Senate Democrats on Monday blocked an effort to pass legislation clarifying that babies who survive attempted abortions must receive medical care.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., rejected the motion to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, authored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and co-sponsored by other Republicans. Sasse had sought to pass the bill via unanimous consent, meaning that one senator could stop it by objecting.
“You’re either for babies or you’re defending infanticide,” Sasse said before the vote.
GOP senators were aiming to pressure Democrats to state whether they believe any limits should be placed on abortion after controversial comments appearing to indicate otherwise from Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam.
Northam and Virginia Del. Kathy Tran, both Democrats, appeared to indicate last week that they supported a state bill that would allow abortion at the time of birth. Tran later said she misspoke.
The bill had the backing of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who said during his opening remarks on the Senate floor Monday that the legislation was “the very definition of something that might receive unanimous consent.”
“What could be more unanimous than this? … It’s harrowing this legislation is even necessary,” McConnell said.
He added that he hoped Democrats “don’t invent any reasons to block this bill later today. I can assure them this won’t be the last time to assure newborns are offered this final legal protection.”
The bill would have built on the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which clarified that “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes. That law was intended to clarify that babies were supposed to receive protections if they survived an abortion, and Sasse’s bill further clarifies what level of care they are supposed to receive, including being immediately transferred to a hospital.
If that protocol isn’t followed, then the doctor performing the abortion would face criminal prosecution.
Democrats: “Hey, we’re not aborting them so they can LIVE. Duh!!”
I’m trying to figure out what the political advantage the Democrats are achieving by exposing themselves as the most despicable human beings possible, but there must be some because they do nothing without that end in mind.
@Deplorable Me: But the clinic would have to have actual medical equipment, not just crude unsanitary butchering devices.
I do beleive that Murray was one of those liberal democrats who supported the various Eco-Freaks over the ESA and threatened spiecies in the forests
It would have built upon an utterly moronic dictate, the adoption of which would impose a without exception rule that could, under certain circumstances, result in mandated efforts to preserve life that many people would find appallingly immoral.
Death is not always the enemy. It is not always the worst outcome. In some circumstances, efforts to prolong life serve only to prolong suffering.
Such circumstances sometimes do exist. A without exception mandate removes both medical opinion and moral deliberation from the equation. It would not even allow those who would have been the parents to have any say in the matter. That price is too high, just to salve the consciences of those who believe no one should have the right to make such a medical or moral decision.
I praise those who blocked this bill. The inflexible rule at the heart of it could result in as much evil as good. It would all depend upon the particular situation. Inflexible rules that totally preclude taking the particulars of the individual situation into account are the tools of dominating authoritarianism, not of true morality.
@Greg: In the face of new laws supported by Democrats providing legal cover for the murder of babies at all stages of pregnancy isn’t it a shame that that other laws to PROTECT LIFE have to be considered? But, that’s what barbarism brings.
First, we kill babies we don’t want. Then children that act up. Then the sick. Then the elderly. Then those in the political way. Liberals should NOT be given political power.
@Deplorable Me: I find it interesting the NY law covers for men that would beat a woman so severely she loses her child, he faces no consequences related to the death of the unborn infant. This is just an unveiled unpersoning of a human life. Much like the Nazis did to the Jews likening them to rats and other unwanted vermin, much like the communists. Vaporization murdered and erased from society, the present, the universe , and existence.
Yet they came up with no exceptions to or ammendments cause they want no exceptions none, kill the kid, be done, even if it has no imperfections… vaporization.
That covers the socialists and communists…Whos for life liberty and the persuit of happiness?
@kitt:
Much like Democrats did with blacks. Still do, whenever they can.
Ruthie couldn’t muster up the strength to attend the SOTU. I felt for certain she would so she could bask in the inevitable standing ovation she would get for being there (where was Sotomayor?). She’s not long for the Bench. If Trump selects a woman, the Kavanaugh strategy is useless, though the MeToo liberals are not above savaging a woman for political reasons, but another far less than liberal Judge will be impaneled. Blood thirsty, baby-hating liberals are digging their own abortion-graves by going uber-extreme in their right to avoid responsibility no matter who it kills agenda.
@kitt, #6:
Legislation that’s built on a foundation that as seriously flawed as this one was should simply be nuked. The underlying premise wouldn’t leave enough room for medical or moral deliberation. Ultimately, it might not leave any at all. No way is the right going to be given that as a tool.
I saw Trump setting up the socialism scare he hopes to ride to a 2020 reelection last night. His base has been conditioned to strongly respond to this particular dog whistle, and I expect him to blow it at every opportunity between now and then—particularly when distraction becomes necessary.
Given that the House has announced their intention to have a look into his business dealings and possible conflicts of interest, I suspect we’ll be hearing that whistle a lot.
@Greg:
Did you notice all the Democrats expressing their displeasure with the opposition to socialism? They looked really, really disappointed. They have really been looking forward to watching Americans feast on garbage buffets along city streets.
@Deplorable Me, #9:
Socialism, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutritional support programs, and publicly funded education?
I believe it’s Mr. I-gave-myself-a-permanent-multi-million-dollar-tax-cut-but-my-trillion-dollar-deficits-are-all-the-fault-of-democrats that they were expressing their displeasure with.
@Greg: No, socialism such as Obamacare, government mandated euthanasia, civilian disarmament, wage controls, price controls, rent controls and ultimate ruination.
@Deplorable Me: Every socialism program he named was signed into law by a democrat, none show long term solvency. Public education gee we pay nothing for that? I am looking at my property tax bill and saying gee a huge chunk of this is going toward school earmarked just for that. Eveything socialists touch is failing badly.
Education, health, retirement, even law enforcement.
What it does is grow government that eats up the money meant for these programs, as they complicate them with red tape, so they need to hire even more people to process the garbage.
@kitt: And every time one of their programs fail, it just creates more bureaucracy to try and make them viable. Then more, then more.