Extremist Party: House Democrats Block Vote On Bill To End Infanticide 25 TIMES

#1
https://www.dailywire.com/news/45434/ext...stigiacomo

"[W]e have called for unanimous consent 24 different times to vote on this important legislation, but Democrats have blocked the bill from being considered every single time," the Republican lawmakers wrote, adding, "Democrats should have no reason to fear the Born Alive Act — it doesn’t limit abortion, it simply says that babies born alive during a failed abortion should be kept alive and given the same legal protections that we enjoy."
...
"You deserve to know: Where does your representative stand on stopping infanticide? I’m filing a discharge petition TODAY to bypass Pelosi & force every member to go on record & tell the American people EXACTLY where they stand on this barbaric practice," posted the lawmaker, adding the hashtags: #LetUsVote #EndInfanticide.


Whether they vote or not, it's clear that Democrats (voters and politicians) don't care to protect born infants. Otherwise their own constituents would be calling on their Representatives to pass the bill, or at least put it to a vote.
Reply
#2
Good for them. It was a shitty bill to begin with, based entirely on emotion and a kneejerk response. That's not the kind of laws we need in our society.
Reply
#3
Really? Protecting living babies is "shitty"? Can you explain how protecting babies born alive is a bad thing? O_o

Again, you're only making ad hominem arguments about motive, e.g. emotion, knee-jerk. Why someone wants to do something does not make it good or bad.

Is that how all Democrats justify being despicably immoral?
Reply
#4
"What would the bill do?

The bill would require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion. They must, it says, “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as they would for “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Senator Ben Sasse, the Nebraska Republican who is the author of the bill, had called it an “infanticide ban.” Opponents said that the bill was aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions and that it was unnecessary because a similar law already exists, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.

How often are infants born alive after attempted abortions?

It hardly ever happens, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. He performs abortions and is a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where he leads a committee on health care for underserved women.

A healthy fetus becomes viable — potentially able to survive outside the womb — at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1.3 percent of abortions in the United States in 2015 were performed in or after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of all abortions are done after 24 weeks, and many are performed because the fetus has a fatal condition or the pregnant woman’s life or health is at severe risk.

If an abortion is performed at 20 weeks or later, a drug may be injected to stop the fetal heartbeat before the fetus comes out of the womb, Dr. Grossman said. In other cases, suction devices and other instruments end the fetus’s life before it is removed, he said.

What happens in rare cases when a baby is born alive after a pregnancy is cut short?

Dr. Grossman said there were painful situations in which the fetus might be at the edge of viability and labor must be induced to save the mother’s life. For instance, a condition called pre-eclampsia, involving high blood pressure and other problems, can kill both mother and fetus, and in most cases the only treatment is to deliver the baby. If it seems unlikely that the baby will survive, the family may choose to provide just comfort care — wrapping and cuddling the baby — and allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation.

The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures, said Dr. Jennifer Conti, an obstetrician gynecologist who is a fellow of Physicians for Reproductive Health, an advocacy group. Doctors who violated the law would be subject to criminal penalties, as would anyone who saw the violation and failed to report it, she said.


Dr. Grossman said that medically, every case was different. “There isn’t a bright line,” he said. “No one could say we would always do this at one gestational age, and do something else at another gestational age. It depends on whether the fetus is already compromised.”

Dr. Conti, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University, who also performs abortions, said a patient recently had an abortion at 23 weeks because the fetus had severe abnormalities that were considered incompatible with life.

The woman chose not to have the injection to stop the fetal heartbeat, preferring that her fetus die a natural death. The death occurred during the procedure, before the fetus left the womb, Dr. Conti said. Had it not, she added, comfort care would have been provided."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/healt...trump.html
Reply
#5
you cant be anti abortion and pro death penalty.
that makes you morally bankrupt
Reply
#6
(Apr 5, 2019 02:40 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: you cant be anti abortion and pro death penalty.
that makes you morally bankrupt

Babies are innocent; criminals are guilty. It's evil to kill the innocent and spare the guilty. But...leftist apparently don't understand right and wrong.

In lieu of MR actually making ANY real argument of his own, he just appeals to the authority of others. Rolleyes

(Apr 5, 2019 01:03 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "What would the bill do?

The bill would require doctors to use all means available to save the life of a child born alive after an attempted abortion. They must, it says, “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as they would for “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Senator Ben Sasse, the Nebraska Republican who is the author of the bill, had called it an “infanticide ban.” Opponents said that the bill was aimed at discouraging doctors from performing legal abortions and that it was unnecessary because a similar law already exists, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
They don't tell you that the existing law has no penalties, and thus no way to enforce. But immoral people (including at the NYT) don't care about such crucial details.

Quote:How often are infants born alive after attempted abortions?

It hardly ever happens, according to Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. He performs abortions and is a spokesman for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where he leads a committee on health care for underserved women.
That's the exact same as saying "infanticide hardly ever happens". It's evil to make excuses for even one infanticide.

Quote:A healthy fetus becomes viable — potentially able to survive outside the womb — at about 24 weeks of pregnancy. Only about 1.3 percent of abortions in the United States in 2015 were performed in or after the 21st week of pregnancy, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Less than 1 percent of all abortions are done after 24 weeks, and many are performed because the fetus has a fatal condition or the pregnant woman’s life or health is at severe risk.
"Many" is not "all". Again, trying to downplay the killing of a viable baby is immoral.

Quote:What happens in rare cases when a baby is born alive after a pregnancy is cut short?

Dr. Grossman said there were painful situations in which the fetus might be at the edge of viability and labor must be induced to save the mother’s life. For instance, a condition called pre-eclampsia, involving high blood pressure and other problems, can kill both mother and fetus, and in most cases the only treatment is to deliver the baby. If it seems unlikely that the baby will survive, the family may choose to provide just comfort care — wrapping and cuddling the baby — and allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation.
Yeah, that the nice way to "infanticide", where obviously the same quality of care you would give a two-month old is not provided. With a "wanted" baby, all measures are taken to attempt to save its life.

Quote:The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures, said Dr. Jennifer Conti, an obstetrician gynecologist who is a fellow of Physicians for Reproductive Health, an advocacy group. Doctors who violated the law would be subject to criminal penalties, as would anyone who saw the violation and failed to report it, she said.
Parents don't have a right to infanticide, whether they want the child or not. A child that is born alive has the same rights as any other such child.

Quote:Dr. Conti, a clinical assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford University, who also performs abortions, said a patient recently had an abortion at 23 weeks because the fetus had severe abnormalities that were considered incompatible with life.
"considered incompatible" is an euphemism, likely for not being compatible with the mother's lifestyle, not a medical term.



If you buy any of these lies by omission, euphemisms, and outright defending of infanticide, you have no concept of right and wrong and zero moral credibility. And if this little appeal to authority is the only argument you can make, you're not only immoral but willfully ignorant to maintain your own immorality.
Reply
#7
(Apr 5, 2019 03:24 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Apr 5, 2019 02:40 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: you cant be anti abortion and pro death penalty.
that makes you morally bankrupt

Babies are innocent; criminals are guilty. It's evil to kill the innocent and spare the guilty. But...leftist apparently don't understand right and wrong.




maybe there is some sense of unresolved envy you have for women having the ability to effectively create life.
Reply
#8
(Apr 5, 2019 08:57 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Apr 5, 2019 03:24 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Apr 5, 2019 02:40 AM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: you cant be anti abortion and pro death penalty.
that makes you morally bankrupt

Babies are innocent; criminals are guilty. It's evil to kill the innocent and spare the guilty. But...leftist apparently don't understand right and wrong.




maybe there is some sense of unresolved envy you have for women having the ability to effectively create life.

What kind of sicko has to make up oddball justifications for the desire to protect innocent human life? It's a sad excuse for a human being who doesn't have some inherent sense of the injustice of innocent deaths. And what, do you think all the pro-life women are envious of their own ability to give life? Immoral people make stupid arguments. Rolleyes
Reply
#9
Abortion clinic director mocks NC anti-infanticide bill, questions why newborns should be considered legal persons

An abortion clinic director mocked a piece of state-level pro-life legislation being considered in North Carolina, and questioned why the survivors of botched abortions should be considered legal persons under state law.

In the tweet published Wednesday afternoon, Calla Hayes mocked the pro-life bill, arguing that, because infants under 30 days old cannot be added to wills in North Carolina, they shouldn't qualify as legal persons under a proposed anti-infanticide law.

Reply
#10
In the early stages a human embryo (any embryo) has fewer human qualities than (for example) an adult slug. I don't go out of my way to kill slugs but given the choice of one, two or three lives ruined or kill the slug - I have to admit I would still find it difficult to kill the slug in cold blood. I get the impression Syne would happily bring down a deer with as many shots as it takes - something that is way beyond my boundaries of 'acceptable'. So there's variations on the theme of wimpiness going on here.

Mrs C2 had an abortion before we met. I am glad that she did - I don't feel either of us would have been capable of bringing up a child. The precise circumstances are outside of my need (or want) to know. If you choose to address the particular point please tread softly.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Police arrest Hawaiian, senior protesters trying to block telescope C C 2 81 Aug 7, 2019 03:40 AM
Last Post: C C
  Would You Vote For a Candidate if ..... Zinjanthropos 5 360 May 8, 2018 03:37 AM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Bill Cosby's new townhall lecture series Magical Realist 2 329 Jun 24, 2017 03:14 PM
Last Post: C C
  Secular Calvinism + The party of love C C 0 215 Apr 29, 2017 06:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Should right to vote be restricted? + Bad = desire to fit in + Free speech & courage C C 6 1,187 Oct 4, 2016 09:05 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Most Gender Equality Nation + Why AAs Don't Vote Repub + Should U Stop Filming Cops? C C 0 474 Nov 4, 2015 06:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  Requiring condom use in porn films gets enough signatures for California vote C C 0 407 Jul 20, 2015 06:05 PM
Last Post: C C
  South Carolina bill to remove Confederate flag advances stryder 3 771 Jul 10, 2015 05:03 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)