Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2019

Democrats Say No To Providing Medical Care To Infants Who Survive Abortions

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:30 am



[guest post by Dana]

This is the heart and soul of the Democrat party laid bare for all to see in the full shame of their extremism: A piece of legislation that does not touch abortion rights but mandates that a baby who survives an abortion is to receive the same level of medical care from a doctor as any other baby born alive is rejected by Democrats, with the exception of a mere three individuals courageous enough to cross the aisle and vote for a simple act of mercy toward the most vulnerable among us.

The Senate vote on Ben Sasse’s Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act took place yesterday. The legislation, which would have augmented existing law by mandating that abortionists send born-alive babies to hospitals for care, fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance. The final vote was 53-44. Democrats Joe Manchin, Bob Casey and Doug Jones voted with Republicans in support of the legislation. The three Republicans missing the vote were Tim Scott and Kevin Cramer (both due to delayed flights), and Lisa Murkowski.

Had the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act passed, it would have ensured that a baby who survived an abortion would be entitled to “the same degree” of care that a baby born alive would be given, as well requiring babies born alive to be immediately sent to hospitals for care:

“(1) DEGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL.—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—

“(A) 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; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

Failure to enact these protections by medical professionals would have rendered serious consequences:

Doctors who violate those requirements and other medical staffers who don’t report violations could face fines and up to five years in prison. Doctors who intentionally kill a child born alive after an abortion would face prosecution under federal murder statutes — potentially a death penalty or life in prison.

Sasse stressed that the bill was not an attempt to restrict a woman’s access to abortion, but it instead focused solely on the care and well being of a baby who survives an abortion:

I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air. That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.

Sasse also refuted the Chuck Schumer’s dishonest claims “that the born-alive bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers,” [and] claimed the bill “would impose requirements on what type of care doctors must provide in certain circumstances, even if that care is ineffective, contradictory to medical evidence, and against the family’s wishes.”

Repeating their own words back to them Sasse appealed to the leading Democratic candidates to support the legislation. Unfortunately, their lofty words proved empty when moral courage was needed:

Cory Booker: We ought to build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind.

Kamala Harris: I knew that the people in our society who are most often targeted by predators are also most often the voiceless and vulnerable.

Elizabeth Warren: No matter where you live in America …no matter where you live in America, you deserve a path to opportunity…

Kirsten Gillibrand: I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom, I am going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own.

It couldn’t have been easier: Do you believe that an infant who has survived an abortion should receive medical treatment and be cared for by a doctor just like any other baby that is born alive? The legislation did nothing to curtail or inhibit abortion rights, in spite of Democrats’ dishonest claims otherwise. It simply asked that these tiny little lives be afforded some humanity in the aftermath of a barbaric act.

As Joni Ernst made very clear:

My colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that’s not in front of us. They are talking about health care for women, which is abortion. This bill does not address abortion. . . . What this bill does is address the health care of a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion. We’re not talking about abortion, folks. We’re talking about the life of a child that is born.

Of course Planned Parenthood Director Leana Wen threw in her two cents:

Untitled

Her claims are amusing in light of a report Sen. Tom Cotton points to, which shows at that in Florida alone, at least 11 babies were born alive during abortions in 2017.

It’s so telling that Democrats are more than willing to loudly voice their love and concern for children when it helps advance the party’s agenda, but if the existence of little ones presents an obstacle to their goals, then they are more than happy to literally, and figuratively, abandon them in their time of need. So expendable are these little souls…

–Dana

117 Responses to “Democrats Say No To Providing Medical Care To Infants Who Survive Abortions”

  1. So vile.

    Dana (023079)

  2. Truly vile…there is no other way to describe it. Soulless ghouls who have lost all sense of values. It does not get any lower than this… at least, that is my hope.

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  3. So Democrats are not evil, eh?

    nk (dbc370)

  4. Moloch applauded (leviticus 20) if memory serves.

    Narciso (e39588)

  5. repulsive

    mg (8cbc69)

  6. But, I thought they were running on Medicare for ALL????

    jb (3e90c0)

  7. The is the heart and soul of the Democrat party laid bare for all to see in the full shame of their extremism

    No, I think you are showing your partisanship and/or ignorance.

    Let’s back up a step. I don’t think that I’ve ever revealed this here before since it’s so horrible, but I will now. When I was in college, I studied philosophy and this professor who specialized in ancient philosophy had a terrifying story. He said the Turks used to torture their captives by removing almost all their skin and letting them die that way. But that’s not the kicker, here is the point of the story: they found a drug to make their victims live longer after they’d been tortured that way. So they used that too. Now, do you think they were doing any of these captives any favors? Hey, they lived longer.

    Life isn’t solely about living.

    I believe that the reason that this abortion issue has been discussed is that there are children who are born with severe birth defects and making them live longer is really just torture.

    Now, if you think that it’s OK make a child suffer for a few more days just because it’s your religion, I can respect that to an extent. But I totally disagree with it. If the child is only going to suffer and die in a short time, I would have to disagree with that.

    I can’t believe that I’m actually having to explain this, but no Democrats are not salivating at killing babies.

    Here, learn something: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/abortion-late-in-pregnancy-eprise/index.html

    Now, all that being said, I’m sure if there was some legislation crafted carefully enough so that we’re not going around torturing these poor little souls and extensive exceptions are made (e.g., their condition is not imminently fatal, they will not just suffer all their lives, they are not brain dead, etc.), then by all means, go for it. Otherwise, stop demonizing Democrats like this. It’s dishonest.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  8. Oh, my, Mr. Tillman.

    Dana, that is a shocking and not surprising essay. Not because Democrats are evil. But because partisans (like Mr. Tillman, based on his posts) are deathly afraid of a slippery slope. Even the slightest admission of a point from the other side would (in their opinion) lead to a catastrophic change.

    I see folks on the Right do this with elements of gun control. It’s a problem for partisans of all stripes.

    For good or for ill, abortion has become a hallmark of the Democrat party. They couch it in terms of health of the mother, medical rights, and so forth. But anyone who has looked into the mess has seen there are not good answers to this question.

    But we should all agree that, if a baby is born alive, we should try to save it. Right? You can be pro-abortion (I dislike the term “pro choice,” because it is designed to stir people up, like “pro life”) and in favor of saving the life of a baby born alive.

    And the birth defect business is merely a rhetorical flourish, speaking of philosophy. We have a justice system that essentially claims it is better to let a few guilty people go than imprison the innocent. In a similar way, we should all agree that a baby born alive is a human being. That’s independent of any other political position.

    Except to the DNC, apparently.

    Notice that partisans can’t say that a baby born alive is a human being. Even partisans who make creepy jokes about abortion, who are thankfully not present.

    Simon Jester (4357eb)

  9. Simon Jester (4357eb) — 2/26/2019 @ 11:43 am

    Birth defects are not “a rhetorical flourish,” they’re real.

    I watched my mother die of COPD. It was a horrible thing to go through. She basically starved to death. We torture people, or at least let them be tortured, because we’re so afraid of euthanasia. I don’t think that her living those last few weeks did anyone any favor – especially her.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  10. Simon Jester (4357eb) — 2/26/2019 @ 11:43 am

    By they way, I have never heard anyone make jokes about abortion. It probably happens as often as making jokes about mass killings.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  11. In 2015, there were 638,169 “legally induced” abortions performed in the USA. Per the CNN link, slightly over 1% occur after 21 weeks.

    That would amount to 6,381 abortions performed after 21 weeks.

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  12. at 1%… but slightly over 1% would only be a few hundred more innocent lives snuffed out.

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  13. So Tillman was right, in a sense. That was worth learning.

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  14. So just a little evil… nothing to see here…

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  15. Torture is deliberate infliction of pain, euthanasia is state policy in europe, and its inconsistent with hippocrates

    Narciso (0074d4)

  16. Kermit Gosnell is serving three life sentences for killing three babies born alive when the partial birth abortion became full birth. That’s what these baby-killers are worried about. Not the mother. Not the baby. Their own Lambo-driving asses. Roe v. Wade is, and has always been, about the abortionists.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. If someone murders children or old people it is some damnation.
    If that is subcontracted then that is economics.

    I guess politics is the art of rational abstraction. Blood on every one. We are damned.

    neal (2f8c72)

  18. “Life isn’t solely about living.”

    Perhaps not, but it’s kind of hard without it.

    “…there are children who are born with severe birth defects and making them live longer is really just torture.”

    So, we’ll sentence all of them to death. This actually makes sense to a certain type of person.

    Darren M. (a4eb00)

  19. So, we’ll sentence all of them to death.

    No, you have to draw a line somewhere. But it’s a difficult moral issue. Conservatives want to work with absolutes, but there are many exceptions. Haw much is the baby suffering? It is hard to measure that quantitatively. We should probably err on the side of letting them live.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  20. I believe that the reason that this abortion issue has been discussed is that there are children who are born with severe birth defects and making them live longer is really just torture.

    Delegate Tran’s bill in Virginia — you know, the one that led us to discover that the entire executive leadership of the state are either aficionados of minstrelsy or are (allegedly) sexually aggressive with women — provided that a woman could have an abortion at any time up until the baby exited the birth canal for any claim she and one other doctor (the threshold being lowered by this legislation from three doctors to one) could concoct regarding physical or mental health, and that if the baby was somehow delivered live during the abortion attempt that the mother and doctors could choose to deny it care and allow it to die. The number of babies with birth defects that are suddenly discovered in the final trimester of the baby’s gestation appears to be low, and it is mostly in women who already have failed to receive screening earlier in their pregnancy or have been experiencing problematic pregnancies from the onset. So I think the idea that most of these late-term abortions are done when the baby has no chance of survival isn’t necessarily supported by the record.

    So what I am getting at when abortion advocates say that this is just an issue that the GOP has made up out of thin air (I was on Twitter last night debating someone who was promoting that talking point), they are willfully ignoring the fact that the abortions laws as proposed in NY, VA, and other states really do serve to make late-term abortions easier to obtain and they lower the threshold for why they should be allowed. As I learned from my Twitter exchange last night, there’s no sense debating that with someone who continues to insist that these abortions are only performed on women who would otherwise die or whose children have zero chance of survival anyway.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  21. conservative pro life republicans have politicized the abortion issue for political gain and now you want to tell the other side not to return favor and politicize back at you? good look with that! the democrat party is more interested in post natal abortions for conservatives. alexandria ocasio-cortez is the future not conservatism. brain check for conservatives. in 2020 6 million democrats who voted in 2012 but didn’t vote in 2016 because corporate establishment clinton was not progressive enough will do the right thing as spike lee says and vote in 2020 as will the million plus jill stein voters. also 3 million new democrats will have turned 18 by nov. 2020 they will also do the right thing. 2 million republicans will have died who voted in 2016 and won’t be able to do the wrong thing. in 2020 the democrats will be giving the republican party a post natal abortion!

    lany (d7545d)

  22. “No, you have to draw a line somewhere.”

    So… drawn just this side of evil? How ‘bout we ALL put evil in the rear view mirror instead?

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  23. If AOC doesn’t kill New York, Abortion will.

    mg (fef20a)

  24. “these abortions experiments are only performed on women Jews who would otherwise die or whose children have zero chance of survival anyway.”

    —- Josef Mengele

    Colonel Haiku (ac91f9)

  25. So, you care about children?

    HHS docs show thousands of alleged incidents of sexual abuse against unaccompanied minors in custody

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  26. So, you care about children?

    HHS docs show thousands of alleged incidents of sexual abuse against unaccompanied minors in custody

    Tillman (61f3c8) — 2/26/2019 @ 12:58 pm

    So…what are you saying? They should be aborted too to avoid those sexual encounters?

    whembly (51f28e)

  27. pot calling the kettle black! if you don’t support unfettered welfare you are encouraging abortion as many girls/woman abort so they don’t have to put up with welfare rules put in by pro life conservatives.

    lany (d7545d)

  28. whembly, no I’m saying that if you care about children, you should care about this too. This may not apply to all republicans of course, you may not care since most of these children are not white.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  29. I think of all the reasons we have Trump, the Dems inability to be sane on the issue of abortion — their celebration and embrace of abortion — is the main one. Also the main reason people are leaving the Dem party in droves. FWIW, there is this group, whom I admire, sticking it out, trying to make a difference. They have a hard row to hoe. https://www.democratsforlife.org/

    JRH (fe281f)

  30. whembly, no I’m saying that if you care about children, you should care about this too. This may not apply to all republicans of course, you may not care since most of these children are not white.

    Tillman (61f3c8) — 2/26/2019 @ 1:12 pm

    Of course I care children… those unaccompanied minors held by HHS is a widely different situation than a botched abortion.

    In a botched abortion, the babies should be given care and sent to the hospital…its sad that we’re having to debate this particular fact.

    whembly (51f28e)

  31. So, you care about children?

    So let’s see, Tillman: According to Huffington Post, 4 out of 5 women and girls attempting to illegally cross our borders are raped, and now you are pointing out that when they are taken into custody by at the border that thousands are raped again, some apparently by ICE officials. As to the ones in custody who are being raped but not by ICE agents, isn’t that an argument in favor of temporarily separating the children from the adults, you know, like the much-derided Trump and Obama policy? And isn’t it also an argument in favor of the fact that we really should be working to prevent these dangerous border crossings?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  32. This may not apply to all republicans of course, you may not care since most of these children are not white.

    Cut out the insinuations of racism right now, Tillman, or else you’ll find yourself in moderation for a while. Your contributions to the discussion aren’t valuable enough for us to tolerate this sort of garbage from you.

    It’s also the height of hypocrisy for people who support untrammeled abortion to suddenly accuse anyone else of not caring about minority children. It ain’t white or Asian children that are being aborted well out of proportion to their share of the population.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  33. Wasn’t it R.R. that said “All the people for abortion have been born”?

    mg (8cbc69)

  34. Cut out the insinuations of racism

    But it’s perfectly fine for Dana to hysterically claim that Democrats are ravenous, blood-thirsty child murderers? Got it.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  35. Tillman, @36: arguing with the moderators is seldom an effective technique.

    aphrael (33dc58)

  36. nk (dbc370) — 2/26/2019 @ 10:51 am

    No, not all Dems, but as a party? Oh Hel yeah!

    felipe (023cc9)

  37. But it’s perfectly fine for Dana to hysterically claim that Democrats are ravenous, blood-thirsty child murderers? Got it.

    Find me the part where Dana accuses them of being “ravenous, blood-thirsty child murders,” or else withdraw your claim. Here is the language that Dana used in her post (not that I should have to be reiterating it to you, but this is apparently what it has come to):

    This is the heart and soul of the Democrat party laid bare for all to see in the full shame of their extremism [. . .]

    [The legislation] simply asked that these tiny little lives be afforded some humanity in the aftermath of a barbaric act.

    [The Democrats who voted against the bill] are more than happy to literally, and figuratively, abandon them in their time of need.

    So Dana’s characterization of Democrats in her post was of being extremist and of abandoning the weakest among us, and she characterized late term abortions as a barbaric act. And somehow you extrapolate that to her calling them (and by extension, you) “ravenous, blood-thirsty child murders.” Just stop it, Tillman. If you can’t argue in good faith, go somewhere else.

    With respect to racism, if you want to write “the GOP has a bad recent history of racist acts and attitudes,” then that wouldn’t be a new or novel claim, and though we mostly disagree (at least to the extent that the GOP is any more guilty of racism than the Democrats are), I wouldn’t find that assertion to be out of bounds. But you directly accused a commenter here, whembly, of holding racist attitudes, with zero proof other than a ridiculous association your side makes between being against untrammeled immigration and being against brown people. What you did was just childish name-calling, and that’s not going to be allowed.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  38. JVW, here I was, all glad I didn’t have to read a commenter making jokes about “wiggly giggles” referring to abortions…and then we had someone else go postal when disagreeing. This is our new reality.

    That slippery slope business is a cautionary thing for everyone.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  39. And I am happy to read what Dana writes when I agree with her. And also when I disagree with her. That is real value to a place like this.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  40. crimethink is not allowed, jww:

    https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/02/youtube-terminates-don-shipleys-channel-that-exposed-nathan-phillips-stolen-valor/77685/

    now this peculiar institution, has echoed through now 2 generations, probably impact of 180 million potentially, it has affected the labour pool, which then requires an endless stream of illegal labour, and has devalued life in general

    narciso (d1f714)

  41. By the way, nk, it is so interesting to me that no one wants to discuss the Gosnell case in our society. You would think, based on his barbarism (and it was barbaric) that everyone on the Left would be all over that case as a “rare exception.” Instead, they won’t talk about it.

    Slippery slope, I guess.

    Kermit Gosnell was truly a monster. I cannot explain what he did. I doubt anyone can. We should all agree on that one, pro or anti abortion.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  42. 36. If the shoe fits, Moloch worshippers…

    Gryph (08c844)

  43. Wow, narciso, that’s wild news regarding Shipley. It may not be only because of Nathan Phillips though. I was watching one of this new videos recently, and he was discussing the case of a SEAL who had been under his command and whom they had drummed out of the team for incompetence. Shipley claimed (naturally with corroboration) that later this guy had caused the death of a trainee in his new unit. It may have been that video that raised YouTube’s alarm, as Shipley made some pretty strong allegations (as he is wont to do) against the character of his former charge. While watching the video, I was left with the feeling that Shipley was walking a pretty narrow line. That guy might have lawyered up and threatened YouTube with a lawsuit.

    But no doubt they didn’t like him discussing Phillips’s service record either.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  44. Tip for Democrats: If you don’t want to be called child murderers, don’t advocate for the murder of children. It’s really that simple.

    Gryph (08c844)

  45. 44. I can explain Gosnell. He was an abortionist. He is/was what abortion looks like. He is what Democrats continue to defend. What I can’t explain is why so many others defend the institution he represents. But there’s nothing unusual about Kermit Gosnell among abortionists. He just happened to get caught.

    Gryph (08c844)

  46. well considering they have hung major goldsteyn and sen. chief Gallagher out to dry, I tend to think the latter motive is involved,

    re Gosnell, the director of the film, McAleer notes how it was a trained abortionist’s testimony, (related by Janine turner) that swung his conviction, it’s odd how the pro choice brigade, like tom ridge, was so totally numb to his depredations,

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. record low turnout in the windy city primary, is it disgust, apathy, your guess is as good as mine,

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. 49. That’s kind of what I mean. Kermit Gosnell was not some kind of unusual outlier. His trial was nothing more or less than a peek behind the curtain of the modern abortion industry. You can’t really defend abortion without being okay with what Gosnell did.

    Gryph (08c844)

  49. Don’t forget this recent nugget too JVW:
    Dana: Democrats calling for his resignation as a result of his shameful support of infanticide

    So us Democrats ALL support infanticide. How sweet.

    No, my accusation about what Dana is saying was not to be taken verbatum, but that is the gist of what’s she’s saying. Maybe it’s red meat for your readers, but I think it’s going too far.

    As for whembly, he fired the first personal shot with his “So…what are you saying? They should be aborted too to avoid those sexual encounters?” senseless wisecrack.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  50. 52. If you don’t support infanticide and you’re a Democrat, feel free to speak out. Speaking for only myself, I won’t tar everyone with such a broad brush simply because they belong to an execrable political party.

    I personally find it very suspicious that you engage in ad hominem attacks against Dana while at the same time backpedaling with “…my accusation about what Dana is saying was not to be taken verbatum [sic]…”

    All you have to do is simply say “I don’t advocate killing babies.” After today, there should be no doubt that the vast majority of the Democrats serving in the Senate do — unless they have some kind of warped, weird ulterior motive for their votes. Gotta keep that sweet sweet Planned Parenthood campaign cash flowing, amiright?

    Gryph (08c844)

  51. 50- narciso
    its fixed and the majority knows it.

    mg (8cbc69)

  52. Without the rest, Gryph, it ought to be easy for everyone to say: after being born, a baby is a human being, and should be treated as such.

    But it seems difficult for some people, because of that slippery slope problem.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  53. 55. Right?! One would think…

    Gryph (08c844)

  54. So, take this to state legislatures, defining it as manslaughter, and require state medical associations to have this as part of their ethical code. Allow suits against any clinic, “practitioner” or employee of such that does not make every effort to secure treatment for such an infant.

    Also, require monthly reports from clinics on all abortions, listing claimed age of fetus, apparent age of fetus, viability after abortion, viability absent trauma, reason given for abortion, if any.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  55. That slippery slope problem.

    We have so many slippery slopes today. It’s getting out of hand.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  56. it ought to be easy for everyone to say: after being born, a baby is a human being, and should be treated as such.

    I agree with that in principal. The only reason for hesitation on that is if they’re brain dead or suffering and will die in a couple of days (or weeks?) anyway.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  57. Don’t forget this recent nugget too JVW:
    Dana: Democrats calling for his resignation as a result of his shameful support of infanticide

    So us Democrats ALL support infanticide. How sweet.

    You’re reading that incorrectly and that’s not Dana’s problem, nor mine, no anyone’s other than you own. I’m not even going to bother explaining how you are misreading it because I doubt that you are or that it would make any impression upon you.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  58. 57. State legislatures were overturned by Roe v Wade. It’s been tried at the state level, and now that is moot. And anything states attempt to do by way of monthly reports, surgical center standards, etc. will get shot down as it always does. Democrats are deadly-serious (pun intended) about the absolutely sacrosanct nature of baby killing, to the point where not even infanticide can be ruled out.

    Gryph (08c844)

  59. What is the job title of this? I could list a few I think would fit, but would like to know for reals.
    Thanks.

    mg (8cbc69)

  60. 59. If they will die, then let them die naturally. That is no reason, morally medically or otherwise, to justify killing a baby — particularly one born alive after a botched abortion.

    Gryph (08c844)

  61. Is it a double homicide when a pregnant women is murdered?

    mg (8cbc69)

  62. 64. It is in 38 states — provided the woman is thought to have wanted the child in the first place. The existence of such laws is pretty bone-chilling to me in light of how absolute so many pro-choicers are in their desire to keep baby killing legal.

    Gryph (08c844)

  63. Thanks, Gryph

    mg (8cbc69)

  64. I agree with that in principal. The only reason for hesitation on that is if they’re brain dead or suffering and will die in a couple of days (or weeks?) anyway.

    Yes. This happens in traffic accidents, too. But at least in my state the EMTs don’t leave them on the pavement ’cause they’re goners.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  65. Gryph–

    It’s like Heisenberg’s Baby: it’s only human if you ask mom and she says yes. Until she says yes or no, it’s both a baby AND a fetus.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  66. A couple in hospital for a birth are confronted w/a decision: the wife is having difficulties; doctors tell the husband: there’s a chance you’d lose the wife to save the child; or a chance to save the wife but lose the infant. What does he decide?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  67. 57. State legislatures were overturned by Roe v Wade. It’s been tried at the state level, and now that is moot.

    Not so. State regulation was explicitly allowed by Roe.

    Sure, every time there is a regulation someone in that state sues, and many (but not all) such laws are struck down. There’s a case coming up where the court broke 5-4 to continue a stay (since the stay was based on a prior decision) but there is no indication that the new case will not overturn that prior decision (and some reason to believe it will).

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  68. A couple in hospital for a birth are confronted w/a decision: the wife is having difficulties; doctors tell the husband: there’s a chance you’d lose the wife to save the child; or a chance to save the wife but lose the infant. What does he decide?

    Um, Caesarian? Abortion is not “a chance to save the wife but lose the infant” as the chance to lose the infant is 1. Except for situations mostly caused by severe incompetence or willfulness by all parties, Caesarian seems as good a method of removing a full-term fetus as any other.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  69. there’s a chance you’d lose the wife to save the child; or a chance to save the wife but lose the infant. What does he decide?

    That really ought to have been determined by the couple well in advance, so that the husband would have no questions regarding what his wife’s wishes were. One would in fact like to think that a married couple would know this without having to have had a formal discussion, based upon their shared values and beliefs.

    One of the most moving stories that I have been acquainted with in recent years is the story of Chiara Corbella Petrillo, an Italian woman faced with that very decision. Not everyone is going to make the same decision that she made, and I understand and respect that, but her short life bore witness to a deep faith that I find inspirational. I hope her candidacy for sainthood advances, and I hope I live to see her canonized.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  70. @71. Um, you were presented the parameters- not asked to modify them. What do you decide?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  71. @72. Nobody was asked to modify the parameters. Only to offer a decision if they choose to.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. “It’s like Heisenberg’s Baby”… man… you really did move to New Mexico…

    https://youtu.be/TkA7xQb6uPk

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  73. “YouTube last week deplatformed a YouTube channel that specialized in exposing Stolen Valor cases. “Stolen Valor,” of course, refers to cases where dishonorable pretenders are caught making fraudulent claims of military honors they didn’t earn. Retired Navy Seal Don Shipley has made it his life’s mission to expose these shameless charlatans. His channel had 232,806 subscribers at the time it was taken down and had been in operation since around 2008.

    He told PJ Media that he thinks his channel was taken down because he had “outed Nathan Phillips,” who had “masqueraded as a Vietnam Vet.””

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/youtube-deplatforms-retired-navy-seal-who-exposed-tribal-elder-nathan-phillips-stolen-valor/

    harkin (499331)

  74. This is a beautiful video: a woman’s survival of an abortion, which resulted in defects and paralysis, is leading a full life with a devoted and loving husband, yet even more inspiring is the forgiveness and love she extends to her mother for her attempts to end her life. They are, as her mother says, “best friends”.

    Dana (023079)

  75. Thank you for a great post, Dana.

    mg (8cbc69)

  76. “Safe and Rare” ended up being a big ruse.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. The totalitarian Left spends a lot of time – decades in some cases – weakening safeguards and undermining rights.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  78. Total conformity, First and Second Amendments be damned.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. I hate to be a contarian, BUT, why is this the business of the federal government? I agree that what we are talking about is homicide, indeed murder. But there is no general police power in the federal government. Murder and other forms of homicide have long been matters for the states (with a few exceptions, like military bases and other special federal areas.) So I would vote against this bill, although for completely different reasons than the Dems. (If this was a bill in a state Legislature, then I am all for it.)

    Bored Lawyer (423ce8)

  80. Chicago Mayoral Update (70% in): you may need to remind the next mayor that scissors are for cutting ribbons.

    urbanleftbehind (d333d8)

  81. Lightfoot (Gordon’s sister?) Preckwinkle (geh) and Daley are in the lead, did they learning anything. You meant nooses

    Narciso (2ca4a3)

  82. Democrats want to give you right to lifers a post natal abortion! They don’t care if you call them a child murderer they think you have the morality of a cockroach who needs to be stepped on! AOC is the future not you.

    lany (41c89f)

  83. Lightfoot’s an “L” hence the reference.

    urbanleftbehind (d333d8)

  84. “On a more serious note, to put it mildly, [abortion] is why Hitler was actually elected, and he was elected and he campaigned against abortion. I mean, that was – he padlocked the family planning clinics. Okay, so that is still relevant in the terms of the right wing.”

    —- Gloria Steinem

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  85. 82. While I agree with you in principle, I’d also go as far as to point out that the BATF, FBI, and numerous other federal agencies that exercise varying degrees of police power, also have no constitutional authority. Are you for dismantling them? In principle, at least?

    Gryph (08c844)

  86. The world needs Gloria Steinem the way a fish needs a bicycle.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. Um yeah, you’d never guess she was a playboy bunny, and a company sponsored student activist. Right the depression had nothing to do with it,

    Narciso (2ca4a3)

  88. What about councilman Moreno,

    Narciso (2ca4a3)

  89. Proco Joe? he’s a hipster version of Ruben Gallego from AZ.

    urbanleftbehind (d333d8)

  90. Ah 31,000 mail in ballots what could go wrong.

    Narciso (2ca4a3)

  91. Bored Lawyer (423ce8) — 2/26/2019 @ 6:03 pm

    Absolutely correct. Kevin mentioned slippery slopes. Here we have another one. Abandoning babies and murder is a crime under the laws of every state. So why is there a need for a federal law? The desire of the GOP to rally culture warriors to its side does not count as a need for a federal law.

    , I’d also go as far as to point out that the BATF, FBI, and numerous other federal agencies that exercise varying degrees of police power, also have no constitutional authority. Are you for dismantling them? In principle, at least?

    There are some matters about which Congress can legitimately pass federal laws criminalizing behavior (counterfeiting US currency, espionage, committing a fraud that victimizes the US Treasury for example) even under the most originalist textualist doctrine, and therefore some of those agencies have legitimate police power.

    Kishnevi (10c258)

  92. Ah 31,000 mail in ballots what could go wrong.

    And in Chicago, too…

    But another reminder that Voter ID laws do next to nothing to combat actual election fraud.

    Kishnevi (10c258)

  93. As my high school English exams used to say, Contrast and Compare

    https://www.foxnews.com/world/fat-rat-stuck-in-sewer-saved-after-nine-person-rescue-effort-in-germany

    Kishnevi (10c258)

  94. FWIW

    Abortion in Germany is illegal according to §218, and is punished with up to three years in prison or a punitive fine [1]. However, it is de facto permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling, and is also permitted later in pregnancy in cases of medical necessity. In both cases, a waiting period of three days is required. The counseling, called Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung (“pregnancy-conflict counseling”), must take place at a state-approved centre, which afterwards gives the applicant a Beratungsschein (“certificate of counseling”).

    As of 2010, the abortion rate was 6.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years.[2]

    nk (dbc370)

  95. So we’re much screwed up than Germany in this regard.

    Narciso (2ca4a3)

  96. Germany made a determined effort to not repeat its past mistakes.

    Of course avoiding past mistakes is not the same as avoiding new mistakes.

    Kishnevi (10c258)

  97. “But another reminder that Voter ID laws do next to nothing to combat actual election fraud.”

    I would never point to Chicago as proof of much of anything.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  98. There is some truth in Steinem’s tale. I don’t know about Hitler, but Himmler disapproved of the abortion of Aryan babies, repeat Aryan babies, and established homes for unwed pregnant women of Aryan blood who had become pregnant by Aryan men, where they could deliver and raise their Aryan children. After the war, these “SS babies” were scapegoated and persecuted in Adenauer’s revisionist Germany.

    nk (dbc370)

  99. nk, if you think you’re the superior race, you need plenty of new members of your race to have soldiers for your wars. (Nietzsche’s “overman,” but he didn’t use race that way).

    But of course I wouldn’t look to Germany for moral guidance anyway. That’s the about the last place I’d look considering their recent history.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  100. I have also read that Hitlerjungen and Hitlermadchen were encouraged to commingle in various joint activities, and I imagine that a lot of those pregnancies were what happens when healthy, handsome teenage boy meets healthy, pretty teenage girl.

    nk (dbc370)

  101. 103

    I have read that too. Since sex is the “little death” I am sure most of those young men were happy to die for their country…

    Kishnevi (a77570)

  102. For what it’s worth, this could be a factor too as far as I know:

    “This is not a new law,” Hostin said… “It’s already required to provide medical care to infants born alive. This bill also required that all babies born alive be immediately transferred to a hospital which, my understanding is, it’s not always safe for a newborn. And passing this bill would impose legal and criminal penalties on doctors who won’t comply with that.”

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  103. 105. For all you know…and just how much is that? It will never cease to amaze me just how far baby killers are willing to go in justifying themselves.

    Gryph (08c844)

  104. 105. Note that Tillman is quoting Sunny Hostin, a legal analyst and self-proclaimed “progressive” employed by ABC News. Res ipsa loquitur.

    Gryph (08c844)

  105. Gryph, I’m just trying to be honest. This issue is so politicized that it’s very difficult to get to the truth. But you shouldn’t attack me personally for acknowledging that.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  106. What red-blooded American man wouldn’t quote a The View hostess!?!?

    I spewed a half cup of excellent coffee over that. Thanks a bunch!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  107. Another personal attack at @109. He just can’t help himself.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  108. No, I think you are showing your partisanship and/or ignorance.

    ….

    Otherwise, stop demonizing Democrats like this. It’s dishonest.

    Tillman, I’ll give you two weeks in moderation to think about why calling Dana ignorant and dishonest was a bad move. I’m more than happy to make it forever if you can’t figure it out by then.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  109. Great post, Dana.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  110. 108. No, I don’t think you’re being honest. If you were, you’d tell me whether you really think killing babies should be legal or not. I could guess at how you feel on that matter based on your responses so far, but I won’t feed the troll.

    Gryph (08c844)

  111. Another personal attack at @109. He just can’t help himself.

    All the whining about personal attacks is rich coming from a guy who called one of the guest bloggers ignorant and dishonest.

    It is time for some introspection. Or not. Your choice.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  112. 108. No, I don’t think you’re being honest. If you were, you’d tell me whether you really think killing babies should be legal or not. I could guess at how you feel on that matter based on your responses so far, but I won’t feed the troll.

    That is an attack, but he asked for it, which is why I do not permit personal attacks — they lead to a spiral downward. Let’s stop addressing Tillman.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  113. Protip for commenting at Patterico’s place:

    Patterico gets to decide what a “personal attack” is. Complaining won’t do you a shred of good if you disagree with his definition.

    Gryph (08c844)

  114. I apologize, Pat. I was so engrossed in typing out my response that I didn’t see you put Tillman in moderation. This is one topic that never fails to hit a hot button with me.

    Gryph (08c844)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1322 secs.