Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Democrats Upped the Abortion Ante When They Defended Murdering a Baby Born Alive

    Democrats Upped the Abortion Ante When They Defended Murdering a Baby Born Alive

    It’s difficult to take seriously the claims and labels of “extremism” in reference to heart-beat laws when the side making those allegations stood silently as one of their own advocates for killing a baby born alive.

    https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1090657473218920448

    Yesterday, Alabama blew up the internet by passing and then signing into law a heartbeat law, making it possible to prosecute abortion providers who perform abortions after a baby’s heartbeat is detected. Despite the minuscule number of abortions performed in the case of rape or incest (which make up an estimated 1.5% of all abortions — and that’s a high estimate), Alabama’s bill made no such concessions, leaving one exception only — the life of the mother.

    As Mary blogged, by design, the law is meant to provoke a legal challenge and just might save a few innocent lives in the meantime.

    The media and the Democrats only have themselves to blame.

    In January, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (Democrat) defended murdering a baby who was born alive, but who might have “severe deformities.”

    “The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

    Watch here:

    Northam was responding a bill introduced by state Delegate Tran which would further loosen restrictions on late-term abortions up to birth. Stacey covered the story here.

    The story was almost completely blacklisted. None of the major networks would touch it with a ten-foot pole, neither did Democrats denounce Northam’s barbaric comments. And Northam is not some obscure figure in this tale, he’s the Governor of the state of Virginia!

    In response, the US Senate got involved. Sen. Sasse (R-NE) introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Democrats killed that too.

    By the end of February, public opinion had turned dramatically and swiftly as more Americans began identifying as pro-life. Doubly bad news for Democrats because the charge towards life was spearheaded not by right-wingers, but by young Democrats.

    Fast forward to now and the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are losing their minds over Alabama’s law. The Hand Maids are crying, and suddenly, we’re living in a post-apocalyptic theocracy because a state, albeit a small one, is willing to take a stand for the lives of the unborn.

    It’s difficult to take seriously the claims and labels of “extremism” in reference to heart-beat laws when the side making those allegations stood silently as one of their own advocates for killing a baby born alive.

    Democrats really stepped in it when they forsook “safe, legal, and rare” in exchange for a nationwide push to codify infanticide up to and after birth. Despite the media’s attempts to sweep the issue under the rug, the damage is done and as a result, the backlash is coming from the heartland’s state houses who are ready for a fight.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     2 
     
     2
    Valerie | May 16, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    “As Mary blogged, by design, the law is meant to provoke a legal challenge….”

    It was also meant to blow up the Internet, and it succeeded.

    Both sides are guilty of getting weirder and weirder.

    I don’t believe that Americans are getting “more” or “less” pro-life. I think the big middle stays out of the discussion as much as possible, until one side or the other goes too far. Then the middle pulls them back in.

    I’m all for extended abortion……….for democrat politicians.
    We can keep them comfortable while we discuss if we really want them with their disabilities.

    It’s the 21st Century. We have awesome technology. Isn’t it time to find a better birth control method than hacking up a baby with a knife and scissors and dumping it in the trash?

    I’ll tell you why we have not done so. Because Planned Parenthood is VERY, VERY profitable. It’s all about the Benjamins.


       
       0 
       
       2
      Terence G. Gain in reply to elle. | May 17, 2019 at 8:54 am

      Better birth control? Seriously, how many choices are there and how many fail or are not even used? I think Alysa Milano has pointed the way and I agree with her so much I have decided not to even consider having sex with her until this issue is resolved.


         
         0 
         
         1
        elle in reply to Terence G. Gain. | May 17, 2019 at 10:34 am

        lol. That was funny. Yes, better birth control. The very fact that there are so many abortions means we need better birth control. We have the technology.

        There are millions of possible ideas. One might be to offer $5,000 to people over the age of ? who agree to utilize pregnancy preventing technology. Don’t get caught up in this idea, it’s not meant to be the solution. I’m just making the point that there are better ideas out there than invading a woman’s womb with a metaphorical coat-hanger and hacking around in there.

        What’s changed since the 1st Century? Not much.

        None of the technological ideas will be utilized because Planned Parenthood makes billions, much of which is donated to political causes.


         
         0 
         
         2
        elle in reply to Terence G. Gain. | May 17, 2019 at 11:05 am

        The more I think about this, the more it makes me angry. For 30 years, the only question we have been allowed to muse over has been: Should we or should we not allow sanitary coat-hangers to kill unwanted children?

        Okay, in fairness, there is the morning after pill, so that has changed. But other than that – no advance.

        Don’t fall for it. Next time someone boxes you into this ridiculous discussion of whether or not we should allow putting live babies in blenders, rebel and ask why there is not another option available in the year 2019.

    Kimberlee Kaye: Democrats Upped the Abortion Ante When They Defended Murdering a Baby Born Alive

    Uh, no. The question concerned abortion of a baby near birth when that baby has a terminal condition. The doctor explained that an abortion would not be performed, but that the baby would be delivered. At that point, the parents and doctors could discuss further treatment, including possible end-of-life care.

    ‘Bizarre, Dangerous, and Insulting’: Baby Nurses Fed Up With Trump’s Bogus Abortion Rants

    “When a baby dies in the hospital it’s because something has gone very, very wrong”

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/neonatal-nurses-fed-up-with-trumps-bogus-rants-about-executing-babies

      And your point is what, Zachriels? That babies who are actually born should be “aborted”? Killing a baby is infanticide. And you note this when you refer to the “baby” rather than the “clump of cells” or whatever the preferred term is these days for “human being.”

      Kemberlee has this exactly right, and you do nothing but emphasize her point.

        Fuzzy Slippers: And your point is what, Zachriels?

        That Kimberlee Kaye misrepresented the doctor’s comments, which concerned end-of-life care for a baby with a terminal condition. The doctor’s comments had nothing to do with “killing a baby”.


           
           0 
           
           3
          Mac45 in reply to Zachriel. | May 17, 2019 at 12:30 pm

          The Governor was anything but clear, in his statement concerning care and treatment of a baby born with a disability. Perhaps he was speaking of a stillborn child. But, it sounds as though he was speaking of a viable child, born with almost any kind of significant disability. And, he spoke of the mother and doctor “deciding” what to do regarding the baby’s future care. As this was in relation to a third trimester/point of birth bill, it is fair to assume that allowing the child to die, by withholding food and water, or actively ending the child’s life were viable options.

          The big problem with these late term abortion bills is that they ignore the viability portion of Roe v Wade.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Zachriel in reply to Mac45. | May 17, 2019 at 2:23 pm

            Mac45: But, it sounds as though he was speaking of a viable child, born with almost any kind of significant disability.

            That is incorrect.

            Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon: There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. 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.

            Mac45: And, he spoke of the mother and doctor “deciding” what to do regarding the baby’s future care.

            In a case of a baby born with a terminal condition, many families will decide to allow a natural death, holding their child as it passes, rather than using extraordinary care which may serve only to prolong the baby’s suffering.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | May 17, 2019 at 11:43 pm

            Read this again:

            “Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon: There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. 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.”

            This is a Very confusing statement. What constitutes a NONVIABLE infant? Then there is the part about making the infant comfortable. This suggests that the child would be alive, not dead. If the infant is not breathing, stillborn, then does not resuscitating it render it viable, at least in the short term? Once it has been resuscitated, then the standard procedure would be to obtain a court order to cease life saving or life prolonging treatment, in children, because the patient can not give informed consent.

            What the Governor was suggesting is that a mother and a doctor would be allowed to terminate the life of a living infant, after delivery, without judicial review to safeguard the interests of the child. In other words, abortion after birth. The argument that such termination would spare the infant suffering, is extremely subjective.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Zachriel in reply to Mac45. | May 18, 2019 at 8:24 am

            Mac45: What constitutes a NONVIABLE infant?

            From the Latin vita, viable means capable of life. Nonviable means not capable of life. It is a baby with a terminal condition, such as due to a severe developmental defect, one that cannot be adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in death, and where care often only serves to prolong suffering.

            Mac45: This suggests that the child would be alive, not dead.

            That’s right. The baby in this particular example is terminal, not dead.

            Mac45: Once it has been resuscitated, then the standard procedure would be to obtain a court order to cease life saving or life prolonging treatment, in children, because the patient can not give informed consent.

            The parents are the legal guardians and make that decision, just as they would for an older child.

            Mac45: What the Governor was suggesting is that a mother and a doctor would be allowed to terminate the life of a living infant, after delivery,

            No. He was talking about allowing a natural death rather than prolonging a life that may only serve to prolong suffering.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | May 21, 2019 at 12:17 am

            That is just not true. He was discussing an abortion bill.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Zachriel in reply to Mac45. | May 21, 2019 at 10:39 am

            Milhouse: That is just not true. He was discussing an abortion bill.

            Are you responding to our comment?

            If so, yes, it was a discussion of abortion, “in this particular example”, of a woman in labor with a non-viable baby. And the answer was: No. There would be no abortion at the last moment. The baby would be delivered, then appropriate care provided, including consideration of end-of-life care.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend