -

So they are not CPAs. The implication from the OP was that just about anyone can do it.

Also, note that the law doesn't require the imminent threat of death of the mother or the baby. It only requires that the abortion be necessary to protect the patient's life or health.

And who is best suited to make that determination? Certainly not a law maker.

 

[trixare4kids]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

Why didn't the Democrats give this abominable bill the name it rightfully deserves, 'In support of Infanticide'?
Abortion kills fetuses. Infanticide kills babies. Own that legislation!!
There is no such thing as a failed abortion that produces a LIVING CHILD.

 

[MTAtech]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

That's what you get when you get your news from the Washington Examiner.

What the law says

The RHA permits abortions when — according to a medical professional’s “reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case” — “the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”
In other words, women may choose to have an abortion prior to 24 weeks; pregnancies typically range from 38 to 42 weeks. After 24 weeks, such decisions must be made with a determination that there is an “absence of fetal viability” or that the procedure is “necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That determination must be made by a “health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized” under state law, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice.”

Read the actual law

 

[Lutherf]

For the same reasons the law does not limit gun ownership to responsible gun owners

The law DOES have penalties for irresponsible gun owners, unlike the Reproductive Health Act.

 

[j-mac]

I swear, reading some of the responses in this thread are just ridiculous....What a wonderful built in excuse they have....See, if the baby survives the abortionist ripping it apart to get it out, it won't have a quality of life so we should kill it....Wonderful society we are building here.

Reminds me of the Eugenics nuts of the late 20s and 30s like Bernard Shaw....Oh, and Margret Sanger...The racist.

 

[AGENT J]

MILLIONS of republicans are pro-choice . . . . . whooops. . hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed again lol

 

[Praxas]

So you defend full term abortions?

I defend them being more rigorous in the decision making but if it comes to the woman’s health, the baby having a severe life threatening defect yes I do in those cases.

 

[apdst]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

Democrats hate children.

 

[vesper]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...medical-care-for-babies-that-survive-abortion

"Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care."


New NY abortion law eliminates the requirement that medical attention be provided for an infant born from a failed abortion...

Oh, don't worry! We're told that the removal of the requirement for medical attention doesn't mean it won't be done! Forget that the abortionist doesn't even need to be a doctor anymore....

OK, well, so let's have a federal law that removes the gray area that lets abortionists kill babies they meant to kill in utero...

"Nope!" say the Democrats...

Democrats really really really want those babies dead.

Kudos to Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb for going to the well of the Senate and offering up such a bill attempting to put all on record who were not willing to publicly stand up for the life for an infant surviving an abortion.

It really is heartbreaking in a society that claims to be so civil that anyone would support infanticide. But unfortunately around 15% do. This is bad news for Democrats because the percentage of those who identify pro-choice and those who identify as pro-life it is pretty equally divided nationally. But when you dig into those who identify pro-choice a good number believe abortions should be rare and when it comes to something the left has recently been pushing in some states that is infanticide they do not support such a thing.

By blocking the vote Democrats just nailed a few nails in their own coffins come 2020.

 

[Waddy]

I was amazed to learn that so many people survived abortions and grew up to be functioning adults. Amazing, really. Talk about beating the odds. I was also impressed that half of babies born at a mere 24 weeks survive. My oldest kid, my daughter, was born at 24 weeks, 2.2 lbs, and now is grown and has a son of her own. She's the director of a library. I just thought she was a very exceptional case. She is an exceptional person.

 

[vesper]

I was amazed to learn that so many people survived abortions and grew up to be functioning adults. Amazing, really. Talk about beating the odds. I was also impressed that half of babies born at a mere 24 weeks survive. My oldest kid, my daughter, was born at 24 weeks, 2.2 lbs, and now is grown and has a son of her own. She's the director of a library. I just thought she was a very exceptional case. She is an exceptional person.

Thank you Waddy for sharing your personal story. If I could physically would love to give you a hug but this will have to do.

:kissy:

 

[AGENT J]

I was amazed to learn that so many people survived abortions and grew up to be functioning adults. Amazing, really. Talk about beating the odds. I was also impressed that half of babies born at a mere 24 weeks survive. My oldest kid, my daughter, was born at 24 weeks, 2.2 lbs, and now is grown and has a son of her own. She's the director of a library. I just thought she was a very exceptional case. She is an exceptional person.

FYI thats the whole bases of RvW, it was based on medical science . . 24 weeks was picked because of 50% viability
Earliest possible viability is 20 weeks and because of that i would be ok if RvW moved to 20/21 weeks as long as it had all the exceptions risk of health wife/fetus deformities etc etc but that would really make much of a difference sine the majority of abortions done over 20 weeks are done for those reason anyway.