It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Wisconsin Gov vetoes anti-infanticide bill

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 04:44 PM
Wisconsin's Evers becomes third Dem governor to veto anti-infanticide bill

Shoots down four separate Republican-backed pro-life measures; GOP alone lacks votes to override

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Friday a bill requiring medical care for infants born alive after an abortion, becoming the third Democratic governor this year to thwart Republican-sponsored infanticide legislation.

Mr. Evers vetoed the infanticide measure, Assembly Bill 179, as well as three other pro-life bills approved by the Republican-controlled legislature, saying they would “limit access to reproductive healthcare and needlessly interfere with and inject politics into patient-provider relationships.”

He described as “redundant” the infanticide bill, which would have imposed criminal penalties for medical personnel who failed to provide care to newborns surviving abortions. Republican legislators lack the votes to override a veto.

“I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to the political interference between patients and their healthcare providers,” Mr. Evers said in a statement. “Further, this bill is redundant because the protections this bill seeks to provide already exist in state law.”

Found Evers' first objection (interference) a bit iffy, arbitrary at best. But then he went on to say that the "protections...already exist in state law". If that's the case, then what would be the point of the bill then?

The bill mentioned above seeks to provide healthcare for newborns which survive an abortion.

The Centers for Disease Control found that from 2003-14, at least 143 infants died shortly after being born alive following induced termination, adding that the number could be higher.

What do you think? Should newborns who survive abortions be denied healthcare or be given medical attention? Whose decision should it be?

edit on 22-6-2019 by AnakinWayneII because: Newborns

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 05:03 PM
What do I think? That DemocRATS pander to their base and deflect the issues. The bill had nothing to do with denying women accessibility to healthcare. It's about giving a baby, who's delivered alive, the opportunity to continue to live.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 05:47 PM
In this case it's no longer 'my body, my choice'.

This is a living person outside of the mother's body. If there is zero chance of the child surviving even with medical care, OK. Then the child dies.

However, if the child has a reasonable chance of survival with proper medical care, then what do we call this? The abortion is over. The child is no longer inside the mother. Euthanasia? I'm not sure.

I know this may derail big time but all the abortion threads do. I have no clue what this Governor is doing.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 06:38 PM
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Here is what I think...…………..Evers is a heartless POS.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 07:09 PM
If the baby is born and they kill it, it's murder. Period.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:01 PM
Oh way to get flags and inflame the topic by calling legal abortion infanticide.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 09:11 PM
a reply to: Sillyolme

Give me a quote where the OP called legal abortion infanticide. He didn't. This thread is about a bill on's not about abortion and it's not about denying women reproductive healthcare. He didn't "inflame" anything...YOU DID.

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 11:07 PM
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Debates about something that should never be considered by a civilized society. Killing an innocent human is old-Testament sacrificial crap.

BTW..we must remember that residents of states' choose their governor. They are getting what the majority of their fellow residents asked for.
edit on 6/22/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in