Active Now

Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » How does a Congressperson vote against medical attention for a baby who has been born?
my2cents

How does a Congressperson vote against medical attention for a baby who has been born?

Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have required doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after an attempted abortion procedure. 

This does not limit or even address a woman's access or right to an abortion. Only states that is a baby is born. It is entitled to medical treatment to save his/her life just as any other person is entitled to lifesaving treatment.

Posted - February 26, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    This very grizzly subject, while amazingly intriguing, is scary to me.

    I don't pretend to know enough about the situation to draw what conclusions can be drawn by such an atrocity occurring.

    It really hits home on what abortion actually is.  OH MAN.  That is harsh, My 2.  WOW. This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at February 26, 2019 5:45 PM MST
      February 26, 2019 10:10 AM MST
    3

  • 6023
    How are they not already covered, by current regulations?
    Where is the loophole?

    Better yet ... where is the evidence there have been any cases of doctors NOT treating such children?

    Sounds to me like another case of Congress wasting time on a non-issue. This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at February 26, 2019 5:42 PM MST
      February 26, 2019 10:19 AM MST
    5

  • 46117
    Yes.  But.  What is going on with this abortion.  Once this stage has developed, is it then killed? I am pro abortion, but I tell you, this gives me pause.
      February 26, 2019 10:22 AM MST
    1

  • 7939
    The point being made is that it is already illegal to kill a baby who is born. There was a law passed in 2002 that gave all babies the same rights as all other humans. 

    They're using a scare tactic to get the legislation passed. It doesn't change that the baby has a right to care.  They want to be able to prosecute too. See my answer for more details or read the laws.

    Original 2002: https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2175 
    Proposed Now: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4712 This post was edited by Just Asking at February 26, 2019 5:43 PM MST
      February 26, 2019 10:42 AM MST
    3

  • 46117
    JA. I got the point.  I totally agree with your answer.  I digressed when My 2 used that example and I imagined that scenario.   I confused the issue.  Guilty as charged.  But that scene gives me a Nazi Germany chill and it actually lets me see into the mindset of anti-abortionists that hits a nerve in my conscience.

    I guess it is because I cannot believe abortion is performed on a viable fetus.  
      February 26, 2019 10:46 AM MST
    3

  • 7939
    To be clear, the law says nothing about viability. That's the other clincher. Only nine states have no time limits on abortion. The rest cut it off when the baby is likely to survive or well before that. BUT, that doesn't mean a baby could not be born alive. It just means the baby isn't going to live. And, no amount of medical care is going to change that depending on the age. Ergo, with this law, we could well have babies born who have NO chance of survival, but give a sign of life. And, because of this, there would then be more medical treatment provided for a non-viable life and potential legal fallout. Where's the compassion in that? To keep a tiny life alive and in pain when there is zero hope for anything more? 

      February 26, 2019 11:01 AM MST
    2

  • 34239
    No chance of survival? The earliest preterm baby to survive was only 21 weeks born in 2014. She has NO mental or physical disabilities. 
      February 27, 2019 6:57 AM MST
    0

  • 34239
    Abortions are performed on viable fetuses. Google Gosnell and Tiller. 
      February 27, 2019 7:37 AM MST
    0

  • 34239
    Cornell, Tiller (yes, I know Tiller is dead) etc have long been accused of killing born-alive babies after an attempted abortion. Gosnell was convicted. So we know it happens and has happened. 

    Congress often passes overlapping laws to clarify past laws. 
      February 26, 2019 10:41 AM MST
    1

  • 7939
    I don't think anyone is arguing whether a baby who is born has a right to life or not. There are already laws on the books that stipulate this and clarify a baby born is always to be given the full rights anyone else would. Medical care is implied. So, to use that angle to describe the law isn't accurate or fair. As you well know, being against the additional stipulations in a law doesn't mean someone is against the general concept.

    The change comes down to criminal prosecution against medical professionals, which can include murder charges. The worry is that, as it's written, physicians will back away from providing medical services out of fear of prosecution. It could well be valid claims, but it could also very easily be questionable claims. 

    Based on both the current laws and the proposed ones, something as small as a pulsating umbilical cord could be considered a sign of life. Well, let's imagine a OR with several professionals present. One person sees a pulse. One does not. If no action is taken, the one who saw the pulse has a legal obligation to report the doctor, even if he didn't see any sign of life. If the person who saw the pulse doesn't report it, s/he could be prosecuted too. The sentence is FIVE YEARS in PRISON for not reporting. The doctor could be charged with murder. 

    So, you can say it does not restrict a woman's access, but the reality is this will impact the number of physicians who are willing to provide abortions, which does in fact impact access. And, the additional rules would no doubt raise the cost of medical care. 

    Remember, I am saying this as someone who does not personally agree with abortion. The idea that a baby might be born and not provided with care makes me sick. But, the fallout from this bill is too great and the return is too little. It does nothing to protect babies. It just gives more fodder to lawyers while making the jobs of doctors harder. Nobody is getting anything out of this bill. It's needless legislation. 
      February 26, 2019 10:38 AM MST
    6

  • 34239
    So now, an abortion provider could ignore a born alive baby a suffer NO legal criminal consequences? If that is the case, then this law is needed. 

    If I go to my doctor and go into a life-threatening emergency, and the Dr rather than treating me or sending me to the hospital chooses to leave me alone in the patient room. And I die. Would this be a crime or just malpractice? 

    We know it happens. Gosnell was convicted. 
    Yes, current law says the born alive baby is entitled to life-saving treatment. But there is no penalty for not following the law. This is making it clear there will be a punishment. As there should be. 

    In your case of one person seeing a sign of life (the cord movement) and the abortion provider not. It would be the person who believed they saw something responsibility to alert the abortion provider that they saw it. If they did not, the case would be against the witness, not the provider if they claim they did not see the cord movement. Now if the provider ignored the witness then there would be a case against the provider.

    There are many workers who have reported that they saw providers ignore the born alive baby until it died or even that they saw a provider stab a baby after the provider observed a sign of life (moment of the baby). 

    This is why the law was trying to be passed to clarify and penalize those who are not providing emergency life-saving care as is required by law. 
    It would, of course, require sending the premature baby to the hospital. No hard to do, call the ambulance.
      February 27, 2019 7:27 AM MST
    1

  • 7939
    For the sake of condensing discussions...

    I said a baby could be born alive and have no chance of survival. Yes, babies can be born at 21 weeks and live. That wasn't what I was saying. I was simply saying a pre-term baby could be born alive and not have any hope of survival. This could happen at virtually any stage of development. Well before the 21-week mark. Ergo, if we've got a baby at 18 weeks coming into the world alive, it's not going to live. That is a sad truth. Heartbreaking. I do not condone a physician "murdering" a baby by severing its spinal cord or stabbing it or whatever gruesome thing might happen. It makes me sick. At the same time, I also recognize that calling an ambulance is not going to save that baby. It may only prolong a short and painful existence. I think the more humane thing would be to end the life. That's what gets me the most, but I will also add that the costs associated with prolonging life would be astronomical. Ergo, we'd be funneling money into a cause that I feel is unethical and has no potential positive outcome. Not for anyone, least of all the baby. 

    You make a fine point about how the provider seeing the sign of life has a responsibility to report it to the provider, but that is not how the law reads. It simply says the provider has a responsibility to report it to the government. Ergo, we're still at a point where there could be differences of opinion that could result in massive court battles and financial losses, even when the provider is innocent. 


    Your argument about Gosnell doesn't prove anything. Yes, it happens. But, as the Gosnell case points out, he was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. Ergo, we don't need another law to be able to charge people. The existing ones are enough. 
      February 27, 2019 12:12 PM MST
    0

  • 34239
    The 21-week baby was not supposed to survive. The Doc did not want to even resuscitate her. But the Mom convinced the Dr. Normally they do not attempt before 25 weeks. How do we know this 18-week baby could not survive? If the child is alive at 18, 21 etc weeks part of providing legally required lifesaving treatment would be to transport the child to the hospital to receive treatment. We know the preterm baby will require hospital care most likely in the NeoNatal Intensive Care Unit. So yes any born alive baby should be required to be sent to the hospital. At the point of birth, this child has a constitutional right to life. By law, the parent or abortion provider do not have the right to decide to not seek treatment. But the current law has no punishment for not following the law. That is what this law was trying to fix.  A law without a punishment is pointless. 

    Money does not enter into the equation as by current law emergency lifesaving treatment cannot be refused. 

    If the wording of the law needed fixed or adjusted that is what the cloture vote (60 votes in Senate) is for to allow floor debate and addition of amendments to the bill. Otherwise, they just look as though they do not want the law to be enforceable. (This is not what Gosnell was convicted under)
      February 27, 2019 1:09 PM MST
    0

  • 7939
    I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this one. You appear to be approaching it from a "hopeful" standpoint, as in, "If there's any chance of survival for the baby, be it a-million-to-one, that's enough." I'm approaching it from a more data-oriented standpoint. One baby surviving at 21 weeks born in a hospital doesn't change the prognosis for others. 

    "Lifesaving" is the debatable word here. I don't see it as "lifesaving" when the treatment is being given to a baby born at 21 weeks or less. I see it as prolonging the agony with an unavoidable death. Again, one baby surviving is still dismal odds. 

    The doctor and parents had the choice in the case you mentioned. The mother didn't "fight" for her baby. The doctor told her there was almost no chance of survival and why. She asked him to try anyway. He agreed. There was no debate. Just logic versus hope. Hope won. It's a beautiful story, but it stands out because it is not the norm. It stands out because it defied the odds. One time out of the arguably millions of times the babies died. But, it was a choice to treat the baby. Even in the hospital, the mother and the doctor made the choice together. She had that right. You can read her own words here if you haven't already: https://www.today.com/health/born-21-weeks-she-may-be-most-premature-surviving-baby-t118610 

    If she gets the choice, so, too, should others in this situation. Why should this doctor be allowed to make a call and another doctor not? Why should this parent be allowed to make a call and another not?

    Gosnell was convicted. Does it really matter which law they nailed him with? If anything, your argument suggests there's no point in the original law then. If it's useless and we're getting convictions anyway, why add more laws? Let's just remove the ineffective one altogether. 
      February 27, 2019 3:37 PM MST
    0

  • 34239
    Yes, I am going from the hope standpoint.

    And the lawful standpoint. The baby is born...it has the right to its life according to our Constitution. I do not think there should have been a choice for the Doctor or the Mother. 

    Gosnell was convicted of murder. He actually used scissors and cut the babies necks. Not of failing to provide treatment. So that is not an apples to apples comparison of the laws. Would he have been charged if he merely put the baby on the shelf to die?

    Perhaps, we do not need a new law but rather to put teeth into the original law.


    I just learned....it is not a new law. It is a bill to amend the old law.
     
     https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text?q=%7B"search"%3A"S.+311"%7D&r=2&s=2 




    This post was edited by my2cents at February 27, 2019 7:17 PM MST
      February 27, 2019 4:52 PM MST
    0

  • 6098
    I don't believe that Congress should have any authority over medical or personal matters. 
      February 27, 2019 7:08 AM MST
    1

  • 34239
    Do you do not believe life-saving treatment should legally be required to be supplied to a patient?

      February 27, 2019 7:35 AM MST
    0