IFL is a non-partisan pro-life group. However, if you’re looking for a single reason to vote against Democratic candidates, it would be their intractable opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Republicans crafted the legislation earlier this year. It is response to the admission by Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, that babies that survive an abortion could be left to die.
The bill does the following:
- Creates criminal penalties for doctors who withhold medical care to babies who survive an abortion attempt.
- Mandates that these survivors be transported from the abortion clinic to a real hospital for medical treatment.
- Mandates that these health-care practitioners report violations.
- Grants women cause for action against her abortionist.
- Protects mothers from prosecution.
Democrats assert that the law would “unnecessarily restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers,” which is nonsense.
The bill prevents discrimination
The language of the bill explicitly refutes the assertion, simply requiring doctors to …
“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.”
In other words, the bill doesn’t allow doctors to discriminate on the basis of whether the baby is wanted or unwanted.
Democrats have turned the bill into a partisan issue. House Republicans held a hearing on Tuesday this week with a panel of experts detailing the need for the law.
Among Iowan Representatives, only Steve King supports these common-sense protections.
In the Senate, 44 Democrats have blocked the bill from coming to a vote.
More dishonesty from politicians
A Democrat from California, Judy Chu, expressed her party’s position with the sort of dishonesty that so taints the public’s perception of politicians:
“This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It’s unnecessary, redundant, and part of a broader attack on women’s health and reproductive health from the chamber and the Trump administration.”
It is none of these as we explained in an earlier blogpost.
Among the Democrat’s presidential contenders, all oppose any regulation on human abortion, but one. Tulsi Gabbard slightly, very slightly, moderated her position to oppose third-trimester abortions. Nonetheless, she has not signed a discharge petition which would bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to a vote in the Senate.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is the absolute least we should be doing as a humane country to protect the most vulnerable among us. That the Democratic Party with near-unanimity opposes it is a singular reason for conscientious voters to vote against them.
[Don’t miss our upcoming fundraising banquet on October 3rd. Our pro-life outreach depends on it!]