Democrats against Born Alive Bill. Why?
How is it possible for any upright walking human being with a functioning Conscience to be against such a thing? The opposition to such a bill makes the democrat leadership look stupid and evil.
"Born-Alive Act: Pelosi, Schumer melt down after new bill requires care for babies born during failed abortion
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act passed the House 220-210; Democrats were the only 'no' votes
Senior Democratic lawmakers took to Twitter shortly after the House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires doctors to provide care for infants born alive after a failed abortion, to criticize the Republicans who supported the "extreme" bill.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Vice President Kamala Harris were among those who responded.
"Today, instead of joining Democrats to condemn all political violence, [House Republicans] chose to push their extreme anti-choice agenda," Pelosi tweeted Wednesday.
She added, "Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation or harassment."
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says any infant born alive following an abortion attempt or that survives the abortion is a "legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States."
Doctors and healthcare workers would have to keep the child alive as a "reasonably diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive." A child born at an abortion clinic that does not have adequate care facilities would be responsible for transporting the child to a hospital.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/born-a … n-abortionI'm wondering why Democrats don't eat their young after birth. It's clear Democrats are decadent and without any degree of morals.
They want to use the dead for fertilizer. So, how far could make dog food out of the dead? (being sarcastic, but who knows?) Morals do not seem to be part of their ideologies in my view.
It also requires any healthcare personnel that knows of a failure to follow the law to "play cop" to report the matter or suffer severe penalties.
Was that the reason they voted against it? That it requires people to become cops?That makes no sense to me. People should play cop or suffer severe penalties when it comes to saving the life of a helpless child who is the victim of an attempt to murder them.
I won't disagree with that. But do we wish to put them in jail if they don't report a crime? Should we jail them for not reporting shoplifting? A gang member stealing a car? A bar fight? How many people report a woman spanking a child?
Not sure we wish to open that can of worms.If you are complacent in the murder of another human being, in the eyes of the law, you are an accomplice. You have a duty to prevent and report the crime of murder. It is no expectation that is put on any other situation where the intentional taking of an innocent life is involved.
You didn't respond to the other crimes; do you think the idea of reporting it or go to prison won't spread?
And it is not "complacent", the law would require you to take action. You're falling into the liberal method of exaggeration to make a point.Those other crimes are not classified as "Capital Crimes" which murder is classified as being.
Well, I don't know. Seems like cops many, many times can't find a witness when a murder occurred in a group of people in broad daylight. Should you jail them all?
This is really off topic and not actually within the purviews of the thread. It appears you may not be understanding the concept of the bill.
Oh, I understand the bill. I even agree with it off the top of my head.
I just question the implication that anyone voting against it is evil - before that can be decided, the reason it was voted against must be considered. I offerred one possibility (a reasonable one, I thought) and you immediately shut it down...without, as far as I could see, ever giving it reasonable consideration.I value human life. I believe anyone who thinks it is a good thing to let a physician murder a newborn baby who survived an abortion (attempt on it's life) is evil. The support of murdering a helpless infant is evil. That IS my belief. I can't see it any other way.
Physicians aren't murdering newborns. We already have a name for that it's called murder and we have laws that deal with it. Physicians are in the position to make these calls, not politicians who are medically and otherwise uneducated. Do you really believe that even spontaneous abortions result in certain death before 24 and up to 28 weeks? Are you expecting politicians to force doctors to inundate these fetuses with extraordinary means to keep them alive?? A doctor can not decide to murder a newborn just as that same doctor cannot decide to assistant elderly person with ending their life. I'm not sure how you believe doctors are delivering full-term healthy babies and then somehow murdering them just for the heck of it. First the politicians went after teachers, now they're going after doctors. Who's next? this is insanity. Too many folks in this country want politicians to run absolutely every aspect of our lives and micromanage professionals on top of it. No thank you.
YOU really need to read the bill. Nothing you've stated applies.
This ONLY deals with infants born alive after a botched abortion.
Read these words again "Born Alive After a Botched Abortion." Born alive.
We are dealing with a living human being at this point.
The bill states "they must take all reasonable steps to ensure the immediate transfer of the infant who has been born alive to a hospital."
Again, there are those words that are important "Born Alive."
Once a child is born alive neither the parent nor the physician have a right to "terminate" the baby. To do this IS murder. This is a fact.
Why don't you watch some people who survived being aborted tell their stories in their own words?
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/episod … rt-1-of-2/
I am in total agreement Mike!
Not sure why comparisons are attempted or justification is sought, I guess it’s because it is such a horrific practice/procedure, which will never be accepted by most and so it has become a necessary tool in order to bridge [what amounts to] two different worlds, together.I agree. The only question is what ELSE is in that bill that is objectionable. And I don't know.
Mike, this is no different than a spending bill with pork add ons or other additions that make it extremely objectionable. Until the entire bill is presented, and thoroughly examined, I cannot say if it is good or bad.
That can or worms has been opened a long time. If medical professionals see child abuse and do not report it they are subject to criminal penalties. They also must report gunshot wounds.
They already are forced to "play cop" if they see child abuse. I guess ripping a live baby out of the mother and throwing it in the trash is not enough to report?
Good point. Will they go to prison if a nurse does not report suspected child abuse? Not to my knowledge, but then I don't know the law, either.
I am not sure if anyone has gone to prison for this, but there are definitely legal consequences. If someone commits a crime and a state board pulls your license, you cannot work anymore.
More slime --- this bunch truely sickens me. Not to mention how dumb, yes dumb they really are to on one hand support political violence, but support out-and-out murder. Yes, murder. When you take the life out of a human being you have killed that life. What in the world could be argued on this issue?
To just kill an infant born alive is murder in every sense of the
definition. Any infant that is alive at birth or abortion should be given a chance at life. If an infant is clearly non-viable, they should be kept comfortable, and let nature take its course.
Wake up, Stand up folks or soon maybe they will make it perfectly reasonable to kill special needs human beings, and maybe even the elderly. Scary dangerous bunch. Get the hell off the fence, and start speaking up.I will never forget the words of Gov. Ralph Northam, as he discussed what might be done to a baby who has survived a late term abortion attempt.
His calculating and methodical manner, attempting to justify a Doctor and Parents, making the decision whether this baby would be saved or made comfortable while left to die.....is beyond evil! These Dems mentioned, taking up where Northam left off, taking up the cause, are beyond evil! Sick!!
https://youtu.be/oFYD5Yvy1vUI'm trying to imagine a baby being born and kept alive with extreme awful deformation.
Like when the Mother see just a brain in a jar, with system tubes connected to keep it , to keep him alive. Mother says, how can anything be worst?. Doctor says, yes sadly, the baby is blind.
Is this a political dog and pony show for the Rabid GOP to offer the choicest morsels of red meat to their addled followers? I would be supportive of such a concept, but it was passed over 20 years ago. Why is there a difference now?
-------------
Ayers, along with Democrats who opposed the bill, noted that the proposed legislation is unnecessary as there already is a law that protects infants after a failed abortion attempt.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that a child born during any stage of developing, including after a failed abortion attempt, will be considered a "person" and granted legal protections.
It is also already the law in every state across the U.S. that health providers must provide medical services to any infant born at any gestational age.
----------What kind of medical services? And what is the name of this law? My understanding is that the law provides that these babies, who you claim are red meat for Republicans, are to be made comfortable on a stainless steel table and left to die.
Is that what you mean by "medical services?"
Perhaps I missed the law you speak of. Please inform us. I would be interested to know about this law that grants legal protections to babies born alive.Ok, Savvy, here is the link you can go further on the page to see the specific legislation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Al … ection_Act
An excerpt:
c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.'
-------------
If you were allowed to do this you would basically prohibit abortions in its totality and that is a nonstarter.https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-con … /2175/text
As far as I can tell, this means the unborn child is a human. I think we all know that. But I do not see anything that says this human cannot be left to die after it has been born.
So, what am I missing here? It is not as if the newborn is going to speak up for his rights.c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny,
expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born
alive' as defined in this section.
That is the point, can a zygote be born alive? I said nothing about supporting late term abortions. Where are you getting that from?
If within acceptable periods where abortion is permitted by choice of the mother, and the infant survives the procedure, yes, we should protect that life for ever how long the fetus may survive outside the womb.
I agree with the bill and the concept, but Rightwingers are going to attempt to twist this to attack pro-choice in principle.
I won't give the Rightwinger, Republicans and their sort any victory be it legislative or psychological. This issue had been hashed out twenty years ago. There is no purpose in dredging it back to center stage except to participate in some sort of GOP exercise and as such, I will deny them oxygen within any room that they happen to inhabit."If within acceptable periods where abortion is permitted by choice of the mother, and the infant survives the procedure, yes, we should protect that life for ever how long the fetus may survive outside the womb."
Then, you agree with the bill.Credence has an interesting point. If a chemical abortion is performed (perhaps the "day after" pill) and a living zygote is expelled (as it will be) is the doctor prescribing the medication going to jail for making no effort to collect that zygote and keep it alive?
Nor does it need to be a zygote; any fertilized egg, at any early stage in development, can be expelled intact, and no effort is made, or should be, to keep it alive. A 3 week fetus, for instance, has zero chance of living; why waste enormous resources on it?Yes, i agree with the bill as codified in 2002, but not the political grandstanding associated its resurrection and needless redundancy 21 years since.
What the bill supposedly "protects" is already the standard of care. Come on already this is a huge nothing Burger
You know what this bill reminds me of? There is currently a Texas state senator calling for food made from aborted fetuses to be labeled even though they don’t exist.
There you have it, Republicans ginning up lunacy and fear while trying to "solve" problems that don't exist.
Many politicians these days are performance artists, they're actors."There is currently a Texas state senator calling for food made from aborted fetuses to be labeled even though they don’t exist."
And that fetal tissue is in vaccines. Pure lie, of course...just like that idea that "assault weapons" are military grade, like the idea that illegal aliens support their own needs, that we cannot survive without them.
Our Congress does not know the meaning of "truth", "honesty" or "ethics".It is true that decades ago, scientists decided to use fetal tissue to start the cell lines we use to test drugs today. However, the description of ongoing modern fetal tissue harvesting to create vaccines is dishonest sensationalism.
Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from abortions in the 1970s and 1980s.
Those individual cells from the 1970s and 1980s have since multiplied into many new cells over the past four or five decades, creating the fetal cell lines I mentioned above. Current fetal cell lines are thousands of generations removed from the original fetal tissue. They do not contain any tissue from a fetus.
And most certainly it is not mixed into our food...
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-a … etal-cells
Really? Then you agree with the bill. If everything you say is true, then there is no problem with passing such legislation into law.
Everybody agrees with it.What exactly is a "botched" abortion and how often do you think this happens realistically? You really believe that that a D & C performed at 21 weeks gestation or under (which is where over 90% of abortions occur) somehow survives that process? And if so we should have an uneducated politician dictate that a doctor put those remains on some kind of life support?? Who even pays for such measures? Certainly not an insurance company. This is just nonsensical.
Or are you specifically speaking of catastrophic births that happen very close to term or at term? You would like these same unethical greasy politicians to dictate use of extraordinary means to keep these babies on some sort of indefinite support even though their diagnosis means certain death? Even when the parent simply wants that baby comfortable spend time with that baby until it passes? That's a hard no for me. Our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, barely have the wherewithal and brain power to do the work they're supposed to be doing let alone reaching their grubby hands into the medical profession.Am I the only one who is capable of doing research? I don't come on threads and ask question that I can find the answer out for myself. I guess not everyone is like this.
I guess you didn't look at the videos of the adults who had an abortion attempted on their life when they were in their mother's womb. It is a powerful video worth watching. All three parts.
Explore this website.
Here is the legal definition.
"Failed abortion means an abortion procedure that was initiated but not completed and resulted in a live birth."
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/failed-abortionThese people that you speak of, who have somehow survived an abortion must have obviously been at a point where the odds of survival were in their favor. Doctors make these decisions though, not uneducated and unethical politicians. The decision for what means of care would be applied it's already set protocol in hospitals. I suppose a parent would have the ability to go against that and have extraordinary means applied to any situation and against medical advice. I hope that it would be at their own cost also. There is no need for this law. It is just performative politics. We already have procedure, protocol and laws that guide all of these situations.
"We already have procedure, protocol and laws that guide all of these situations."
Really? What are the laws you are speaking about? Can you provide a citation, I would like to read it.This is the document that guides hospital protocol along with medical ethics. And in terms of law, you are well aware that we have laws for murder. Politicians, many of which exhibit no ethics whatsoever, shouldn't be attempting to reach into the difficult, complex work of physicians. Should the government government interfere with the decisions between a doctor and patient and husband and wife. Every family should benefit from empathetic, honest, and transparent care from doctors and nurses who are free to act in accordance with the profession’s code of ethics and without fear of imprisonment.
You know what is most pathetic about this though? This is totally a “messaging bill,” industry jargon for legislation politicians believe and know will never pass but pursue anyway in an attempt to score what the media will characterize as “points” with their political base. A base that wants to see governments greasy hands in every pot.
https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.or … l-newbornsSo if babies are made "seriously ill" by a botched abortion attempt, and survive, too bad, because they were meant to be destroyed in the first place?!?
I am not a politician, but, in your mind, am I just attempting to "score points" when I challenge such inhumanity?!?
You get so worked up that you lose sight.It is something that is between a doctor and a patient not a greasy , unethical and uneducated politician looking for votes. We already have laws and codes of ethics that doctors follow. Government doesn't need to poke its nose in.
Funny that you would use the word, "greasy". I see abortion Doctors as greasy & unethical, performing a procedure which is unnatural! If we can't count on Doctors to protect LIFE, which, by the way, is the 1st of 3 examples of our {as in; us, we , the people, humankind, U.S. Citizens} UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, then I guess it is left to our elected Representatives.
So, there are no "laws" that currently address the issue of being born alive from a botched abortion. Then, based on what you've written, this bill was necessary.
Here is the story of just one physician who was found guilty of killing three infants born alive. His name is Kermit Gosnell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell
Not all physicians are ethical. Trust me, many of them are not. If they were, legislation would not be necessary. There are other stories of young women trying to back out of having an abortion and being restrained against their will and given an abortion.
Here are some interesting statistics.
64% of women reported feeling pressured to abort.
Most felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% weren’t counseled.
79% weren’t told of available resources.
84% weren’t sufficiently informed before abortion.
Pressure to abort can escalate to violence.
Homicide is the leading killer of pregnant women.
Clinics fail to screen for coercion.
Women nearly 4 times more likely to die after abortion.
Suicide rates 6 times higher after abortion.
65% of women suffer trauma symptoms after abortion.https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives … 805-6.html
This wasn't good enough??No, it did not address healthcare practitioners... Only physicians. The new bill is directed at healthcare practitioners that perform elected abortions.
In reading the 2002 bill signed by George W Bush, there is no specification of doctor that I see. As far as I've read, it only specifies the person performing the abortion . In my understanding that legislation would cover anyone performing the procedure
Professor Hadley Arkes, the architect of the act, characterizes the law as “spare” in language but “truly momentous,” providing “a predicate that can be built into the foundation now of every subsequent act of legislation touching the matter of abortion: that the child marked for abortion is indeed a ‛person’ who comes within the protection of law.”
The legislation codified the idea of the infant or aborted fetus as a person. That doesn't change if a physician is in the room or a physician's assistant is in the room.
It affirmed legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. I see no mention of differing circumstances based on who performed the procedure. Why would that make a difference?
I do believe that this bill had no criminalization attached and that is the new feature of the 2023 bill. You know our politicians love to criminalize folks in any way they can these days.I quoted the link you offered in regard to Bush's bill-- "From your link -- Description
"This act addresses cases where failed late-term abortions result in children born alive. The law ensures that newborns are afforded all of the rights of legal personhood including life-sustaining treatment or humane comfort care for those too young to survive. It provides guidelines for DOCTORS on how to treat these children as well as punishment for doctors who fail to provide treatment. Immunity from the law is provided to the mother and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act allows these children to be surrendered under the Safe Delivery Act so that they can be quickly adopted by a loving family."
I did not read Bush's bill. Not sure if it had criminalization attached. I will read the bill.Since the infant is granted personhood under the 2002 bill it does not matter who denies care. If you are a doctor, you are able to provide that care and if you are not a doctor you get an ambulance. You weren't off the hook because you aren't a physician. Anyone knows how to call 911. The current bill, which admittedly is going nowhere, does nothing different than W's bill which was signed into law.
This would be in line with my question of why it was voted down, would it not?
2022 has been a contentious year over the issue of reproductive rights. The Democrats are not in the mood to rehash the issue particularely when the law is already on the books.
If McCarthy wants to exercise his muscles herding cats that is his affair. I am not giving the Republican any victory be it legislative or psychological.
If this is the case, then there should be no opposition to the bill.
There was also already gay marriage, yet your president managed to ram that down the throat of the US. I guess your party think that children do not merit the same protections?
How about elucidating and elaborating a bit here, Doc? What do mean by there was already gay marriage.....?
Here's a thought, how about poorly prepared politicians keep their noses out of the medical profession? How about we let doctors do what they were educated to do? The government has no place in this arena and many of the other arenas they try to squeeze themselves into. Politicians for the most part are pretty poorly educated people and I think that they should stay out of things they are horrendously unqualified to even consider. Why does the Republican Party seem to constantly want to put their hand in absolutely everything??
That makes a lot of sense. Why dont we let medical professionals do whatever they think is right? When a doctor like Mengel comes along and decides to operate on one of the twins to see how he performs compared ot the intact twin, according to your logic we should just let him? Those conservative politicians should just allow anyone to kill if they have a medical degree, right?
I don't think I have witnessed the Republican party using overreach as is very common with the Democratic party.
Yes, both sides are guilty, but Dems in Washington have their hands in lots of pies.
This law we are discussing in my view a law that the House Republicans wanted to make it clear to their supporters --- we want the present laws on live birth followed. They have just perhaps brought the issue back into the light due to Row being overturned, and many states are passing laws where abortion is pretty much available in some states legal for up to 24 months. This could leave a live infant being born.
Yes, there are laws protecting comfort measures. As a nurse I can say with confidence here in Michigan when an infant is born alive due to spontaneous abortion, the infant is provided care, beyond comfort care, if the infant is thought to have a chance to survive. Otherwise great comfort measures are taken to provide until natural death occurs.Spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage, is it not?
The decision of a woman to deliberately abort/ kill her unborn child at nine months is a different matter.
The Born Alive Bill protects miscarriage, as far as I can tell. Consequently, I see no reason why Credence has brought up this bill as a defense for late term abortion.
FYI: I already asked him about this. No answer thus far.
So the question remains, why are Democrats so protective of late term abortion? Why do they not find the very idea sickening?
It certainly is not medically sound to chemically or otherwise abort a child at a late stage, from what I have ascertained. My understanding is that late term, forced abortion is never a medical necessity and that it is harmful to the woman. Have you heard differently, as a nurse?Why do they believe it is okay to murder a child born alive after a botched abortion?
I still contend that the killing of these infants is murder.So doctor should be forced to use extreme measures, life support for 3-month-old fetus? Greasy, uneducated politicians should call the shots on this?
And what of the mother who is not seeking an abortion but finds herself having a spontaneous abortion... Politicians should dictate the course of action that physician takes at that time? I'm quite certain that at this time doctors are making those fetuses comfortable is nature takes its course. But we would have physicians prolong the inevitable? With the pain and suffering of extraordinary measures on top of it? And who would pay for these extraordinary measures? Certainly not insurance companies. Realistically, no fetus is going to survive a D&C
Doctors say it is extremely unusual for live infants to be born during attempted late-term abortions, which they say usually occur when the baby is extremely deformed or deemed unable to survive after birth. In such cases, families sometimes decide they want to induce labor so they can spend time with the infant before it dies.
It only happens in instances in which we know that the baby will not ultimately survive, and a choice has been pre-made to provide just comfort care" to the baby so the parents can be with it, said Dr. Colleen McNicholas, a fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Why don't Republicans keep their nose out of where it doesn't belong and get back to what they said they cared about, remember, the border? The economy? Crime? That seems to have all fallen by the wayside in favor of investigations and culture war issues."So doctor should be forced to use extreme measures, life support for 3-month-old fetus? Greasy, uneducated politicians should call the shots on this?"
Physicians are responsible to determine a viable infant once born. At three months it is unlikely the infant would survive. I can't say it is impossible but would be very unlikely. If a baby is viable and has some heart/lung function the infant would be considered viable to sustain life.
What I can ascertain the bill in question is meant to protect a
viable infant that results from an abortion that was the mother's
choice. Not a bad thing. I really don't think most women choose late-term abortion, most selective abortions are in the early weeks.
I think the bill would protect infants that by chance make it through the abortion, and are for any reason viable.Republicans seem to believe that folks need protection from everything don't they? They have no business in that arena. We already have laws regarding murder. This is useless performative politics. Not to mention government overreach at its worst.
The story, briefly, of a woman who went into labor at 22 weeks.
“Our son was born alive but with no chance at a healthy life, and so we held him, touched him, and looked at him until he gently passed away.”
For me and my husband, we unfortunately will live forever with the knowledge and sorrow that for our first child, we only were afforded one choice to make on his behalf. We chose to give him a life of peace, knowing it would be fleeting. We opted for palliative care of our child, meaning that our medical team would focus on keeping him comfortable for the hours he was with us. We chose not to commit our son to an indefinite lifetime of suffering.
But it's a good idea to have uneducated, many unethical political performers make this decision?? It turns my stomach.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/for-house … t-was-lifeFirst I have not experienced the pain that this couple endured. I have witnessed this sad scene too many times to count. Physicians in a hospital setting do assess infants for viability and are truthful, they offer options by viability, and explained the prognosis in regard to "will the infant survive due to life-supporting organs. If the lung. heart function can promote life with some assistance the prognosis is more favorable. If the lungs are not developed (as in a very premature birth) enough to respond to some support the mother is given this information. The Doc shares that there is no medical treatment to save the infant. What happened with the couple in the experience you offered was very much
what would happen. When comfort care is offered it is in the way of oxygen, to just keep the infant from gasping for air, oxygen gives the heart a chance to fail, and offers a more peaceful death. It's one comfort care we offer hospice patients.
" Shown Here:
Passed House (01/11/2023)
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a healthcare practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.
Please read the Bill -- it stipulates in the law would apply an abortion or attempted abortion, and the infant is born alive. It goes on to read - " (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital." https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con … se-bill/26
This appears to be asking the physician doing the procedure, the abortion, just does what has been being done in hospital settings for decades. The Doc still is the one to assess viability due to gestation age. Will the child's organs support life with life support or is the infant not viable to support life due to poor development of vital organs that will not possibly support life even with life support and medication?
The bill seems to just seek to make an infant born alive the same chances as one born spontaneously or aborted or due to threatening the mom's life. Yes, it does put a legal caveat.
I think with states creating their own abortion laws, this bill does stand to support the rights of an infant born alive in an abortion center. I fully agree with you, most abortions are done far before a fetus is viable, and could live outside the womb. But, I am sure there are inspections in some of the states that allow abortion in later months. I think New York does abortions for up to 6 months. A six-month infant could be viable. Later abortions have a small chance of the infant being born alive. The procedures are procedures that do not produce a live infant. I won't go into the procedures. They are devises to remove the fetus with less damage to the woman's womb and cervix. All the procedures are divided to deliver a dead fetus.
However, it is factual that we have survivors of abortion. So, this bill will serve to protect perhaps a small minority that deserves our protection. How could this hurt?This bill doesn't solve any problem. It is redundant as these issues are already solved between a doctor and a parent. There are already procedures and protocol in place that makes sense for everyone involved. As far as I can see, from reading procedure, hospitals are already doing what this bill proposes. Also It is an extremely low percent of abortion that occurs late term (and usually for extreme circumstances) and even more of a lower percentage of those that might survive such a procedure. I suppose if folks want the government to put their greasy hands in there then they can go ahead and provide extraordinary measures to the cost of the government. I can't imagine, even though it would be extremely rare, the catastrophic injury both physically and mentally that would be inflicted due to a abortion gone wrong. I don't know, we need to think of the ethics in this situation. To me, politicians and ethics are like oil and water. Let families consider the complexities of these situations with their physician, not some kooky, uneducated politician. These are privacy issues between people and professionals. Government was never, ever intended to be in that arena. I just don't see anything that this bill is offering that isn't already happening. So in my opinion it's just political pandering and grandstanding to a base. No wonder why we don't have many folks out here wanting to be teachers or doctors or other professions that politicians want to exploit for their own benefit. This needs to stop.
I couldn't read this article as I refuse to sign up for this publication. Did the termination of this life involve a botched abortion? It doesn't seem like it.
I would counter with stories of people who survived abortion.
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-c … /survivorsNo, the story involved spontaneous abortion. Ultimately the circumstances are the same though. Under this bill wouldn't the Doctor be forced to provide life saving measures? Why would the woman be given a choice based on an abortion being spontaneous or elected?
In the excerpt from the story I provided, the hospital had procedures and protocol for when life-saving measures are applied and are provided as an option to a patient. You'd like politicians to step in and override all of that then?
From the article:
We were counseled and ultimately made this decision within the parameters of the code of medical ethics regarding “treatment decisions for seriously ill newborns,” which focuses on promoting the child’s best interest and the chances that intervention will achieve clinically significant results.
This bill, would force intervention on babies born alive without any consideration of individual circumstance, medical standards,or quality of life for the child. Medical professionals would be criminalized . Makes no sense. We are already chasing teachers out of the profession due to performative politics, now we want to do the same to doctors?
Why is the left so determined to murder children born from a botched abortion? Why do they believe they have the right to play God over the helpless?
Did you watch the video of people who are alive today and making positive contributions to society who survived an abortion attempt on their life when they were helpless?
It's time the left realize they are not God and don't get to decide who does and does not live.
A baby born alive is a human being. Neither the mother nor the doctor has the right to take that life. To think they have that right is evil.
Savvey -- Yes, spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage. I can't quote a law that protects a viable infant born premature or due to spontaneous miscarriage or premature. I can only speak from what I have witnessed in such cases.
If a baby is deemed to have no chance at survival they are kept comfortable, if viable with some lung function the baby will be given every chance to live in a neo-nato unit.
I will admit, I am not sure what happens when a fetus is born alive, service an abortion. There are several ways abortions are done to make sure the fetus is not alive before it leaves the woman's womb.
In my own view, I believe if an infant makes it through an abortion, and is viable it should be given a chance at life. I think the new bill would cover this well.
" My understanding is that late term, forced abortion is never a medical necessity and that it is harmful to the woman. Have you heard differently, as a nurse?"
There are reasons women may be required to abort late due to maternal life endangerment due to Bleeding due to different ruptures; Ectopic pregnancy: Placental complications; Preeclampsia or eclampsia. These are sad situations where a woman has little chance of not needing an abortion. What I have witnessed in late-term surgery to end a pregnancy is a sad situation. If the infant can be saved they are most certainly saved.
In partial-life early-term spontaneous abortions, the infant as a rule does not live.
Yes, any abortion can result in harm to the mother's womb. There can be several complications, some can result in a need for a hysterectomy, or a badly damaged uterus.Thanks. From what I gather, a doctor (who is not an abortionist) would never recommend forcing an abortion in the late stages of a pregnancy. To force an abortion is more harmful to the woman than having the child naturally.
I’ll supply a clip once I find it.What doctor is an "abortionist' as you call it? What does that even mean? I think any doctor is going to recommend protocol or in other words what doesn't get them brought up on a lawsuit.
Also let's keep in perspective that abortions occur between 14 and 20 weeks (6%) and 1% happen at 21 weeks or later in gestation. According to Pew research statistics. I think Republicans seem to like to mislead the public on the actual numbers. The idea is that abortions are happening right and left and doctors are murdering full-term babies.
Nearly 99% of abortions happen before a person is 21 weeks pregnant, and those that happen later almost all happen before 24 weeks. In rare and very complex circumstances, abortions may be necessary later on in a pregnancy—such as when there are severe fetal anomalies or serious risks to the pregnant person's health," says Dr. Dean. "These unexpected and potentially life-threatening complications are why it's critical that patients and doctors have the option of abortion later in pregnancy. Ultimately, the decision to end a pregnancy depends on a person's unique circumstances, and should be between them and their doctors."
Yes, greasy politicians should keep their noses out. This is overreach at the extreme.I think the bill is important, it does go to protect infants if they are born alive in abortion clinics.
First many states now permit practitioners that do not for the reason of not being in physician Hospital affiliations to admit patients for care. --- in many liberal states by law non-physician practitioners (e.g., advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), nurse-midwives, or physician assistants (PAs)) can perform medication or procedural abortions.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/rpt/pdf/2022-R-0167.pdf
https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy … rtion-laws
Some state laws dictate Abortion at viability MUST BE PERFORMED IN A HOSPITAL Again a majority of more liberal-leaning states do not have this law. This makes it very possible a viable infant could be born in botched abortions.
SECOND PHYSICIAN MUST PARTICIPATE in abortions that are deemed legal due to lack of viability of the fetus
. "PARTIAL-BIRTH" ABORTION BANNED in many states --- again many liberal states do not ban partial-birth abortions.
In some states abortions are legal --- you can get an abortion up to and including 24 weeks of pregnancy. After 24 weeks, you can still get an abortion if your health or pregnancy is at risk. At 6 months the fetus is well formed and can in some incidents live with some medical support and medication. After 6 months the likelihood of survival is improved week by week.
The problem can occur due to a situation that can occur with staff without hospital privileges, and lack of the education of a licensed physician. We can't assume protocol in abortion clinics in regard to physicians being available if needed.
The new bill would seem to work to have the clinic have a Doc on hand
during business, hours to handle a live birth if one occurs. A physician can assess if the infant can survive or just needs comfort care if too young to possibly survive.
I think if you consider these issues you may see a need for such a bill. It is a very simple bill, It does not appear to be overreaching the physician's rights to assess and make medical decisions.
I don't feel if an infant is truely viable it should not be given a right to life. Yes, infants are born in early gestation, that in no respect can support life. But, I think it inhumane to not support life if we have medical means to do so.
I am not sure I am understanding your view. Do you feel if an infant is born alive, and just needs medical care that may be successful to promote life, the doc should hold care such as Oxigen or assisted medication to promote the infant's lungs to become stronger? As a rule, this is what would be done. I mean live births can occur up to 9 months.
I can see the bill does hold physicians' feet to the fire. But is this a bad thing?I can see the bill does hold physicians' feet to the fire. But is this a bad thing?
Yes it is because it is government overreach to the extreme when we want uneducated unqualified politicians to make blanket decisions in situations that are so complex. How is this situation different than forcing a doctor to use extraordinary means on a woman who is spontaneously aborting at 23 weeks?? There are already procedures and protocols in place by the medical profession, who honestly are so much more equipped to handle the nuances of these situations than our ill-educated politicians. But yet again we have politicians who want to insert their ill-informed and inexperienced opinions on to professions. This needs to stop. You really want to take away a woman's right who is having a spontaneous abortion at 22 weeks and force their fetus onto extraordinary measures to prolong its life for how long? In pain and suffering? Because the doctor is now afraid of being brought up on charges?? This is ridiculous. And please tell me who will be footing the bill for all of these extraordinary measures put upon embryos and fetuses? Hopefully it's our idiotic politicians. And seriously, what percent of abortions are botched? What embryo or fetus survives a D & C??? And what do you really think the quality of life would be? Physically? Mentally? Developmentally? This is lunacy. A great example of solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Thankfully this bill doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
If Republicans want to gain any ground and they need to get off of the culture war issues and back to the stuff that they were ranting about not so long ago. The economy, crime, immigration. All of those have gone by the wayside in favor of issues that don't really require any effort or money. Attack doctors, attack teachers, attack gay people. It's all free and brainless."How is this situation different than forcing a doctor to use extraordinary means on a woman who is spontaneously aborting at 23 weeks?? There are already procedures and protocols in place by the medical profession, who honestly are so much more equipped to handle the nuances of these situations"
A woman having a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is under as a rule hospital care being assessed. That assessment takes into consideration the trimester and true gestation of the fetus with an ultrasound. If it is 6 months or more the woman would be hospitalized as a rule if the fetus is considered viable, living, and may be aborted live. Yes, it can occur that a woman carrying a dead fetus can be given the choice to pass the fetus naturally or have assistance with in-hospital treatments. Again, this depends on the fetus's gestation.
The problems can occur in a clinical setting, they do not have the equipment that a hospital will have on site. I would guess the bill would have a physician truely doing a good assessment of a woman wanting a later abortion in an abortion center.
"You really want to take away a woman's right who is having a spontaneous abortion at 22 weeks and force their fetus onto extraordinary measures to prolong its life for how long? In pain and suffering?"
As I have said, if an infant is determined not to have a good chance of lung/heart function at any week of gestation a physician will explain the poor prognosis to the parent or parents. To say it more bluntly, if a doc feels there is no chance to mature an infant's lungs, they will tell the parents. And the infant will be made comfortable.
So, let's say a woman waits and has a baby at 6 months as some states allow, and she goes to an abortion clinic, and the baby is born alive with decent lung function, that a Hospital Doc, would nurture with meds, and O2. I would think a doctor in a clinic would do the same as a Doc in the hospital. The bill just makes it clear they must take measures to try to get the infant into a hospital where it can get that monitored care.
"Because the doctor is now afraid of being brought up on charges??"
A doctor won't be brought up on charges unless he chooses to let a viable infant live. That means he thinks the infant could survive with some care to offer it a life with proven medical medications and lung support. You do know premature children do live at 6 months, many without any deficits to a normal life?
No Doctor would be charged for letting a non-viable infant die. Whether it be in a hospital or an abortion clinic. Doctors chart their assessments which are legal documents that give the reasons for treatments in any case of healthcare. So, it is clear as to what prognosis would be assigned to an infant born alive in case of spontaneous or legal abortion.
As I said, I think it is somewhat political, yet serves a good purpose.
I too would prefer that the Republican House get down to real business. I feel the government is truely failing at this point, spinning out of control in many ways. You are most likely very correct the Republicans are relying on all the culture war crap to keep the now small majority.
It will be their downfall. I had faith, but at this point, I too am seeing the same old writing on the wall.
I want a smooth-running economy, better education, a fix of immigration, and to feel safer. I have no interest in tracking citizens. I want to live and let live...
I agree the bill will not pass. I do think it was an OK bill as written.This bill would usurp the AMA ethics code and it would usurp doctors training, education and judgment in favor of uneducated political figures pandering to a base. Plain and simple. I don't want my government involved in this arena. Our founders certainly never envisioned this type of intrusion. At this point I certainly trust doctors more than I do our politicians. I agree wholeheartedly that our elected officials need to get busy on the real work of government.
As I pointed out many abortion clinics are not using physicians to perform abortions at this time. So, these professionals do not have the ability to assess a born-alive infant to ascertain viability. I feel the bill will at best force clinics to have a doc on hand during business hours.
Faye, I am not sure I am understanding why you feel it would be inappropriate to have born-alive infant assets for viability. As a rule, the majority of abortions would not end up in a live birth, except in states where abortions are done for up to 6 months. And most women as you offered evidence do get their abortions in the early weeks.
Should we not consider the off chance a six-month-old is born and needs immediate care to live, and the staff is not required due to their level of education by law to take steps to save the infant? It just leaves decisions in the wrong hands.
How I look at it, the bill protects infants right to life, if life is medically sustainable. Does an infant born alive not deserve the same rights as you or me when it comes to medical care to sustain life? Is this ultimately not an act of human kindness?
Have we come to the point we can dish out human kindness just as we see fit when it comes to saving a human life? A born-alive infant is a viable human being. They have no say at all. It's up to us to show human kindness and be advocates for their lives.
I will admit it's a shame we came to the need for a law to make sure these infants receive the right to live. It certainly says to me we are losing what one can call human kindness as human beings. Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your view?
Our founders never had to deal with the evolution that has left our society with a lack of common sense, and a lack of human kindness.So are you separating out elected abortion versus spontaneous abortion and a woman's right to make an informed decision with the guidance of a medical professional? Again, when a woman has a spontaneous abortion at 24 weeks the decision should then be grabbed out of her hands and the fetus should be intervened upon with invasive measures? Because a politician said so? This bill would have all types of ramifications. But certainly reading over the AMA code of ethics concerning newborns, it is clear that doctors would and already do intervene at the point of viability. I cannot speak to the fact of who is staffing any abortion clinic anywhere in our country. I'm sure it varies. We do not have such clinics in my state.
In terms of elected abortion can anyone speak to exactly how many people survive a botched abortion at any point? How big is the problem here that we are trying to solve? And then can anyone speak to the cost of the measures medically and then in terms of the rest of that child's life? Does the bill have a social spending program set up to meet the needs of these survivors in any meaningful manner? Or the brain power in Washington just doesn't really think that far?
In terms of kindness, sometimes intervention is not the kindest thing to do. The inevitable is only being prolonged and most likely in a painful manner. Who gets to decide viability? And viability for how long? I'm sure that something the greasy politicians will want to do also.Again in an abortion clinic, a Doc may not be on staff. So ethics go out the window. There is no physician to guide a decision. . In the hospital there. And is. And the decision in the hospital is not grabbed out of the parent's hands. If a baby is viable, a physician will save that infant, the parent can not say let it die. If there is no viability the infant is kept comfortable.
A woman in a clinic in my view should not have the right to instruct a viable live infant not to receive care if alive and breathing on its own, perhaps with the need of some O2 and meds that can help that infant's lungs promote its life.
To answer your question in regard to whether is there a big problem with a live birth at abortion clinics. I don't believe there is, as I said most women have abortions early. This bill would just work to protect live births at clinics, if you read the bill (I offered the link to the bill) you will see this bill is all about making laws for deleted abortions, not spontaneous ones. Physicians in hospitals will keep an infant alive if they deem it will be viable. The new law covers clinics period.
"And then can anyone speak to the cost of the measures medically and then in terms of the rest of that child's life? "
I guess this issue is individual. I see the cost is secondary to an infant's right to survive. The fact is if a person does not have insurance they receive Medicaid. Most insurance company's Routine pay for prenatal, childbirth and newborn care services are essential benefits.
Hospitals are by law to offer care, and not refuse care due to a person's inability to pay.
A qualified physician assesses the viability. I have witnessed nothing but true honesty in that respect. If a Physician feels an infant can not survive with a positive outcome they are honest with the parent. It truely depends on an infant's condition, some 6-month-old are very much viable, and with slight medical care thrive. Care is important in the first days, to assure the infant's lungs and heart become strong, and the infant will not have developmental problems in the future. Medicine has come a long way in premature birth.
I think we just come from different corners on this subject. My job was to be an advocate for a patent, be it a newborn infant or a person in dire health condition. As a rule, people that work in the health industry strive to protect life. The abortion thing --- I just can't imagine working in that type of situation.
So, I guess I like the bill because it would give abortion clinics some rules, the rules we use in hospitals. The clinics would be forced to hire physicians, not practitioners and midwives. And yes, a physician would be legally held accountable to do the same as a Doc in a hospital setting. Infants would not just slip through the cracks.Ultimately my belief is that this is simply performative politics pandering to a base. In reality the proposed legislation is unnecessary as there already is a law that protects infants after a failed abortion attempt.
Born Alive bills are an anti-abortion tactic that make up a problem that doesn’t exist. Doctors already have an obligation to provide appropriate medical care.
The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that a child born during any stage of developing, including after a failed abortion attempt, will be considered a "person" and granted legal protections.
It is also already the law in every state across the U.S. that health providers must provide medical services to any infant born at any gestational age.
Why are we revisiting this? Do politicians really believe that we're this stupid?
The following is from your own state, have they revoked this?
This act addresses cases where failed late term abortions result in children born alive. The law ensures that newborns are afforded all of the rights of legal personhood including life-sustaining treatment or humane comfort care for those too young to survive. It provides guidelines for doctors on how to treat these children as well as punishment for doctors who fail to provide treatment. Immunity from the law is provided to the mother and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act allows these children to be surrendered under the Safe Delivery Act so that they can be quickly adopted by a loving family. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT
https://rtl.org/legislation/born-alive- … ction-act/
And here is the federal legislation passed in 2002..
https://www.nrlc.org/federal/bornalivei … onactpass/
Lastly, I don't need the uneducated politicians of Washington poking their noses in to guide any profession. They are sorely incapable. The American Medical Association “strongly condemn(s) any interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient.” and I wholeheartedly agree. I'm certain the work of a physician is complicated and nuanced. We cannot allow idiots in Washington to issue blanket mandates and dictates that don't take into account the intricacies and unique circumstances of every single case.
Folks in Montana just rejected a similar bill. “I’m glad that the voters of Montana saw the issues with this bill and saw that it was an invasion of privacy that was actually going to do more harm to families suffering from pregnancy complications,” Missoula-based maternal-fetal medicine specialist Tim Mitchell told the Beacon on Thursday.
Lol what happened to states rights???
https://flatheadbeacon.com/2022/11/10/m … publicans/I am aware of the legislation. It covers what a Physician is responsible to do, not a midwife, not an RN practitioner, or a general practitioner. As a rule, it is no longer physicians doing abortions in clinics.
From your link -- Description
"This act addresses cases where failed late-term abortions result in children born alive. The law ensures that newborns are afforded all of the rights of legal personhood including life-sustaining treatment or humane comfort care for those too young to survive. It provides guidelines for DOCTORS on how to treat these children as well as punishment for doctors who fail to provide treatment. Immunity from the law is provided to the mother and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act allows these children to be surrendered under the Safe Delivery Act so that they can be quickly adopted by a loving family."
The law would promote a law that covers "health care practitioners". They are who are the majority that are doing abortions. Bushes bill covered what a physician must do.
This bill will ensure practitioners' feet will be held to the fire, and it also might work for clinics to hire more physicians to be on site.
The new bill stipulates Health practitioners.
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act
This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a healthcare practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.
Specifically, a health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital. Additionally, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the degree-of-care requirements must immediately report such failure to law enforcement.
A health care practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care, or a health care practitioner or other employee who fails to report such failure, is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive under this bill and allows her to bring a civil action against a health care practitioner or other employee for violations.
Please read the Bill -- it stipulates in the law would apply an abortion or attempted abortion, and the infant is born alive. It goes on to read - " (1) exercise the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital." https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con … se-bill/26
Yes, sometimes little human beings need to be snatched out of the clutches of those who wish them harm.
Who cares the costs beyond the point of reprieve and pardon.Yes because doctors are so unethical right? We need the politicians to ride in to the rescue...the real bastions of ethics lol
Yes, because abortion Doctors are unethical, you got it!
So, the Born Alive Bill grants personhood.
As opposed to what? The right to property?
Do Democrats considered the unborn child a piece of property… or a mere extension of the mother, as in a third arm that is troublesome and not needed?
Is that why they are so comfortable with the killing of an innocent human, just as they were comfortable with treating their slaves as disposable property?
Is that why they fought so hard to retain the right to treat slaves as property during the Civil war and during LBJ’s tenure, one of the most racist presidents in U.S. history… even as Republicans fought for the freedom and personhood of black men, women, and children during the Civil war & the 1960’s Civil Right movement?
Has nothing changed within the Democratic Party after all?
How is the killing of a perfectly healthy infant deemed absolutely reasonable in the minds of Democrats? Do they seriously believe that all women who have late term abortions are victims of an ectopic pregnancy?
Or is their something in the DNA of Democrats which allows for the killing of our most vulnerable and innocent?
And why do they hail Margaret Sanger, the racist, as their hero?
I wonder at their ease of the selling of baby body parts.
Fayetteville, will now see that I am banned. It’s what she lives for.
Nevertheless, it is important to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves regardless.
So true Savvy, these defenders of abortion talk as if they are discussing a piece of property, an invasive plant or animal species; it is sick and it makes me sick.
An interesting article regarding the fallacy attached to late term abortion as sound medicine.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/fa … necessary/
Do they seriously believe that all women who have late term abortions are victims of an ectopic pregnancy?
No they are smart enough to know that in ectopic pregnancy that the fetus rarely survives longer than a few weeks because tissues outside the uterus do not provide the necessary blood supply and structural support to the fetus.
Terminating a pregnancy after 21 weeks is exceedingly rare. The reasons for the 1% of late-term abortions that happen? Brain anomaly which cannot be detected until after 24 weeks, along with other genetic, chromosomal or physical anomalies such as an exposed spine or a heart that isn't fully formed.
Fayetteville, will now see that I am banned. It’s what she lives for.
I live for a good plate of fried cabbage, soup beans and fatback.Late term abortion is never medically necessary for the health of the mother or child.
Okay doctor savvy... Who obviously doesn't understand ectopic pregnancy. This is one of the most ill-informed statements I have ever seen
I am not Dr. Savvy, she may be out of the office, but ectopic pregnancies don't last until the third trimester {aka: late term} They don't have the room nor the necessary environment to grow to full term in the tube.
Pain, bleeding, ultrasound will call attention to the situation early on, at just a few short weeks.Yes, agreed. I was responding to this statement made by Savvy...
"Do they seriously believe that all women who have late term abortions are victims of an ectopic pregnancy?"Actually, she stated, "late term abortion is never medically necessary for the health of the mother or child."
You responded with, "Okay doctor savvy... Who obviously doesn't understand ectopic pregnancy."
That's what I was responding to.
Later. AB out.No her response about ectopic pregnancy was before that
The Left brings up ectopic pregnancy as an excuse to have late-term abortions rather often. You have done that previously, although you may have recently educated yourself and have thus decided to conveniently change your mind.
The point is that you (as a self-declared "Independent" who is fully in line with radical Democrats) believe that late-term abortion is acceptable simply because the doctor says so.
That view is sick and naïve. You must not know how much money the "doctors" at Planned Parenthood make for one very late-term abortion.
At least $10,000 to kill a child who would otherwise have lived normally.
Think about that."The Left brings up ectopic pregnancy as an excuse to have late-term abortions rather often. "
Any examples of this?? I think most people understand that an ectopic pregnancy does not progress to that stage. I have never claimed that ectopic pregnancy was a reason for later term abortion. I am more informed than that.
I'm "fully in line" with what I believe. You can try to categorize it or put it in whatever box makes you most comfortable. That's meaningless to me.
Regardless of what you believe, there are valid reasons for abortions that take place after 24 weeks. I know that's tough to comprehend for people who need everything to be black or white. I think you should provide some hard data or at least some credible research for the claims you make.
Because the doctor makes a salary for doing the work he or she is educated to perform causes them to come under question in your mind? Or is that just doctors who perform abortion as part of their practice? With that logic I suppose we have to call into question any doctor who makes a diagnosis they may profit from. And you should think about that.With that logic...
Did you get your "logic" phrase from our Dr, Mark, who compared your analysis of doctors/abortionists to that of Dr, Mengele, whose practice and philosophy were the epitome of "black and white?"
Best not to use someone else's words regarding (your own) misinformation against yourself, just so you know.
And... are you not the person who also claimed there is no such thing as CRT in the United States, even though you say you are an "educator?"
Parents of live children know otherwise.
Your "logic" seems to be faulty.Seems to be that you only want to launch personal attacks. Maybe just present your views with some supporting evidence rather than making accusations against others.
I've made a case for my views based in research. Your statements about Dr Mark make no sense to me whatsoever. Again, you are stepping pretty close to the line of personal attack. If you have something to say about CRT or abortion or anything else then make your case based on a foundation not a personal attack, you'll have a little more credibility that way"Maybe just present your views with some supporting evidence rather than making accusations against others"
I have, actually, a number of times, and you have ultimately agreed with and fallen in line with the medical evidence I have provided regarding abortion.
Furthermore, it is best not to threaten fellow hubbers by saying they “are dangerously close…”
Not a good look.I don't fall in line with anyone or anything. I don't think you've ever presented anything close to "evidence" I haven't made any threats either. I've just pointed out the obvious that when you can't make a case based on research you result to personal attack. Don't assume you know anything about me.
I'll go with the educated folks at
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Reproductive Health . They released the following joint statement:
“The science of medicine is not subjective, and a strongly held personal belief should never outweigh scientific evidence, override standards of medical care, or drive policy that puts a person’s health and life at risk.
“Pregnancy imposes significant physiological changes on a person’s body. These changes can exacerbate underlying or preexisting conditions, like renal or cardiac disease, and can severely compromise health or even cause death. Determining the appropriate medical intervention depends on a patient’s specific condition. There are situations where pregnancy termination in the form of an abortion is the only medical intervention that can preserve a patient’s health or save their life.
“As physicians, we are focused on protecting the health and lives of the patients for whom we provide care. Without question, abortion can be medically necessary.”
In following this thread I have come to the conclusion that abortion is being looked at as only a right. Human kindness has been completely taken out of the equation when dealing with a born-alive human being...
In my view there is no decision to make if an infant is born alive, and can be saved with medical care, this is the humane thing to do. Human kindness is one characteristic we should hope to hold onto. Otherwise, what next?
Who would ever think we would need a law to protect born-alive infants? It is a fact the infant if need be is killed in the womb during an abortion before being detached from its mother. However, in some cases, an infant survives. This bill gives them a chance to live. The decision is made, if viable the infant must be given medical support. No decision by the mom or the Doctor if the infant should be given care. Legally the infant is to be saved if viable.Again, the implication by many here is that doctors are just killing infants willy-nilly. We already have legislation put in place long ago and doctors have their code of ethics specifically around these circumstances. When we just continue to add in more blanket legislation we only make things more complicated for the people on the ground doing the nuanced work. The best example I can give is the blanket ban on all abortion in my own state that has led doctors to be so fearful that they don't want to treat women who are actively miscarrying. They are letting women carry around dead fetuses until they are naturally expelled even though some of the women are getting extremely sick. The woman's life has to be within centimeters of death before a doctor will intervene for fear of losing his or her license or being sued. D &C isn't being used here to evacuate after a miscarriage or even for other purposes that have nothing to do with abortion for fear of the new law. This is what blanket legislation does. It takes the decision making out of the practitioners hands and puts it into an ill-educated and unethical politicians hands. I find it appalling that we trust our politicians more than we do our doctors to handle situations on a case-by-case basis with their patients. Maybe they should have government issued babysitters along with teachers right?
Related Discussions
- 96
Why are Democrats against the Parents Bill of Rights?
by Readmikenow 18 months ago
The GOP bill is a response to growing anger across the country about access to information on everything from school curricula to safety and mask policies to the prevalence of gender ideology and critical race theory in the classroom. Parents’ anger over these issues at school board meetings led to...
- 19
an article on abortion in the healthcare bill
by SparklingJewel 14 years ago
http://www.voteronpaul.com/newsDetail.p … -Bill-2969
- 47
Bill Maher the Democrat Messaging Czar
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Bill Maher the Messaging CzarMaher tells the Democrats why they aren't winning and what's wrong with their message. You don't have to be a Maher fan to see the reality he is describing.His focus is don't piss off the majority of voters you need to win—non-college-educated white folks in their...
- 157
Democrat Lawmakers Wish
by Sab Oh 14 years ago
...for Obama to shut up, I'd imagine. He was on the tube today demanding reconciliation and essentially pushing a health reform bill that the public doesn't want down that public's throat. I imagine a lot of dems are looking to November and wishing he'd just shut up already.
- 342
Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
by Credence2 2 years ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...
- 62
Are Democrats and Republicans the same party?
by SportsBetter 12 years ago
Are Democrats and Republicans the same party?If you look at the facts, you can see many similarities between Republicans and Democrats. One is they both get funding from Goldman Sachs. Why would the same people fund both parties? Both parties agree with The Federal Reserve printing money, going...