Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

[Meadmaker]

So I'm trying to debate this bill on Facebook and the Conservative Underground forum.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/130/text

So duh! If a child is born alive even if it is an abortion, they are not allowed to be killed for any reason. For example in WA, RCW 9A.32.055 says;

In WA this is life in prison. S.130 would add 5 years to the sentence.

But it also shields the birth mother.


So what am I missing? Does this law do anything? I'm told that doctors are murdering babies that are born alive during an abortion procedure and are not being charged. I can't find anything on this though.

So am I really just debating people who want to shield mothers from prosecution for killing their babies after an abortion?

Ranb

I see a difference between the two laws (bills?) you quoted.

In the newer bill, the doctor is explicitly required to admit the baby to a hospital, while under the old law, it is only about "causing the death". In other words, failure to treat doesn't directly cause death, it just allows it. One could then go on to argue whether or not this was "extreme indifference to human life". Under the new law, it's quite explicit. If you don't do everything you can to save the baby, it's a violation of the law.

 

[Meadmaker]

What about natural miscarriages where a fetus is born prematurely, long before its life can be sustained, and it dies shortly thereafter?

Did the doctor provide the normal amount of care to a fetus of that gestational age? Then no problem.



ETA: I'm not supporting the bill. I agree that it is grandstanding. I'm just saying that it is not a completely ridiculous bill, and that it does change the requirements on doctors, or at least increase penalties. The intent behind it is to limit abortions in any way they can, up the risk factor so that doctors are unwilling to perform them, and, most importantly as others have said, serve as a PR stunt by anti-abortionists, forcing people to cast an uncomfortable and easily misrepresented vote.

 

[Ranb]

I see a difference between the two laws (bills?) you quoted.

In the newer bill, the doctor is explicitly required to admit the baby to a hospital, while under the old law, it is only about "causing the death". In other words, failure to treat doesn't directly cause death, it just allows it. One could then go on to argue whether or not this was "extreme indifference to human life". Under the new law, it's quite explicit. If you don't do everything you can to save the baby, it's a violation of the law.

I would argue that failing to take a baby to a hospital after it was aborted would be extreme indifference to human life.

 

[Minoosh]

Should the normal murder laws apply, though?

Conversely, if the child is viable immediately after leaving the womb, then it was viable immediately before leaving the womb. Wouldn't that make it attempted infanticide, rather than a botched abortion?

It could be viable in utero and not viable outside the womb. I don't know if this example makes sense, but a baby could be born with no mouth, no anus and six lungs. In utero the fetus is getting its nutrients and oxygen through the umbilical cord, but as soon as the cord is cut this child's condition is incompatible with life. There might be some comfort care possible, but the baby is going to die. Still, it is a baby at this point and we don't accept point-blank infanticide.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would argue that failing to take a baby to a hospital after it was aborted would be extreme difference to human life.

I think that it's gross make doctors take dead babies to hospitals just to make a point.

 

[Minoosh]

I would argue that failing to take a baby to a hospital after it was aborted would be extreme difference to human life.

Indifference?

 

[kookbreaker]

I don't recall what he was charged with or if he lost his license. I'll see if I can hunt the case down.

In Philadelphia there was the case of Kermit Gosnell

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

Who was basically a back-alley abortionist in the era of mostly legal abortion.

 

[Ranb]

I think that it's gross make doctors take dead babies to hospitals just to make a point.

I meant a live baby. Why didn't you read the link in the OP? Oh wait, I'm being stupid, again. Hell will freeze over before you read any link I post to support my argument.

 

[Ranb]

Indifference?

Thanks. I corrected my post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would argue that failing to take a baby to a hospital after it was aborted would be extreme difference to human life.

That's not how it works.

You know the age of the fetus and the situation. It's not like "surprise" it's a viable fetus.

Third trimester abortions are almost always because the fetus is nonviable, like anencephaly, no brain.

Those third trimester abortions that are because the life of the mother is threatened are always performed in a hospital and if the fetus is healthy but a premie, they do try to rescue the infant. That is a mother that wanted that baby but is going to die along with the fetus if the pregnancy continues.

If the fetus is of a viable age, you end the pregnancy but plan to rescue the premie.

Third trimester abortions with an otherwise healthy fetus pose a rare but unique problem. Dr Triller was one of the rare physicians that would help these girls out. For the most part they were 11 or 12 years old, the victims of incest or rape and a vaginal birth might put them at risk. A c-section always carries risk. I believe those were the cases where the fetus skull was crushed before delivery to more safely abort the fetus.

These were not full term, but the pregnancy was discovered late because kids that age under those circumstances often are afraid to tell anyone.


You are always telling us Ranb about guns we don't know enough about. Keep that in mind when you go looking for facts about abortions and not falsehoods the right wing regurgitates.

 

[Norman Alexander]

No.

That's because this bill didn't pass. And it was never intended to pass.

It was nothing more than show. It was a way to force democrats to go on the record opposing it so that the republicans could accuse them of supporting baby killing.

McConnell knew it was never going to get through cloture, but that's why they did it.

That was pretty obvious from the get-go.

The thing is, the Dems can now clap back at the GOP as being the party that is reckless enough to play fast-and-loose with abortion laws and the facts of the matter simply to score political points.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, I've seen a miscarried 19 week fetus the mother was devastated to lose. If you didn't know any better, you might not understand the baby/fetus had zero chance of survival (this was in 1976). But it was breathing. 19 week fetuses take breaths.

Depending on the mother's situation you let the baby die in her arms, or take it away and put it in blankets and don't let her see because that can be worse.

The mother has to live with the miscarriage, the fetus will die peacefully under blankets.

 

[Ranb]

You are always telling us Ranb about guns we don't know enough about. Keep that in mind when you go looking for facts about abortions and not falsehoods the right wing regurgitates.

I was commenting on how I felt S.130 had no teeth compared to the existing state laws that protected babies, including those that survived an abortion procedure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was commenting on how I felt S.130 had no teeth compared to the existing state laws that protected babies, including those that survived an abortion procedure.

But your beliefs about "those that survived an abortion procedure" is all misconception about the reality of those fetus/infants.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I meant a live baby.

If it is alive, it isn't aborted.

 

[Ranb]

But your beliefs about "those that survived an abortion procedure" is all misconception about the reality of those fetus/infants.

I may be misinformed about babies that survive an abortion, but I haven't agreed at all about what I've read from Trump and other right wing sources about "executing babies".

 

[Stacyhs]

I see a difference between the two laws (bills?) you quoted.

In the newer bill, the doctor is explicitly required to admit the baby to a hospital, while under the old law, it is only about "causing the death". In other words, failure to treat doesn't directly cause death, it just allows it. One could then go on to argue whether or not this was "extreme indifference to human life". Under the new law, it's quite explicit. If you don't do everything you can to save the baby, it's a violation of the law.

I would argue that failing to take a baby to a hospital after it was aborted would be extreme indifference to human life.

No. The proposed bill requires the IMMEDIATE transportation to and admittance to a hospital of the baby. Failure to do so could end up with the medical care giver being charged with a crime. This doesn't mean the doctor failed to treat. The problem arises when it is medically unsafe for the baby to be transported immediately. It has nothing to do with indifference to the baby's life; the failure not to IMMEDIATELY transport could be due to concern for its life.

 

[thaiboxerken]

. It has nothing to do with indifference to the baby's life; the failure not to IMMEDIATELY transport could be due to concern for its life.

It also has nothing to do with medical safety of a baby. This is just another weapon they are trying to introduce to the war against abortion rights.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I may be misinformed about babies that survive an abortion, but I haven't agreed at all about what I've read from Trump and other right wing sources about "executing babies".

That's good. I know you are a rational thinker even if we differ on some gun rights issues.

I don't know what thaiboxerken means: "If it is alive, it isn't aborted." Yes the aborted fetus can be alive. That's different from saying the fetus is not an infant.

The idea one should rush a non-viable fetus off to the hospital because it is taking breaths says the person advocating this has no clue what an aborted fetus in the second trimester looks like and doesn't understand the medical issues in third trimester abortions.

 

[Stacyhs]

No.

That's because this bill didn't pass. And it was never intended to pass.

It was nothing more than show. It was a way to force democrats to go on the record opposing it so that the republicans could accuse them of supporting baby killing.

McConnell knew it was never going to get through cloture, but that's why they did it.

Exactly. And the ignorant masses believe the lies.

This bill was discussed on The View this morning and Meghan McCain about blew her cork over this. She ranted and raved about how the Dems who voted against it were in favor of baby killing. It took co-host Sunny Hostin, a lawyer, to explain why this bill was a bad idea legally and that it would not 'save' any babies due to already existing laws.