The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says right
in its name that the bill would cover children who survive abortion and are
then in need of medical care. Keep that in mind, they SURVIVE abortion and are
ALIVE.
So what why did Democrats say they were against it?
Senator Tina Smith (D., Minn.) said that the bill “puts
Congress in the middle of the important medical decisions that patients and
doctors should make together without political interference.” Other than
whether to kill a child that is alive it doesn’t do this at all.
Smith also said “Physicians and patients making decisions
together based on patients’ individual needs.” How is helping a child no longer
in the womb that has survived the abortion process any longer the individual
need of the patient?
Senator Mazie Hirono (D) of Hawaii said it represents the
idea that “the moral judgment of right-wing politicians in Washington, D.C.,
should supersede a medical professional’s judgment and a woman’s decision.”
Only if the decision in question is whether or not to kill a child that has
been born and is no longer the woman’s concern.
Hirono also said “Conservative politicians should not be
telling doctors how they should care for their patients. Instead, women, in
consultation with their families and doctors, are in the best position to
determine their best course of care.” But the law isn’t talking about the
patient in the sense of the woman getting an abortion, it’s not about caring
for them. Unless Hirono is saying politicians should not be telling doctors how
they should care for a newborn baby that survived an abortion.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said “The
bill is solely meant to intimidate doctors and restrict patients’ access to
care and has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with protecting children.” The
bill does nothing to restrict patients’ access to care and does protect a
child, the one who was born and then survived abortion.
Tammy Duckworth (D) of Illinois labeled the bill an effort
to “bully doctors out of giving reproductive care.” How does helping a child
that is still alive after surviving an abortion bullying doctors out of
providing reproductive care?
Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) said the legislation “would
interfere with the doctor–patient relationship and impose new obstacles to a
woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own decisions about her
reproductive health.” How does helping a child that is still alive after
surviving an abortion impose new obstacles to making decisions about a woman’s
reproductive health? It’s no longer inside of her.
The bill has nothing to do with women’s reproductive rights,
access to abortion, access to healthcare, outlawing doctors who provide
abortions or imposing right wing moral judgements on anyone. What it does is
require that these nearly aborted newborns be afforded “the same degree” of
care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would
receive. It also doesn’t require the mother to care for the child
What the vote against this bill shows is that the Democrats
feel that the rights of women who want abortions are more important that the
lives of children WHO ARE BORN ALIVE. The bill is not about unborn children but
those who SURVIVE ABORTION. We’re not talking, as they like to say, a mass of
cells any longer but a fully formed, fully functional child. And they voted
that this wasn’t worth saving.
The Democrats are now being accused of infanticide and this
is exactly what the no vote on this bill amounts to. By trying to paint the
picture that this involves what takes place before that birth shows that they
will say anything to promote the death of children, even those that survive an abortion.
f it sounds like I’m angry, I am. I cannot fathom how anyone,
in particular and entire political party, could condone the killing of innocent
children and try to disguise it as caring about women’s rights. Where are they
when it comes to the rights of that child, one already born and there trying to
fight for its very existence?
How is it that the same party who is telling us how
heartless it is to have a child separated from its mother for several days
after coming across the border illegally thinks that killing a child that has
survived an abortion is wrong? You have to wonder if children are really their
concern at all.
