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

a reply to: 772STi

It was. Paul Ryan made it permanent.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: queenofswords
As far as I'm concerned, Democrats have proven what they are to their core with this vote. Something is not right in the heads of these people. Maybe it's true...you have to be psychopathic or sociopathic to be far Left leaning.

What's even worse is that they are planning to crash the big 4th of July celebration President Trump is hosting in D.C. this year. That takes a lot of nerve to hate Americans and America so openly.

There will be about seven people in a group trying to ‘crash’ the event. I mean, seven is probably over estimating the number of dem-supporters. By a large margin.

Meanwhile, as per usual, the crowd that doesn’t hate America will number in the tens of thousands (or more if capacity allows).

The ‘crashers’ will be completely unnoticed. Until you tune into cNn that is.

a reply to: AProudLefty

lol, you just made my night

For anyone who'd like to know what the bill actually says, here's the full text:

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

I've heard some people arguing that the right-wing media is misrepresenting the contents of the bill, but I fail to see how. It's one page, it's pretty straightforward, and I'll be damned if I can see anything anyone could disagree with, regardless of their political "side."

It says that

*babies who survive attempted abortion are people, with all the rights of anyone else;

*that when one is born alive in this situation, the medical professional in attendance must give it the same care as they would any other baby of the same gestational age;

*that following this, they must have it immediately transported to a hospital;

*that if they don't give it the same care and attention as a baby not born of an attempted abortion, they can be fined or jailed for no more than 5 years;

*that anyone who witnesses such a violation must report it;

*that intentionally killing such a baby born alive will be treated like intentionally killing anyone else;

*that the mother cannot be prosecuted for it if the professional does violate this law; and

*if it does happen, the mother can sue.


Can someone point out to me what part of this is not ok to vote for? Better yet, read the actual bill and tell me what's bad about it. I'm not a pro-life zealot, nor am I on board with 40-week abortions, but I don't see what the objection to this is.

Against abortion but I am for a woman's right to choose. The problem I have with this thread is that it is cherry picked version of what is actually going on. I can never trust right wingers to give us the full facts about what is really going on. This is basically another attempt by the right to control a woman's right to choose, by claiming they are trying to make something illegal that is already illegal - infanticide.

Senate blocks bill on medical care for children born alive after attempted abortion

Opponents of the bill argued that it represented an unjustified attack on abortion rights, preventing doctors from exercising their best medical judgment and exposing them to possible lawsuits or prosecution.

abortion rights supporters, who note that infanticide is already illegal and argue that Sasse’s bill is actually meant to dissuade doctors from performing late-term abortions in the first place.

“We must call out today’s vote for what it is: a direct attack on women’s health and rights,” Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This legislation is based on lies and a misinformation campaign, aimed at shaming women and criminalizing doctors for a practice that doesn’t exist in medicine or reality.”

Several medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Women’s Association and the American Public Health Association, also have publicly opposed the bill, saying in a recent letter to senators that it “represents a dangerous government intrusion into private health-care decisions.”

The Republican push to pass these bills follows efforts in New York and Virginia to roll back restrictions surrounding late-term abortions, which represent a small minority of hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in the United States each year. Those abortions, experts say, typically are prompted by concerns for the mother’s health or fetal abnormalities.

The issue was thrust further into the national debate when Northam discussed in a January radio interview what would happen if a child were born after a failed abortion attempt. “The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” he said — a statement that many Republicans cast as endorsement of infanticide.

Of course the right twisted his words.

Trump, who said in his State of the Union address that Northam “basically stated he would execute a baby after birth.”

Democratic lawmakers have made an aggressive and often-exasperated case that infanticide is already illegal and that the “born alive” bills are a stalking horse for more-thorough abortion restrictions.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) described the bill Monday as “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family.”

“It has no place becoming law. Its proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal,” Murray said on the Senate floor. She added that the legislation would “do nothing except help Republicans advance their goal of denying women their constitutionally protected rights.”

So for those who want to know what the real deal is, check the story out instead of the mischaracterization being presented by all of the right wing media and posters.

a reply to: carewemust

Is it normal for an abortion to result in a living being that can be kept alive easily? I need a lot more info about that part of it.

Like just put in an incubator or something?

They must be talking about late term abortion for medical reasons.

In principle I am not ok with jailing doctors. The decisions they are making are far to complected for me to be any kind of fair judge to them.

a reply to: riiver

(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

I see nothing wrong here.
I wonder what the true argument (without the right wing spin) coming from the dems is?

I'm glad I'm not a women.

abortion rights supporters, who note that infanticide is already illegal and argue that Sasse’s bill is actually meant to dissuade doctors from performing late-term abortions in the first place.

I understand and agree. Why do we need more laws about the same thing?

I'm all about less laws myself. So if it's already against the law we don't need the redundancy.

originally posted by: riiver
For anyone who'd like to know what the bill actually says, here's the full text:

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

I've heard some people arguing that the right-wing media is misrepresenting the contents of the bill, but I fail to see how. It's one page, it's pretty straightforward, and I'll be damned if I can see anything anyone could disagree with, regardless of their political "side."

It says that

*babies who survive attempted abortion are people, with all the rights of anyone else;

*that when one is born alive in this situation, the medical professional in attendance must give it the same care as they would any other baby of the same gestational age;

*that following this, they must have it immediately transported to a hospital;

*that if they don't give it the same care and attention as a baby not born of an attempted abortion, they can be fined or jailed for no more than 5 years;

*that anyone who witnesses such a violation must report it;

*that intentionally killing such a baby born alive will be treated like intentionally killing anyone else;

*that the mother cannot be prosecuted for it if the professional does violate this law; and

*if it does happen, the mother can sue.


Can someone point out to me what part of this is not ok to vote for? Better yet, read the actual bill and tell me what's bad about it. I'm not a pro-life zealot, nor am I on board with 40-week abortions, but I don't see what the objection to this is.

So that’s the bill that the Dems voted against, right?

originally posted by: queenofswords
I haven't studied the newest abortion laws in the states that passed them after the horrendous one was passed in NY. But, I did study the one from New York.

Now, if a live abortion happens in New York, there does not need to be a doctor present...just a licensed health professional. A Vital Statistics report is no longer required. The Medical Examiner is no longer required to sign off on anything. And, the abortion facility DOES NOT HAVE TO REPORT HOW THE INFANT WAS DISPOSED OF.

Let THAT sink in.

And this is how it stands now?

originally posted by: carewemust


I hope the Supreme Court makes abortion illegal and death-penalty eligible. If a woman really wants to kill her flesh and blood, she can go to Canada or Mexico.

hell yeah

if they are illegal they will totally stop

what a load


the fake outrage over this entire issue is amazing

keep it up

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.

Monsters.

I am gonna start calling them Cronos.

a reply to: Raggedyman

why legally treat a live birth differently just because it was the result of a failed abortion.
right now, a live birth is a live birth regardless and there is already laws that prevent people from murdering it, leaving it alone in cold closets to die. once the baby is born, the same rules apply for all babies, regardless of how they are born. you have to provide it with the healthcare it needs. but just like with anyone else alive in this world, there may be the need to provide live support for the baby and well, if the prognosis is that the person, baby or adult well never improve, will always be on life support, a discussion will probably come up about pulling the plug!!!

my question is, how many life births are occurring from late term abortions? I know that in earlier years, there were some, but they've changed the procedure now and if that procedure is followed, there shouldn't be any since they medicate the baby to stop it's heart, validate that the baby is indeed dead before they induce the labor. when you have only something like around 1% of abortions happening in late term have to ask, what is the percentage of abortions that are resulting in live births, is it even measurable or is it something like .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001?

and as far as abortions being done without a well trained staff capable of handling a live birth of a baby who more than likely has some serious birth defects to begin with..
well midwives have more life births and there is probably a better chance of them being surprised by serious complication arising they are trained to deal with.

a reply to: carewemust
Can't President Trump VETO this? And the first woman that witnesses this of her own child being murdered will ultimately suffer some mental trauma that she can never get rid of. It is wrong on many levels.

a reply to: dawnstar

Did you understand my question because I don't think I understand if you answered it

Not quite sure I understand what you are saying or why

a reply to: carewemust

just curious, how many of those posting are for capital punishment?

a reply to: Raggedyman

probably shouldn't have replied to anyone in particular, I have a habit of linking my replies to others that are following the same chain which often times confuses people. I am just expanding some on what you posted.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: AProudLefty

I'm wondering what this bill is about. I can only guess it regards post 24wk abortions, which are allowed if the fetus is..dare I say defective.

I support a woman having the right over her body, but this is a truly gut wrenchingl, ugly subject.

Not having blue eyes or blond hair could be considered defective.

This entire bill is savage.

God help us.

AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.



There are consequences that can happen if steps are taken by the public to hold them to the standards they promised. All these constant redundant laws are only serving to dumb us down.

Murder is illegal already.

Use the force.

It's amazing how triggered the right gets. People getting whipped in a frenzy will be glad to know that there's already an open law on the books to protect abortion survivors: H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It was a bipartisan action too.

Democrats largely voted against the new bill H.R.4712 because it's superfluous and unnecessary, adding new language that would criminalize doctors specifically. (Hint, abortion survivors are already protected, doctors can't kill them legally.)

The new bill also focused on the extremely unlikely scenario that somehow a baby is born during an abortion... just for context:

Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year, 91 percent are performed during the first trimester (12 or fewer weeks' gestation); 9 percent are performed in the second trimester (24 or fewer weeks' gestation); and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.

Source: Fox News