I was reading this this morning
I was kind of surprised that in just Texas alone there were six babies that survived being aborted. I thought that number might be representative of the nation as a whole but can't find any numbers on it. In an article on similar legislation requiring doctors to try to preserve the life of any infant born alive that was proposed in North Carolina, but vetoed by the Democrat governor there[1], it said
Hope you understood that.
In any case it is amazing that there needs to be a law to enforce what is obviously the right thing to do. But we do.
For instance, while he was still a state senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn't be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:
So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."
And then there is this (check from the 5 minute mark):
indicating that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "break the baby's neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:
And let's not forget the fact that 41 Democrat U.S. Senators successfully filibustered the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (which would have amended the federal criminal code, instituting penalties and jail time for health care practitioners who don't provide certain medical care "[i]n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive") and prevented it from receiving a final vote. The claim that it interfered with a "woman's right to choose" is absurd unless they mean her choice to terminate babies after they've been born.
So, it looks like there is a need for that sort of legislation in that there are a large number of ghouls who want this sort of infanticide to be permitted.
One other thing mentioned in the article about Texas that I have questions about, namely what exactly are "incomplete abortions," as in the "more than 100 'incomplete abortions'" recorded last year?
1. the argument appears to be that it would bring more bureaucracy into complicated medical situations and may discourage abortions that are medically necessary. I'd love to here exactly how not being able to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion would "discourage abortions that are medically necessary"
I was kind of surprised that in just Texas alone there were six babies that survived being aborted. I thought that number might be representative of the nation as a whole but can't find any numbers on it. In an article on similar legislation requiring doctors to try to preserve the life of any infant born alive that was proposed in North Carolina, but vetoed by the Democrat governor there[1], it said
North Carolina tracks infant deaths but doesn’t know how many infants died after being born alive during a failed abortion, said SarahLewis Peel, spokeswoman for the NC Department of Health and Human Services.
"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of 'Termination of Pregnancy,'" Lewis wrote in an email.
"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of 'Termination of Pregnancy,'" Lewis wrote in an email.
Hope you understood that.
In any case it is amazing that there needs to be a law to enforce what is obviously the right thing to do. But we do.
For instance, while he was still a state senator in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn't be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:
As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child ... however way you want to describe it ... is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead.
So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

And then there is this (check from the 5 minute mark):
indicating that Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota will "break the baby's neck" if the abortion process fails and the baby is born alive:
We don't tell women this [...] but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby's neck
And let's not forget the fact that 41 Democrat U.S. Senators successfully filibustered the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (which would have amended the federal criminal code, instituting penalties and jail time for health care practitioners who don't provide certain medical care "[i]n the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive") and prevented it from receiving a final vote. The claim that it interfered with a "woman's right to choose" is absurd unless they mean her choice to terminate babies after they've been born.
So, it looks like there is a need for that sort of legislation in that there are a large number of ghouls who want this sort of infanticide to be permitted.
One other thing mentioned in the article about Texas that I have questions about, namely what exactly are "incomplete abortions," as in the "more than 100 'incomplete abortions'" recorded last year?

1. the argument appears to be that it would bring more bureaucracy into complicated medical situations and may discourage abortions that are medically necessary. I'd love to here exactly how not being able to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion would "discourage abortions that are medically necessary"
Comment