It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

STUNNING and DISGUSTING - 44 Democrats Vote to Support POST BIRTH Abortion-Murders.

page: 7
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
heading towards democratic socialism both parties turn coated this happened once before the red and ble coats were standard in the civil war after there was so much smoke or grey area some parts burned or raized so bad one could not tell blue from the smoke the dyes would fade into grey this is why the third party or grey coats became an order of only fire when whites of eyes appeared knowing they would roll over and to not waste ammunition in such a deluge.

war is hell is a well know quote... how far wide and deep depends on those carrying hate due to senseless ideology that is rolled over and over again as a recycle.

knowing all past lives eventually opens all known the watchers all watch and the hearers all hear and those enlightened senses never again know darkness of the mind.

kings are pigs above and below in the matrix in trying to be gods only to turn around and be dogs of war self serving their own god and devil as themselves in one stupid pact or huge chain after another.

no no no means no homage is paid to such stupid by the world conqueror as all is complete and no house builder except light darkness and shades of the two exist.

hate only ceases by hate love is not the opposite that is the gray veil or shade cast... love must also cease by love or the two voids meaning dig two graves.

something and going of beings in any sense as abuse of the senses as anyone that is awake and aware know how annoying it is...

gods rest on their laurels and are as stupid as Ramma once was...




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

oh for pete's sake!!
committing infanticide is already murder and against the law, any baby, once born, no matter how it comes into the world...
is and infant!! it's illegal to kill it!
healthcare facilities are required to provide lifesaving care to everyone, regardless of weather or not they have insurance, regardless of how they came into the world.

I am not quite sure just what you expect this law to do that isn't covered by other laws!
do you want to force hospitals and parents to put babies that were basically born non-viable, unable to live outside of the wombs without extensive medical intervention with no expectation of any improvement coming in the future? I mean right now, hospitals would be expected to make the baby comfortable, feed them, provide a reasonable amount of care to keep them alive. but, are they required to keep them on life support forever knowing that that life support will never not be needed? should they go ahead with the extensive heart surgery needed to keep the heart pumping the blood knowing that the other problems will probably never be overcome to the point where it cannot survive without machines performing the bodily functions? are you willing to pitch in and share the high cost for the babies?
we allow doctors, with family members consent, to disconnect the life support when there is no hope for anything close to recovery, I know, both my parents left this world that way!! heck, we will shoot the horse that breaks a leg, put down our aged pets and say that it's the humane thing to do, end their suffering.. but, well, some seem to be insisting that we keep babies who would naturally die soon after being disconnected from their machines alive forever, regardless of how much suffering they may be going through, regardless of the cost, both emotional and financial to the parents, to society...

was it really that horrendous that we allowed the doctors to turn off the live support that was keeping my comatose, never to awaken parents semi-alive???
really???


Nothing in this bill says anything about trying to keep the non-viable alive. It simply says the same level of care as babies who were born normally and not as the result of an attempted abortion. If an anencephalic baby, for example, is born alive after an attempted abortion, no one's insisting heroic measures be taken to keep it alive--because that's not the same kind of care a similar baby born normally would get. Or that other catastrophically damaged babies have to be kept on life support forever--if that's not what would happen in normal cases. It's simply saying comparable care, and that they must be taken to hospital.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: B4DA5H
Why are the republicans so outraged over abortion, but don't seem to mind the mass murder of children from school shootings in this country every couple of weeks? I'm confused


Good thing school shootings aren't the topic of the thread, then, isn't it? The topic is S. 311 and why certain people felt the need to vote against it.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

but isn't that required according to the laws on the books already?? pretty sure it is. matter of fact, pretty sure that if I went into a dentist office for some work to be done and for some reason ran into trouble, they would be obligated to do what they can to keep me alive and get me to a hospital.. once the child is brought into the world alive, it falls under all the laws that protect us all.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: riiver

how is it not "strictly true"??
once a baby is born, it becomes an infant... and it's against the law to kill infants, which is kind of repetitious as far as the laws go since that would be considered murder, which, no matter the age... IS ILLEGAL!!

but, the same type of discussion that might be needed regarding a baby that's came into the world as a result of a failed abortion would also occur if a baby that came into the world naturally with a similar condition and prognosis.
are you saying that you think that those baby's that are a result of a failed abortion should have extra protection, additional limitations in order to prolong their existence so another law is needed, a special law, just for that very small class?
the laws are already on the books!!! if for some reason there are doctors out there ignoring those laws, i'm sorry but they will just ignore any new laws.




No, I'm not saying that at all. And again, I'm pro-choice. And I do understand that the majority of late-term abortions really are for purely medical reasons, and that often the baby is simply catastrophically damaged. However. The fact that there ARE abortion survivors walking among us shows that it's not always the case. And the recent spate of laws allowing abortion practically up to the moment of birth with no real restriction on the why is very, very concerning to me. As I've said in other threads, it would be nice to think that there aren't any women who would abort a 36-week healthy baby, but the fact that there are women who've given birth and dumped their babies in the trash can etc. puts the lie to that. And although we'd like to think that there are no doctors who would do such a thing either, people are people and there WILL be some out there who are ok with this.

So. What I'm saying is this: not giving the same level of care could be as simple as not immediately clearing the airways of a baby who didn't take a breath, even though its heart is beating and cord pulsing. In that case, you didn't actively kill the baby. So was it infanticide? Or was it just subpar care? And is anyone really going to make a thing of it, since the mother was having an abortion anyway? Or it could mean letting the 3-pound preemie lie on the cold table while mom is cleaned up instead of swaddling it and putting it in the warmer. Same thing. Etc. etc. It doesn't necessarily mean not taking heroic measures.

Do I think this kind of thing happens all the time? I doubt it. Can I prove it does? Nope. But if, as you say, no one is doing it anyway, and everyone is taking care of the few survivors as they should already, what does it hurt to codify it in law? THAT is the part I don't understand. It's not about outlawing already-illegal infanticide, it's about ensuring proper care for babies born alive. And if this abort-up-until-birth law trend continues, it could end up being an actual issue.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: carewemust

Keep this one open, the other one is mudpit.

This one can be for the "civil" discussion 😎


There's no way to have a civil discussion about murdering innocent little babies.

How any sane person in this country can vote Democrat after this, is beyond my comprehension.



Exactly. Democrats aren’t human...they’re evil.

You people are hilarious, in a "self parody with zero self awareness" type of way.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   


116th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 130

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 15, 2019

Mr. Sasse (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Braun, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Portman, Mr. Risch, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Young, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds the following:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

SEC. 3. Born-alive infants protection.

(a) Requirements pertaining to born-Alive abortion survivors.—Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

Ҥ 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors

“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners.—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:

“(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.

“(2) MANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS.—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.

“(b) Penalties.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

“(2) INTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

“(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.

“(d) Civil remedies.—

“(1) CIVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.

“(2) APPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—

“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);

“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and

“(C) punitive damages.

“(3) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.

“(4) ATTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

“(e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:

“(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—

“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or

“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—

“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or

“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.

“(2) ATTEMPT.—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.

“(3) BORN ALIVE.—The term ‘born alive’ has the meaning given that term in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’).”.


44 of our leaders voted against this and are clearly all for the "intentional killing of a child born alive".

There is nothing in this Bill that limits abortion, period end of subject. Read it.

To say I am sickened by this is an understatement. I never thought it would go this far. We are already there, already at the point of euthanizing less than perfect or unwanted children after birth. Think about that for a moment.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
You guys Triggered?

Why would congress need to pass another bill when there's already one on the books?

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L. 107–207, 116 Stat. 926, enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C. § 8) is an Act of Congress. It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion. It was signed by President George W. Bush.
Enacted by: the 107th United States Congress
U.S.C. sections created: 1 U.S.C. § 8
Statutes at Large: 116 Stat. 926

So much outrage over nothing. Those evil Democrats.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   
BTW - Republican controlled House and Senate "blocked" similar Bills two times in 2017.

Ben Sasse had previously introduced the bill in 2017, but it did not make it out of committee. Marsha Blackburn, then a House member, sponsored a similar bill in 2017, which passed the House but not the Senate.


edit on 26-2-2019 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: riiver

and, like I already said...

the laws are already on the books!!! if for some reason there are doctors out there ignoring those laws, i'm sorry but they will just ignore any new laws.

and, I do believe that in most states, if not all states, the "abort up till birth" is only possible if certain conditions apply, maybe... not sure if any doctor would do it!! NY is one of those states that has revised it's laws to bring them up to date and yes, there are conditions on just when it is permitted. so what do people gripe about? oh they make exceptions for the women health!!! that's just too broad, could mean anything....
okay, so I will ask you as well as them...
if a women is close to delivering a baby and runs into problems and the only way to save her life is to perform a dnc...
should it be allowed? what if her health is so compromised that she will not be able to endure either a c-section or a natural birth without permanent damage to her vital organs while also posing additional risk to her life and they are pretty sure that the baby will be non-viable?
we are talking about, if a previous poster is correct, .1 or maybe .01% of the abortions in this country that are performed in the 3rd trimester, and the number that is being done close to birth is is probably so danged small to be relevant if it is even happening!
all that is being accomplished here is demonizing those "evil liberals" while dragging that small group of women that in my opinion predominantly consists of women who have the most medically justifiable reason to want an abortion!!

how many, if they actually got what they say they want, an end to these abortions, are willing to help pay the medical costs for those severely deformed children not matter how long they might survive in our world. who many are willing to take in the living children of moms that lost their lives because yous just couldn't believe that their life or health was at risk? or is this just a win at any cost, to hell with how much pain and suffering we cause?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I wouldn’t usually comment on another countries political legislations but this # is f-cking insane. How can the US criticize acts of genocide elsewhere in the world when they plan to carry out their own domestic genocidal agenda?
This is a road you don’t want to go down.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
As DB said "Post birth abortion is just called plain old murder"

Of course the pre/post distinction is merely semantics. Murder = taking a life that isn't yours to take.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Stu112

We won't. Believe me, not ever going to happen here

The minute the government stands by idly while this happens, regardless of what the "law" says, is the time to abolish this worthless government and institute a new/functional/practical one

They're on thin ice.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Stu112
there are already laws on the books!!! this is just a big arse crapshow put on by the right to get their fans in an uproar. hey, if they are lucky maybe another crazy will get triggered that has more guns than the coast guard guy had and this time take out the entire dem lineup of potential candidates for the next pres election along with our democratic leaders of the house and senate. and if they can get a liberal supreme court justice while their at it, all the better!


edit on 26-2-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm gonna just say it.
The Democrat Party is now the Party that wants to kill newborn babies.


Right now, most aborted babies have/had DEMOCRAT mothers. Democrats should want them to be born, grow up, and vote Democrat.

But I guess figuring that out involves thinking rationally. Democrats have lost that capability...probably long ago, when they thought Hillary Clinton would be a good President.


I just don't know how anyone can vote with a party that actually supports murdering newborn babies.



Well, sure, this candidate voted to allow a live baby to be brutally killed after being ripped from the womb of his or her mother all in the name of abortion rights so a multimillion dollar industry can sell fetal tissues, BUT Trump lied about his inauguration turnout, says mean things on Twitter, loves Putin, and I really don't like him... I've got to vote my conscience and go Dem on this one. "



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

How about you read facts instead of regurgitated talking points vomited up by no nothing rePUBES?

The fact is, it is INCREDIBLY rare that a baby will survive a late term abortion (which are rare to begin with). So this whole dust up is just a way for rePUBES to demonize liberals.

See? Ya learn something new every day, so “calm down Jodie Foster”
edit on 26-2-2019 by Abbby because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2019 by Abbby because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Abbby

But in that "rare" circumstance, it isn't okay to murder the baby, is it? How can we defend murder? As long as it's rare, people should not mention murder or make laws to stop it?

Lady kills a viable fetus, but no big deal, that's "rare"? Baby actually survives and is born alive, but let's allow them to kill it, because, hey, that's rare?

The real reason you don't want people to talk about it is that it gives lie to the "clump of cells" argument and exposes what abortion really is, and how badly some will fight to soothe their own consciences.
edit on 26-2-2019 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Jesus this is just sick. How anyone can be okay with this is just straight up evil. Why are Dems baby killers?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
We are already there, already at the point of euthanizing less than perfect or unwanted children after birth. Think about that for a moment.

How many of these unwanted children have you adopted?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
once it's born, regardless of weather it is a survivor of an abortion or not...
It already is murder to kill it according to the laws on the books!!
those laws have been posted here on this thread,
one prohibits infanticide--- the killing of an infant, which is what a born survivor of an abortion would be.
the other one states that it shares the same rights and protections as any other person which pretty much guarentees it will be given the same life saving care after birth as anyone else.

so if they are murdering survivors of abortion, or leaving them to die alone hidden in a locked closet somewhere in the hospital they are ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW!! not sure just how having another law is gonna help with that one...




top topics



 
68
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join