DEMOCRATS, THE PARTY OF INFANTICIDE

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.