Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

[Ranb]

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

“(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.

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;

RCW 9A.32.055
Homicide by abuse.
(1) A person is guilty of homicide by abuse if, under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life, the person causes the death of a child or person under sixteen years of age, ....
(3) Homicide by abuse is a class A felony.

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

But it also shields the birth mother.

“(c) Bar to prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There have been rare cases of individual doctors smothering premature infants after abortions. I believe a doctor near here was accused of such a thing a couple decades ago. People were appauled and reported him.

It's not an acceptable medical practice and I challenge anyone to find such a procedure described in a medical text or position paper.

The fetus may die in the abortion procedure, I'm not familiar with such procedures. But when a fetus is born, regardless of the physical deformities or survivability, they are simply not resuscitated, no one actively kills them.

This whole thing is nothing more than fear mongering crap intended to gin up outrage and voters.

 

[Ranb]

There have been rare cases of individual doctors smothering premature infants after abortions. I believe a doctor near here was accused of such a thing a couple decades ago. People were appauled and reported him.

Has any doctor in the USA who killed a living baby after an abortion procedure was completed, avoided a murder indictment?

 

[Norman Alexander]

What about natural miscarriages where a fetus is born prematurely, long before its life can be sustained, and it dies shortly thereafter? These incidents create great sorrow for everyone, especially the mother. It is a dreadful and very trying situation. Is this bill going to just pile unnecessary legal hassles on top of peoples' severe emotional pain?

 

[pgwenthold]

What about natural miscarriages where a fetus is born prematurely, long before its life can be sustained, and it dies shortly thereafter? These incidents create great sorrow for everyone, especially the mother. It is a dreadful and very trying situation. Is this bill going to just pile unnecessary legal hassles on top of peoples' severe emotional pain?

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.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is just another example of the right wing misrepresenting pro-choice advocacy.
It's similar to Trump falsely claiming that Dems don't want border security, to stop crime, or to stop drugs pouring into the country because they don't want his silly wall.
This law requires doctors/nurses/midwives to IMMEDIATELY transport a baby to a hospital regardless of whether that would endanger it at the time. If they do not, they can be prosecuted.

The law already says that any baby born alive must be given immediage medical care. No baby born alive at any gestational stage of development can be killed. This new law would not protect newborns any more than existing laws already do.

 

[Ranb]

The bill says the infant has to be cared for. No penalty for natural death in the doctor's care.

 

[Loss Leader]

Yeah, this isn't and was never meant to be a real law. Everything in there is already covered under existing laws, and the whole thing is hardly the federal government's business, anyway. These kinds of crimes are handled by the states.

While I'm sure that some horrible thing has happened somewhere at some time, I doubt you could find a half dozen cases in the last decade of any such behavior by doctors in the US.

The irony of all of it is that safe abortion procedures were designed specifically to dramatically decrease the number of infanticides. Before abortion was available (and in areas of the world where it isn't), women sometimes kill a newborn. This behavior exists among all primates and many other species. And, of course, laws that force women to wait or go through multiple steps to get an abortion (counseling, sonograms, etc.) just make the fetus older and more developed when aborted.

The whole thing is nonsense.

 

[theprestige]

If abortions of convenience are not only legal, but beneficial to the the mothers and to society in general, why should it be illegal for an abortionist to finish the job if they don't get it right on the first pass?

Far from being content that this is already illegal under current laws, shouldn't we be arguing for an "unfinished abortion" exception to those laws?

After all, the child doesn't become any less of a burden, doesn't become any less unwanted by the mother, just because the abortionist fumbled the procedure.

Why should anyone - mother, hospital, taxpayer - be saddled with the cost of trying to ensure the survival of a child nobody wants and that we already agreed it was okay to kill?

 

[dudalb]

Seems to me once a baby is born if he is killed the normal murder laws apply. Useless bill, just pure showboating.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has any doctor in the USA who killed a living baby after an abortion procedure was completed, avoided a murder indictment?

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.

 

[theprestige]

Seems to me once a baby is born if he is killed the normal murder laws apply. Useless bill, just pure showboating.

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?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What about natural miscarriages where a fetus is born prematurely, long before its life can be sustained, and it dies shortly thereafter? These incidents create great sorrow for everyone, especially the mother. It is a dreadful and very trying situation. Is this bill going to just pile unnecessary legal hassles on top of peoples' severe emotional pain?

There's a certain weight/developmental age where you do or don't try to revive a premie. I think it's around 20 weeks but it has changed. A small percentage survive and it takes millions of dollars of care for that to happen.

The bill is ignorant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Maybe you should invest the time to read the issues around abortion after a fetus is viable instead of asking oversimplified questions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is just another example of the right wing misrepresenting pro-choice advocacy.
It's similar to Trump falsely claiming that Dems don't want border security, to stop crime, or to stop drugs pouring into the country because they don't want his silly wall.....

Good analogy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has any doctor in the USA who killed a living baby after an abortion procedure was completed, avoided a murder indictment?

Can't find it, too long ago for an easy search. But I couldn't find any other cases either and if it was common you'd have dozens of doctors being reported. It does not go unnoticed and people in the room would be appalled. I.e. such cases would be reported.

Not sure it'd be a murder charge given these would not be viable births. But you can bet it would be stopped.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe you should invest the time to read the issues around abortion after a fetus is viable instead of asking oversimplified questions.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. One advantage to asking questions here is that there's opinionated medical professionals who can give some well informed answers.

But this is less a medical question, and more a moral question. Do you have an opinion (an informed medical opinion, even) on the morality of aborting a viable fetus inside the womb versus outside?

 

[theprestige]

Good analogy.

Good how?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Good how?

It's accurate.