NO GOP Senators voted against it and that 3 Dem senators(Casey, Jones, and Manchin) crossed the aisle and voted with Republicans
Democrats are simply EVIL…no other word for them any longer.
As is well known here I have supported the pro-choice position early in a pregnancy. I can’t support what the Democrats are doing now, which means they have driven me to the more conservative camp.
I can’t believe that the Democrat Party now supports murdering babies, but this vote seems to mean that they do. They going to lose a lot of support from moderate people like me.
If ever there was any doubt about it, this destroys the notion that it’s about “choice.” Every one of those clowns who voted no voted for anti-life. Every Dem voter needs to take a hard look at this. And with the young generation being more pro-life these days, they might; the Ds in Congress may have overplayed their hand again.
This vote shows how the Democrat Party operates now. Yes, three of them did not support infantacide, but other 45 or so did.
The Democrats now vote in a block just like the totalitian Communist Party. Once the leadership has decided the policy, the message is, “You vote our way or else.”
This is why I would tell people, when you vote for a Democrat for the House of Representatives, you are voting for Nancy Pelosi. It does not matter what they say in the campaign leading up to the election. Once they are in Washington, they are going to vote the party line. If they don’t, they get kicked off committees, don’t get money from the national party when they run for re-election and might very well “get primaried” as AOC puts it, to push “the enemies of the people” out who don’t vote with the “comrades.”
If Gosnell were practicing in New York, and he killed the newborns by cutting off their oxygen, he would have only been convicted of the manslaughter charge for killing one of the mothers; the murders he committed (of the newborns) wouldn’t even be considered homicides.
Yes, under the Democrat’s current policy, Gosnell would not be in jail.
I remember when the Gosnell story broke. The national news media made it a lead story decried what an awful thing it was. Now, I guess, they’d bury it at the end of a broadcast or ignore it. Maybe they would even have the nerve to say that Gosnell is getting persecuted because he’s African-American.
How times are changing.!
All this from SCOTUS trickery.
What SCOTUS did with Roe v. Wade was to decide on the civil right of the fetus rather than the natural right to life of the baby.
By encapsulating it within a civil right meant that they could ignore the right to life.
They essentially ignored that it was a human baby and made people think that there was no natural law in place (as described by the Declaration of Independence) they instead judged it constitutionally which only brought the civil aspects of the issue thereby ignoring the humanity of the baby.
Roe lines up with the Dred Scott decision which did the very same thing.
It ruled that since they do not recognize the humanity of the fetus, then it does not have to be afforded protection.
It was a sleight of hand.
It has been called a “penumbra” or a decision made in the shadow of the law.
Roe v. Wade is an evil law.
Does anyone have any statistics on the number of babies that have survived an abortion attempt?
Also, isn’t it already a crime to kill a baby (Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002)? You guys make it sound as if it’s not already against the law and that Dems are voting in favor of killing babies. That’s not what this bill says, nor does its failure to pass make it ok to kill a baby that has been born.
Now, if a baby is born alive, but will die within (I presume) minutes without lifesaving measures, that’s a little bit different then you guys are making it sound.
I mean, look at the photos in the OP. NO BABY BORN like those photos would be killed and I challenge anyone to find such a case. Moreover, no normal child (like the photo’s show) would not be aborted in any state I know of unless the mother’s life was at stake.
You guys and your hyperbolic representation of this story is ridiculous.
I don’t support abortion after a certain point (very early in pregnancy - and even then I support stipulations). I’ve made that clear, but I think you guys are misrepresenting what’s really happening here.
This bill arose in the face of the growing leftist push for post-birth abortion (which Obama supported as Senator). There are some things here that I’m not clear about, but this bill required no rocket science to see the common sense of it. But it does require a heart, and given the vote, that doesn’t say anything good about the Dems in the Senate by and large; makes a hash out of their claim to the moral high ground.
Sure, but just as Dems try to pass redundant laws with respect to gun control, the Repubs are doing the same with respect to abortion.
I don’t believe that Dems support the killing of healthy babies post-birth. I don’t believe that Dems support aborting unhealthy babies as a decision that’s made post birth. I believe that Dems support allowing a still-born with severe mental or physical impairment, in some cases to pass naturally.
As far as “post-birth abortion”. We agree that’s called murder and we already have laws for that.
In-so-far as a botched abortion where there are still signs of life, I think that’s is a more complicated issue then you and others here make it out to be. I think it’s pretty unlikely that any botched abortion would result in anything but a child that is severely maimed and would most likely suffer from a lifetime of problems. Not kids that are born that look like this:
I’d post pics of botched abortions, but frankly, it would be offensive, though the kind folks that protest the abortion clinic in Northern VA don’t mind it.
I agree that we shouldn’t allow abortions later in pregnancy unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
That leaves incest and rape which, frankly are more difficult issues, though 99% of those can be aborted early, there is still the unlikely possibility that a mother doesn’t realize she was raped until late in pregnancy (perhaps she was drugged?). As a man, I think that would be a difficult scenario, as a woman I would find that situation untenable and honestly, I’m not clear on what I support in that case.
If lack of heartbeat is taken as a sign that someone has died, why is the PRESENCE of a heartbeat not proof that someone IS alive and therefore entitled to legal protection?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart decision to uphold a law banning “partial-birth” abortions
1 I don’t believe that either this law or the Dems’ anti-gun laws are redundant. The former is to prevent something that I understand is already being done (and yet not prosecuted as murder), and the latter is to erode the right to keep and bear arms.
2 Some believe in post-birth abortion. As I noted, Obama did, and he’s not alone. And if this bill were merely redundant, why did the Dems in almost perfect lock-step vote against it?
3 And I understand that they’re not always deemed applicable in cases of an abortion survivor being left to die.
4 So does the maiming justify murder (by commission or omission)? Why does “a lifetime of problems” deprive the person of value? Who are we to make a judgement call to deny them life on the basis of quality thereof?
This isn’t directly related to what you’ve posted, but I do feel it does much to clarify some definitions, and that it relates indirectly. I forget his name, but there’s a guy who came up with a concise way of defining the only noteworthy differences between a child in the womb (or fallopian tube, before the fertilized egg makes it to the uterus; and the fertilized egg cell counts in this definition) and anyone who’s been born, using the acronym S.L.E.D.:
Level of development
Degree of dependence
Size Not too many people would claim that a big football player or Sumo wrestler has more intrinsic value than a toddler (and those who do I suspect have a deficiency of heart, sanity, or both), even though they’re clearly bigger. If that size difference isn’t just cause for killing the toddler, there’s no logical reason for it to be justification for killing the unborn.
Level of development Not too many people would claim that the sexually mature have more intrinsic value than that toddler. That fertilized egg is an entire complete person. It merely isn’t developed; the same cannot be said for some random blob of tissue. If developmental differences between the toddler and the sexually mature aren’t justification for killing the toddler, there’s no logical reason for it to justify killing the unborn.
Environment Not too many people would claim that where you are defines whether or not you’re a person. Why, then, in the womb or out of it (at any stage of pregnancy)?
Degree of dependence That toddler is obviously more dependent on others than an able-bodied able-minded working man. So is a quadraplegic. If degree of dependence isn’t justification for killing the toddler or the quadraplegic (some might argue it in the latter case; more on that in a moment), then it isn’t logical justification for killing the unborn (at any stage).
If you feel like doing a little research, look up a woman named Joni Eareckson Tada. She’s been a quadraplegic since age 17 (diving accident; she’s 69 now), and she passionately and eloquently fights the quality-of-life argument (for either abortion or suicide, doctor-assisted or otherwise) to the death (pun not intended).
As to the rape argument (I realize you didn’t commit to a position on it because it’s a sticky issue), I would submit that if killing the baby after birth isn’t justified in such a case (some on the hard left would; ghoulish), it isn’t justified before birth. Ditto the financial hardship issue.
One thing that is argued about rape cases is that the baby is a reminder of the rape. This is not a sound argument for abortion because forgetting about the rape is impossible; getting rid of the child is only treating a symptom. Obviously, being male, I have no experience with having children. But I do have experience with having been sexually abused, and I can tell you with authority that trying to sweep the experience under the rug and pretend it either didn’t happen or didn’t reall matter and just try to move on with one’s life without processing and grieving what happened doesn’t work. If a pregnant rape victim does process it adequately, I strongly suspect that the child’s presence won’t trouble her in this regard.
And that’s my unasked-for (at least some of it) two cents on the subject…
You are ignoring the testimony of numerous, perfectly healthy adults who WERE the result of botched abortions, CSB. They weren’t “maimed” in the slightest.
How many children are born as the result of a botched abortion? How many of these are born perfectly healthy?
I’m working on a reply to you. Sit tight.
It wouldn’t matter if there was only ONE such, CSB. The POINT remains the same. Your claim that every such child is maimed for life is bogus…and I believe that YOU know it. We’ve heard from at least 3 women who claim to have survived an attempted abortion and grew into nice-looking adults. They’ve testified to it on TV. If you choose not to believe them, that’s on YOU. Prove they were lying, if you can while you search left-wing, pro-abortion sites for your proof that they are wrong.
One I notice you didn’t provide any sources.
If a baby is born healthy, then that’s obviously not what I’m talking about and for once we agree on something. Harming a perfectly healthy baby should be against the law…Oh, wait. It’s already against the law.
CDC data proves babies still being born alive during abortions
Babies born live after abortion attempts continue to occur, according to documents reviewed by Live Action News.
Despite only a handful of states requiring these reports, Centers for Disease Control data reviewed by the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that, “[N]ationwide, between 2003 and 2014 at least 143 babies died after being born alive during botched abortions, though the CDC also states this could be an underestimation.”
Currently, there are 19 states which afford no protections to abortion survivors.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, infants are still born alive every year.
Between 2003 and 2014 alone, at least 143 babies died after being born alive during abortions. And according to a press release from Live Action News, “In 2018, 16 infants in Florida alone were born alive after surviving abortion attempts.”
Adult survivors of abortion have formed The Abortion Survivors Network.