democrats voted to allow the murder of children. Of course, they won’t call it that.
Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.
All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.
Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.
The bill stipulated:
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “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.”
Here’s the thing. Born alive babies have Constitutional rights. I know that’s something which makes liberals wretch but it is true. The 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“born in the United States”
“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
That makes any baby born alive – attempted abortion or not- a citizen of the United States and has all the rights and privileges of a US citizen and afforded the above.
Withholding care to such a newborn is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the baby. It is murder.
Questions:
If it is acceptable to withhold life support to born alive babies, could life support for babies born to illegal aliens be withheld?
If a fetus is not a person, why should anyone receive pre-natal care and why should it be covered by insurance?
By liberal standards, there should no care until AFTER a baby is born and maybe not even then. Imagine having to give birth outside of a hospital and receive care for a baby only after it is born, should someone decide to let the baby live.
democrats have become the party of infanticide. It’s just another day at the office.
And they call conservatives “Nazis.”
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
I still can’t get over the fact that such a law was deemed necessary in the United States of America. That is a pretty disgusting indictment of the Democrat party today.
They have been doing this all along, now cant imagine why they cant just make it open and legal.
One of this article’s premises is that the 14th amendment
governs the circumstances of abortion through the phrase:
As minors are not considered full-fledged citizens subject to this amendment’s protections of equal rights (minors aren’t allowed the right to vote, clearly an instance of an “abridged privilege”) then babies certainly can’t be expected to receive that full protection either.
The answer to the article’s question:
is simple. The fetus is not the entity that asks for prenatal care, nor is it the entity that pays for it. Those tasks fall to the mother or, if incapacitated, to her legal guardian. Such care is covered by insurance IF the mother has insurance that covers it.
Once you agree to limit human rights to only certain groups, there is no end to how many limitations you can invent. Making illegal immigrants an exception to rights bestowed upon citizens, for example. Restricting minors from purchasing or consuming alcohol is another. One might also cite restricting the voting rights of felons, or the adoption privileges of gays. No end to that. Mind you, I am not arguing for a reversal of any of those examples. I am merely pointing out that the 14th Amendment is not a blanket that covers everybody equally.
@George Wells:
So then, anchor babies aren’t citizens until they reach voting age? That’s great.
The right to liquor is not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to life is.
The Democrats can vote to have millions of acres locked up into Wilderness Areas to appease the Eco-Freaks or list some lizard as Endangered yet allow for the murder of newborns while voting to disarm all Americans and traitors like John Kerry who signed the Small Arms Control Treaty. The Democrats need a new motto SAVE THE MOTHS KILL YOUR CHILD
@Deplorable Me:
So is the right to vote. My point is made. Fetuses don’t have full rights.
No. Not full citizens.
Note the OTHER limitations I cited, and the distinction between “human” rights and “citizen” rights. While “we hold (certain) truths to be self-evident,” our laws go out of their way to abridge the legal protections of these very self-evident truths. That isn’t on the Ten Commandments, it’s on us. I’m not suggesting that we protect every living human being, I’m pointing out that we don’t even try. It can’t be done, and it certainly isn’t our job to try, no matter what Jacob Marley said.
@George Wells:
Alcohol and voting are not life and death, per se.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States”
The left argues that a fetus is not a person, but when born a child is.
@Deplorable Me:
Wow! How did the Democrats get that so wrong.
It is amazing to me how some can conflate the clear wording of the Constitution (All persons born or naturalized in the United States). No where in the Constitution is any mention of “full” citizenship.
Of course, we now live in a nation where five unelected judges in black robes can create and dictate law that all citizens are forced to accept in spite of no legislation being enacted to create that law by the duly elected representatives of the people.
This is cool https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-captured-the-actual-flash-of-light-that-sparks-when-sperm-meets-an-egg
@retire05:
Well, of COURSE you’re going to get confused, if you take one phrase and pretend that it stands alone supreme. Does “all persons born or naturalized” include giving babies the right to vote? No. Why? Because there are other considerations, just as there are regarding abortion.
And yet sex offenders don’t get to live in the same unrestricted sense that law-abiding citizens do – their citizenship is not “full,” and neither is the citizenship of minors who can’t vote, military personnel who can’t participate in political demonstrations, and demented or otherwise disabled people who cannot speak for themselves. Fetuses cannot speak for themselves and they cannot vote. Their citizenship is not “full.” What about that can’t you understand?
And good thing that. You are correct that the supreme court creates “LAW.” It does not create “laws.” The legislature does that, and the president signs them INTO Law. Then, the supreme court may come to agree or disagree with the law’s constitutionality as it merits, if and when the law is challenged in court. The people, as represented by their duly elected representatives, do NOT have the right to enact laws in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, and they are ill-equipped to discern when that is. That is the job of the Supreme Court. And good thing that.
@George Wells:
That’s faulty thinking to try to lead to infanticide.
Babies born here are “full-fledged citizens.”
Later all full-fledged citizens get to exercise more rights & responsibilities, but, by doing so, they don’t become more of a citizen than they were before.
So, only adult citizens may serve on juries, but all citizens are equal even if they never get called to serve on one.
All full-fledged citizens may vote, but all citizens are equal even if some of them never bother to vote (or abstain for religious reasons.)
There are 13 states plus D.C. where a teenage girl can’t see an R-rated movie about abortion — but can get one by herself.
Upcoming film “Unplanned”was given an “R” rating due to truthful content.
If a staged abortion is too violent and “disturbing” for a teenager to see by herself, then why in the world would our laws let her get the real thing without talking to their parents first? That’s the brave new world of “reproductive freedom” for you.
@George Wells:
Most every member in congress has a college degree and should be prepared to defend the constitution as their oath of office requires.
@Nan G:
Retire05 has already posited that there is no mention in the Constitution of “FULL FLEDGED” regarding citizenship, and she is correct as far as that goes.
Well, that admits that “earlier,” those citizens have LESS rights, doesn’t it? You can’t have it both ways. Either you have all of the rights of citizenship or you don’t. And there are bountiful instances when you don’t. One of them is when you are “underage,” and the younger you are, the less rights you have. Just try sassing your dad when you are six and see how your freedom of speech works. When you are a fetus, well, see what that’s worth on the citizenship rights game board. Arguing that a “citizen” can be at once both a “full” citizen and at the same time also have almost no rights boggles the mind and forces the question of what you mean by your use of the word “full.”
Demokrats are now on record supporting killing babies. Their supporters called for the murder of a sixteen year old kid (and all his classmates) for the hat he was wearing and for smiling “the wrong way” at a fake VN Vet left wing activist. Keep that in mind the next time they push their gun confiscation agenda.
I wonder if the above post is the sort of thing the government surfs social media looking for.
And after the person carrying that sign is done their going to climb up a tree and take part in their SAVE THE MOTHS protest while dressed as a moth or tree
@Spurwing Plover:
Smokin’!
@George Wells:
Could you be so kind as to point out in the Constitution the part about “Full citizen”?
But what about the population bomb? OMG you know the issue China tackled now there is a severe shortage of females. 1 child only, male would be needed cause they are responsible to care for the parents millions of men with no hope to marry and have their 1 child unless they are allowed to import a wife. I cannot imagine the social score required for that.
Social engineering a planned society.
So, only people who Democrats designate have the right not to be killed at birth. OK.
@kitt:
That’s what Democrats have in store for us here.
@Deplorable Me: China has involved itself with the global engineering plan, the end game is a China style world government. Total control, no privacy, undesirables “re-educated” or murdered. Life style dependent on social scoring.
So like we didnt know their aplogetics for sanger was just that… ernst rudin loved her work, and so, it really IS eugenics… ie. the covert form of what hitler and others were trying to do…
except that this is Democide, not Genocide
read the definitions…
@DrJohn:
The constitution is not an all-encompassing document. It is the blueprint of a process. Not every right held by citizens is enumerated in the Constitution. (The ninth amendment makes this abundantly clear.) Rights not specifically addressed in the Constitution include but are not limited to:
the right to an abortion
the right to a presumption of innocence
the right to associate with others
the right to privacy
the right to marry
the right to vote
Restrictions that may be placed on citizens’ rights are ALSO not codified in the Constitution. So “No,” the nature and the limitations of citizenship are not specified. I have used the term “Full Citizenship” to represent the fullest extent of citizenship – the rights conveyed by citizenship in its fullest exercise. You are surely aware that both the states and the federal government can and do restrict certain aspects of citizen’s rights in circumstances that warrant such limitation – I have previously listed some of those as examples. Obviously, the non-enumerated right to an abortion inherently limits a fetus’s right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
This does not have to be in the Constitution to be fact. Over the years, the Supreme Court has confirmed it repeatedly. But thanks for asking.
@George Wells:
10th Amendment
Coffin vs. U.S.
First Amendment
Forth Amendment (and the most judicially abused/misconstrued amendment of the Bill or Rights
10th Amendment
Addressed in numerous amendments.
I am shocked, shocked, I tell you, that you are so uninformed on the U.S. Constitution. Not really. But please, continue to show your lack of knowledge so those who are students of the U.S. Constitution, and its amendments, can use you as a case in point for the adage “You can’t fix stupid.”
@retire05:
Well, excuse me for abridging my information for the sake of not wasting FA’s space and your time.
My point was that not every right that citizens have is ENUMERATED in the Constitution. The right that same-sex people have to marry was derived from the Constitution but was not ENUMERATED there-in.
@George Wells:
Provide the link for your source.
You are still in the “Can’t fix stupid” category.
@retire05:
https://system.uslegal.com/u-s-constitution/the-ninth-amendment/
My point was that not every right that citizens have is ENUMERATED in the Constitution. The right that same-sex people have to marry was derived from the Constitution but was not ENUMERATED there-in.
What is your argument with that?
@George Wells:
That.
“At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”
I am done trying since you seem incapable of even a remedial understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
@retire05:
Yes, “That.”
Your borrowed paste job lacks authority. It is irrelevant conjecture.
What you want and what we have are completely different things. What we HAVE are three well-balanced branches of government that each enjoy some measure of checking and balancing the powers of the other two. Not “Two and a half,” not “Two healthy legs and one thalidomide-shriveled arm.” As you know this yourself, no, there would be no reason to continue pretending this is not how it is.
The majority of those SCOTUS justices that you are so quick to dismiss were put there by Republican Presidents. If you are so dissatisfied with their performance, perhaps you should ask why it is that the awesome weight of their responsibility often causes their stripes to change. Could it be that the Republican message is more flawed than you think?
And DO be silent. It is the most certain way you can concede your argument’s defeat.
@George Wells:
It was a quote from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third president of the United States, you illiterate boob.
Continue to wallow in your sublime stupidity.
@retire05:
Ouch.
@retire05:
Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1801. Two years later, in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution. Perhaps that was the principle gripe Jefferson had with Marshall’s SCOTUS – that it prevented Congress from creating a limitless hodge-podge of contradictory laws too at-odds with the Constitution to let that James Madison document be the guiding light it was intended to be.
Largely because he was an exceptionally prolific thinker and writer, Jefferson WAS a principal architect of the Declaration of Independence. Thank You, T. J.
Surviving today are many documents that reflect his opinions on how our great nation should work. Jefferson did NOT, however, make any significant contribution to the writing of the Constitution. He was abroad when it was written.
As there were many great minds at work and many conflicting ideas, it should come as no surprise that not all of them found their way into the final draft of the Constitution. Although of historical interest, those conflicting ideas that are NOT included in the Constitution are not given the deference accorded to – nor do they trump – the ideas that ARE enshrined there-in. The nation that Thomas Jefferson evidently wanted was not created. We have Madison’s Constitution, not Jefferson’s.
You know full well that our history books are replete with many wise and great figures who did not succeed in establishing the particular instruments of government that they envisioned. If they had all succeeded, our country would be vastly different from what it is.
Your Jefferson quote is irrelevant.
@Deplorable Me:
Pfffttt!
Read 32.
@retire05: George has a lack of understanding and the need for 3 branches, the need to restrain them in their assigned duties. I could suggest he reads Men in Black by Mark Levin. The Supreme Court was to uphold the constitution, decide on laws that were already in effect. Not create or even rewrite laws and rights. If a law is unconstitutional write your opinion strike it down it is then to be removed from the books. If they would not permit the partial judgement on one point of a law bring the entire law before the court. The AHCA is a good example how constitutional is it to force a citizen to purchase a service, to impose a fee if you dont purchase that service, whoops, it isnt, so we reword it to say tax. The word State to be reinterpreted as federal. Thus it must be agenda driven not constitutionally sound. The entire law should have been struck down. The bridge program was totally sufficient just cover those with pre-existing conditions, assisting the price according to ones income. Perhaps limiting the insurance companies as to who they can drop for a claim.
@kitt:
George has a lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
There fixed it for you. Now he posts some blathering claptrap he gleaned from a quick perusal of the internet really saying nothing of substance. He clearly shows total ignorance of Marbury vs. Madison.
In his desire to appear learned, he shows how Constitutionally illiterate he is.
@kitt:
You misconstrue what the SCOTUS does. Show a SINGLE Law that was rewritten by them. There are none. Neither is there a Law that was created by them. They NEVER do that. Search the entire body of their opinions (they are all in the public record) and you will not find a single Law contained there-in. Come on and stop saying that’s what the SCOTUS does when you know it isn’t. If you think it is, SHOW ME!
If, when the SCOTUS declares a Law to be unconstitutional, the body that wrote the law in the first place decides to rewrite the law to make it comply with the SCOTUS’ interpretation of the Constitution, then it is rewritten by that body, NOT the court. The SCOTUS ONLY writes opinions. The opinions are not laws. The opinions only have the power to uphold or strike down laws. It’s not the same thing as WRITING LAW.
I think that it is delightfully ironic that as long as you agree with a SCOTUS decision, it isn’t an instance of “judicial overreach,” but the minute you DISAGREE with a decision, it IS. I’m not happy with every decision they make, but I don’t cry “foul” every time their decision differs from mine. Who elected you “right 100% of the time”?
@George Wells:
Well, how ABOUT the Abysmal Care Act? The Democrats argument was that, despite their campaigning that it would not raise taxes a single dime, the mandate was a tax. The majority agreed of the Supreme Court agreed and made it so. Yet, where do FUNDING (tax) bills originate? Hint: NOT in the Senate, where Obamacare was born out of wedlock. So, what’s up with THAT? How could a TAX law come out of the Senate?
@George Wells: We watched them as they rewrote the AHCA state means federal, fee means tax. I gave you the example. After they repeatedly said it wasnt a tax, they argued it was in court, the text of the law as written did not. To reject the text and reinterpret the language was the only way the activist judges could find it constitutional, shady with what is known about a questionable adoption and the ability to blackmail one of the justices.
No one elected me 100% correct reading the articles written by constitutional experts at the time help develop my opinion.
@kitt:
The SCOTUS agreed with the defendant – the government – that the intent of the ACA was clear, even if the word chosen to describe how it would be paid for wasn’t. They said that the way that the words “tax” and “fee” were being used convinced them that they were effectively interchangeable. That 5the “fee” was in effect a “tax,” or that the “tax” was a “fee.” (I really don’t remember which it was, it’s so unimportant.) The ACA was already written, and the SCOTUS did not rewrite it. They said that the wording issue that plaintiff was depending on to achieve rejection of the ACA was irrelevant. Nowhere did the SCOTUS republish the contents of a changed ACA.
Perhaps you should have asked Trump to nominate the “constitutional experts” who informed your ideas to the SCOTUS instead of the party boys he otherwise picked.
@George Wells:
Your understanding of the duties of the USSC is abysmal. Judist Priest, man, get a copy of the Heritage Guide of the Constitution. Show me where in the Constitution the USSC was given the authority of judicial review. I know 15 year olds that understand more than you do.
You seem to love wallowing in your ignorance.
@George Wells: perhaps a liberal point of veiw agreeeing the decision is agenda driven https://newrepublic.com/article/143524/supreme-court-screwed-obamacare
They should have shoved it down all of the states throats, make them choke on the long term consequences.
@retire05:
And around and around.
Where in the Constitution do YOU find that the SCOTUS writes Laws. It doesn’t.
The Doctrine of Judicial Review was established by Chief Justice John Marshall in the decision he wrote for Marbury V Madison in 1803. No, it isn’t IN the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be. It is a doctrine, not a law. Never mind that judicial review has been in place for 215+ years and stands as the ONLY thing preventing the legislature from writing laws that conflict with the constitution.
What on Earth do you not understand about that?
Congress doesn’t have a problem with judicial review.
The President doesn’t have a problem with judicial review.
The judiciary doesn’t have a problem with judicial review.
And I don’t have a problem with judicial review.
So what’s YOUR problem?
(Just to double-check, I read what Cornel U. and Britannica had to offer, and they confirmed what I said.)
I am sure that you know MUCH more than the Supreme Court or the Congress or the president EVER did about the Constitution, but seeing as you are so much nastier then they ever are, I think I’ll stick with them.
It doesn’t matter a hill of beans that YOU don’t LIKE what the SCOTUS does, and Sweetheart, it does what I said.
@kitt:
And what do you think that the long-term consequences of having NO process for overturning unconstitutional laws might have been? For starters, it would have reduced the Constitution to meaningless toilet paper. There would have been absolutely nothing to prevent legislatures from enacting whatever tyranny they chose. Constitutionally provided rights would have been un-provided on a whim. Jesus would have wept.
@George Wells: I had no right to keep the health insurance I chose freely and paid for with my earned money, no freedom of choice, they up held the governments tyranny. There was no free market, it was one designed system and only one. If I didnt like it they charged me for telling them to stuff it. Where in the constitution do we find the government is allowed to design a service and compel every citizen to purchase it? If they cannot fit it into their budget for any reason the tax burden is increased, thats something along with student debt you cant file bankruptcy on they will charge interest, penalties increasing the amount. Even telling private companies what benefits they must provide for employees. That is where in the constitution I cant find it.
Dont tell me about Jesus weeping when you dont want to protect babies, dont you dare! You are not going to weaponize Jesus or use that stupid dog trick.
@kitt:
LOL! Woof-Woof!
Good grief! Where do YOU live?
Here in Virginia, everybody I know has different insurance plans. And I know of no one who was required to lose their doctor.
Paul and I are now shopping Medicare supplemental plans, since we insure together for a discount and he’s just now reaching 65. The options are many. Some HMO-type plans (“advantage” plans) require your doctors to be on a list of preferred providers for you to get the maximum benefit, but if your doctor ISN’T on the list, you don’t lose him, he just costs more to use. And that’s no different from earlier HMO’s. The non-HMO-type policies have no such doctor restrictions. Furthermore, we have the same insurance we’ve had for a decade, at least. And finally, we have so many choices that it’s taking us way longer to make a choice than we expected.
Maybe you should move to Virginia.
@George Wells: I didnt lose a doctor I lost my chosen coverage as it i not fit the communist model. I didnt need maternity care, nor does my husband. Supplemental plans to cover the 7K deductible there are none, what if I just want catastrophic bare bones, not available. Only the government design, in this area no competition BCBS or no one.
I am speaking about Obama care and the totally unconstitutional law that the Supreme Court felt the government should impose on the entire nation, try to focus.
@George Wells:
My God, man. Did you ever take a Civics class? Where does the Constitution give the USSC the right to overturn any law created by Congress?
What John Marshall did was a power grab, pure and simple. Now, Rainman, name one group that once it grabbed power for themselves ever relinquished that power.
The Tenth Amendment was quite clear; those powers of the Federal government, NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, were delegated to the States and the people.
You have really become a bore trying to argue an issue you are clueless about.
@kitt:
I believe George’s “husband” was a Federal employee.
That should explain a lot.
@retire05: Wait til he finds out George found religion, they may or may not be shopping together….;)
@retire05:
WHAT IS THE REMEDY FOR A LAW THAT CONGRESS PASSES AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? If not the SCOTUS, then who? (Put an alternate way: Do we need to revolt every time Congress passes a bad law?)
Without Judicial Review, your United States would disintegrate (quite literally) into 50 separate and distinctly different states. That may have been what the Jefferson envisioned, but it isn’t what we have now, and we won’t ever go there as a union.