Democrats overwhelmingly vote against BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection[W:244]

[cpwill]

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.​

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds as follows:​

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.​

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

SEC. 3. Born-alive infants protection.
(a) Requirements pertaining to born-Alive abortion survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:
“§ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors​

“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):
“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—​

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and
“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

<<snipped for length>>

​

President Obama, who has a history of opposing protection for newborn infants, has issued a veto threat, claiming that asking doctors not to abandon living children qualifies as "chilling" access to abortion.

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?​

 

[prometeus]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:

WTF is born alive after an abortion?

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

WTF is born alive after an abortion?

Abortion procedures don't always kill the child. In that case, children are born living. They come out kicking, crying, like any other baby.

Abortion Survivors.

 

[MisterLogical]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I would support this!

 

[MrT]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?[/LEFT]

You are chilling access to abortions because you are now opening the women that seek an abortion to the possibility that if the abortion does not take, then they will now be responsible for a child. You are also chilling access to abortions by making it a crime, specifically murder, if the abortion procedure fails to immediately kill the fetus.

And when you combine that threat against doctors with the limitations that some have imposed on the types of abortion procedures allowed, then you raise the threat that a doctor will commit a very serious crime even more and thus, chill access to abortions further.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

You are chilling access to abortions because you are now opening the women that seek an abortion to the possibility that if the abortion does not take, then they will now be responsible for a child. You are also chilling access to abortions by making it a crime, specifically murder, if the abortion procedure fails to immediately kill the fetus.

No, she had her abortion, but the child lived through it. It's stunningly stupid to suggest that a woman's access to abortion is at all affected because the child lived AFTER she had an abortion and the law is protecting its life.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:




President Obama, who has a history of opposing protection for newborn infants, has issued a veto threat, claiming that asking doctors not to abandon living children qualifies as "chilling" access to abortion.

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?[/LEFT]

I think this is on top of a defeated 20-week limit, if I'm not mistaken. I find it deplorable that either of these two bills was defeated. It's inhumane, cruel, an abomination or any number of adjectives. As a society, we should be ashamed. It is one thing to permit abortion. I understand the need for it. It is quite another to allow an abortion when one is dealing with a viable human being...and then to allow it to simply get thrown in a hazardous waste bucket to die.

Doctors who agree do these late procedures are less than human.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

You are chilling access to abortions because you are now opening the women that seek an abortion to the possibility that if the abortion does not take, then they will now be responsible for a child.

No, it doesn't. Feel free to read the text. Doctors are required to give the babies to hospitals who can provide care - no requirement is laid on the woman.

You are also chilling access to abortions by making it a crime, specifically murder, if the abortion procedure fails to immediately kill the fetus.

Wrong. It is considered a crime if the baby is born living, and is screaming on the table, and you then kill the child. Just as it is if you kill any born child.


But thanks for coming in here to give the Pro-Infanticide pitch, and demonstrating that, for many, their claim that they believe that birth is the point at which we become people with human rights is a lie.

And when you combine that threat against doctors with the limitations that some have imposed on the types of abortion procedures allowed, then you raise the threat that a doctor will commit a very serious crime even more and thus, chill access to abortions further.

It is already a crime.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I think this is on top of a defeated 20-week limit, if I'm not mistaken. I find it deplorable that either of these two bills was defeated. It's inhumane, cruel, an abomination or any number of adjectives. As a society, we should be ashamed. It is one thing to permit abortion. I understand the need for it. It is quite another to allow an abortion when one is dealing with a viable human being...and then to allow it to simply get thrown in a hazardous waste bucket to die.

Doctors who agree do these late procedures are less than human.

I wish. But this kind of behavior is all-too human. Infanticide has a long past.

 

[joG]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:




President Obama, who has a history of opposing protection for newborn infants, has issued a veto threat, claiming that asking doctors not to abandon living children qualifies as "chilling" access to abortion.

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?[/LEFT]

If you are going to allow abortion, it really does not make much difference how the little guy dies nor when. It is then only a matter of emotional stability. The decision is already made that the girl can kill the human.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

If you are going to allow abortion, it really does not make much difference how the little guy dies nor when. It is then only a matter of emotional stability. The decision is already made that the girl can kill the human.

Every child we can save, we should save.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

It's despicable how far the party founded by Jefferson and Madison has fallen.

 

[MrT]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

No, it doesn't. Feel free to read the text. Doctors are required to give the babies to hospitals who can provide care - no requirement is laid on the woman.

Then you are requiring that society care for an unwanted child and further burdening the foster care and medical care systems.

Wrong. It is considered a crime if the baby is born living, and is screaming on the table, and you then kill the child. Just as it is if you kill any born child.

But thanks for coming in here to give the Pro-Infanticide pitch, and demonstrating that, for many, their claim that they believe that birth is the point at which we become people with human rights is a lie.

It is already a crime.

If this process is already a crime, then the law is a pointless, political stunt.

 

[MrT]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Every child we can save, we should save.

I would hope that you support raising taxes or increasing funding towards Health and Human Services, then.

 

[joG]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I think this is on top of a defeated 20-week limit, if I'm not mistaken. I find it deplorable that either of these two bills was defeated. It's inhumane, cruel, an abomination or any number of adjectives. As a society, we should be ashamed. It is one thing to permit abortion. I understand the need for it. It is quite another to allow an abortion when one is dealing with a viable human being...and then to allow it to simply get thrown in a hazardous waste bucket to die.

Doctors who agree do these late procedures are less than human.

Actually, abortion is illegal after viability is reached.

 

[MisterLogical]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

No, she had her abortion, but the child lived through it. It's stunningly stupid to suggest that a woman's access to abortion is at all affected because the child lived AFTER she had an abortion and the law is protecting its life.

I find it kind of funny that they would come out with this after they were pushing for the abortion law? I not sure what side they fight for anymore but I do believe you have a piont and it could possibly not float well with the Abortion itself. Perhaps there is a republican lurking in the Democratic party somewhere.

 

[betuadollar]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Since "viable" is subjective, I cannot support any abortion beyond the first trimester.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

I would hope that you support raising taxes or increasing funding towards Health and Human Services, then.

What we've learned is that simply increasing government expenditures doesn't actually mean we increase the degree to which we help people - and in many ways, we actively harm them.

My plan is to lift every single child in the country out of poverty with a direct subsidy.

However, there is a pretty big difference between "the stuff you give to a person" and "keeping that person from being murdered".

Then you are requiring that society care for an unwanted child and further burdening the foster care and medical care systems.

Yup. And we have those systems because we prefer to pay for those systems than abandon the most vulnerable among us to die.

The argument that "keeping children alive costs money" is an argument equally applicable to simply walking into the state foster system and killing everyone below the age of 18. It's a poor one to use here.

If this process is already a crime, then the law is a pointless, political stunt.

No, because the law as it stands has no teeth - this puts reporting and enforcement functions into the law.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:




President Obama, who has a history of opposing protection for newborn infants, has issued a veto threat, claiming that asking doctors not to abandon living children qualifies as "chilling" access to abortion.

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?[/LEFT]

What's the point of making something illegal (etc) when the government entities themselves who are expected to ENFORCE and ENSURE these limits are not being violated FAIL to do their job.

How our country has approached any type of abortion regulation: No oversight / no consequences.

Making something illegal - with such ****tacular oversight and response - is just a bandaide or a 'well we've officially declared' - it's not an effort to diminish said practice without action.

Not saying I don't support the bill - after reading the full text I see no reason NOT to support it so I don't quite follow there.

You are chilling access to abortions because you are now opening the women that seek an abortion to the possibility that if the abortion does not take, then they will now be responsible for a child. You are also chilling access to abortions by making it a crime, specifically murder, if the abortion procedure fails to immediately kill the fetus.

And when you combine that threat against doctors with the limitations that some have imposed on the types of abortion procedures allowed, then you raise the threat that a doctor will commit a very serious crime even more and thus, chill access to abortions further.

Our country would be that ****ed up: You didn't want your baby and tried to end the pregnancy - and because it didn't work you'll not care for the child you clearly do not want.

I would rather they be immediately stripped of their parental rights (etc).

 

[Henrin]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Then you are requiring that society care for an unwanted child and further burdening the foster care and medical care systems.

I think it's weird how liberals can support welfare and claim it's for the children and then turn around and suggest we need to let children die or it will be a burden on society. It's like you're trying to play both sides of the coin and thinking you're not getting caught doing it.

 

[year2late]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

So what is the difference between this one and the one that was signed into law 13 years ago?

 

[Erod]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

You are chilling access to abortions because you are now opening the women that seek an abortion to the possibility that if the abortion does not take, then they will now be responsible for a child. You are also chilling access to abortions by making it a crime, specifically murder, if the abortion procedure fails to immediately kill the fetus.

And when you combine that threat against doctors with the limitations that some have imposed on the types of abortion procedures allowed, then you raise the threat that a doctor will commit a very serious crime even more and thus, chill access to abortions further.

So much concern for the mother, and yet nary a thought of the dying baby.

 

[JumpinJack]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

H.R.3504 - Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats in the House today voted 177 to 5 against keeping clinics from simply letting children who are born and are alive outside the womb as the result of a botched abortion procedure die of exposure instead. These are living, crying, babies, outside the womb.


Text:




President Obama, who has a history of opposing protection for newborn infants, has issued a veto threat, claiming that asking doctors not to abandon living children qualifies as "chilling" access to abortion.

How, exactly, does not killing children who are living outside the womb chill access to abortion? WTF have you been doing if this is going to create significant problems with your work practices?[/LEFT]

Because that circumvents current law, which states that personhood begins at a point when a fetus can survive outside of another person's body. This bill doesn't state that.

This bill redefines "alive" according to current law. Current law is that if there is no brain activity, a "person" is "not alive" and the plug can be pulled, although that is not required. This bill states that if the fetus takes a breath or a heart beats, that it must be kept alive, even if it is brain dead.

Are you going to pay for the millions of dollars it would take to kep a brain dead fetus alive? Is that really "human life" as we know it?

Bizarre.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

Because that circumvents current law, which states that personhood begins at a point when a fetus can survive outside of another person's body. This bill doesn't state that.

The law ascribes legal personhood to infants who are existing outside the womb and are alive, which is what the current definition is. Those states who wish to alter that will run afoul of Federal Supremacy.

This bill redefines "alive" according to current law

Actually it maintains the definition of "alive" according to current law.

The relevant section of the text:

...“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):

The BAIPA passed in 2002.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Democrats overwhelmingly vote against Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection A

So what is the difference between this one and the one that was signed into law 13 years ago?

This has reporting and enforcement mechanisms, and provides for appropriate relief for the women involved via civil action in the event that their child is deliberately killed in violation of the 2002 BAIPA.