210 Democrats Voted Against Providing Immediate Medical Assistance to Babies Who Survive Abortion

Can you source the law that requires providing medical attention please.

 

SS and Medicare are "unfunded liabilities", and total unfunded liabilities today are about $130 trillion I think.

The debt is intentional and perfectly logical from the standpoint of the left and the monied elite that operate the left.

You can't realize your promised utopia until the previous civilization is kaput.

It would be nice if some of you leftists would just admit it, then maybe we can have a discussion about the future.

 

Does it?

To be honest this is just another right wing dog whistle. I have already posted the statistics proving that less than 1.5% of all abortions occur post viability and those would only be in the few states that allow late term abortions.

Late term abortions are almost invariably done for gross foetal abnormalities.

 

Keep that up and remember this is a moderated forum - rules are listed in the link below

What I am trying to do here is show reality but unfortunately that seems to be drowned out by the sound of dog whistles

Firstly RvW did NOT allow post viability abortions. So please answer - are medical staff to attempt futile resuscitation attempts on pre viable foetuses?

 

Someone has to pay for the care of these “bitched abortion survivors” - given they will at best be “Premmies” requiring NICU care - who will pay?

 

I want people to know reality not listen to dog whistles

For resuscitation to be attempted in anyone - adult infant or aborted foetus there has to be an expectation of survival otherwise it is futile yes? Most abortions occur in the first twelve weeks - that is this big

Do you know any intervention that could keep something that small alive?

 

Yes, tackle the abortionist before she can kill the little dickens

 

Are you expecting a foetus that size to have any chance of life? If it were possible to save something as small and underdeveloped as this - why do we not save miscarried foetuses?

 

Moving goalposts and that law doesn't exist.

 

Did you write this as a joke?

Babies are aborted in many states just before they are born. So, yes, a baby can survive at 7 pounds.

 

LOL, that was 7 pounds???

 

Here we go round the mulberry bush.....I guess you just can't answer whether those cases were prosecuted or not even though it was YOUR link.

You don't seem to be able to take a stand and say either they were not prosecuted so a law is needed or admit some were prosecuted so we don't need a law.....

 

Nope, not doing this song and dance FoxHastings.

You made the claim that I said nobody was prosecuted. Where? Source it. Link it.

Until then, we are done. You don't just get to make up stuff and then dance around.

 

No “babies” are NOT aborted except in a couple of states as RvW did not allow abortion post viability. Even in places where you can “abort” a term baby only less than 1.5% of all abortions occur after 22 weeks and those are overwhelmingly for foetal abnormality incompatible with life

This whole thing is just another dog whistle much like the gas stove non scandal.

PS a foetus does not magically blossom into a 7lb baby within days of conception

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Here we go round the mulberry bush.....I guess you just can't answer whether those cases were prosecuted or not even though it was YOUR link.

You don't seem to be able to take a stand and say either they were not prosecuted so a law is needed or admit some were prosecuted so we don't need a law.....

OK, you didn't claim no one was prosecuted ( indicating you DO think some were prosecuted )
You don't seem to be able to take a stand and say either they were not prosecuted so a law is needed or admit some were prosecuted so we don't need a law.....

 

If they are human beings born alive, they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of their post viability age.

 

But who pays? And where are these “botched abortions” occurring given that only a couple of states allow abortions post viability

 

You realize, of course, this subterfuge of a bill has been tried before.


To those who say there are no laws in place protecting babies who are born alive as the result of an abortion, and this this law is needed, well....

Legal experts disagree.

https://web.archive.org/web/2022110...ews/politics-government/article229400234.html

MANY PROTECTIONS Legal experts say a range of laws protect newborns regardless of the circumstances of their birth. In other words, newborns are protected even if they enter the world during the course of an abortion. The U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, state constitutions, and a variety of homicide laws also apply, said Neil Siegel, an attorney and professor at Duke Law School.

“If you have a baby born alive, it doesn’t matter if it was born from a failed abortion or otherwise … it’s entitled to full constitutional protections,” Siegel said in a phone interview.

Did the vote against the bill equal 'Dems will not care for newborns'?

Most assuredly, it does not.

Where does any Democrat say they won't agree, accept, promote, advocate for care for a newborn babe?

I mean, Dems have to put up with this sort of indignity from Republicans, we are commies and baby killers, blah blah blah every week of the year for the last 50 ****ing years, and it never stops with republicans. Lies lies lies and more lies.

It is the reason I decided I was no longer a republican back in the 80s, I couldn't stand how Republicans lie about democrats, and since I was a moderate anyway, I'd rather associate with people who have a higher sense of dignity, class, and truth. Sure, there are bad apples in any basket, but the right side of the fence is overflowing with them. ('xcuse my mixed metaphors).

And then republicans ****ing wonder why we despise Donald Trump, for saying:

The Democrat(ic) position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth." ---Donald Trump

Which got a slamming to the left FALSE on Politifact's Truth-O-Meter

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/

Broadly, critics of the bill said that it would take decisions out of the hands of parents and medical professionals and hand it to politicians. Democrats also argued that the number of relevant cases is vanishingly small, and usually involve heartbreaking situations that often have specific, unusual factors at play that are hard to accommodate in advance. Because of this, they saw the bill as a chance for Republicans to embarrass Democrats rather than as a genuine piece of legislation aiming to solve a significant problem.

Perhaps the Democrats’ most basic argument in the context of Trump’s charge, however, is that laws already exist to cover the scenario the bill would seek to prevent, making the new bill redundant.

In a floor speech before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, "It has always been illegal to harm a newborn infant. This vote has nothing—nothing—to do with that. Read the language."

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, echoed that argument. "This bill is not about protecting infants, as Republicans have claimed, because that is not up for debate and it is already the law," she said.



You won't find any Democrat making that statement, and to imply it in a headline is DISINGENUOUS AND AN OUTRIGHT UNTRUTH.

A vote against that bill does NOT, in any way, shape, or form, equal to the conclusion you have incorrectly asserted in your headline, and shame on you for doing it.

This vote is NOT about Democrats not wanting to care for newborns, this vote is about not needing a redundant pointless bill, one that is designed to intimidate midwifery, nurses, caregivers, and the like, and wasting Congress's time as well as the cost of executing such a bill.

as the legal experts will tell you, as anyone with half a brain will tell you, It would be highly illegal, murderous, morally wrong, to not care for a newborn babe, by whatever means it arrives to the world.

The framers of this bill, given the history of similar bills, is to put it for a vote have democrats vote against it because they know they will, and then the right wingers can use it for fodder for false campaign slogans against democrats.

BINGO

THAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THIS BILL AND THE FACT THAT YOU POSTED THIS THREAD CONFIRMS THAT FACT.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395dd

(1)In generalIf any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c).

 

sourced in pst 320.

 

yeah, that has nothing to do with medical clinics that provide abortions services.

The very first paragraph explains why this doesn't apply to abortion clinics that don't have an Emergency Department


In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department,

There is no law that would prevent an abortion clinic from failing to render aid that would result in a baby expiring from a botched abortion. That is exactly what this bill provides.

 

L

”that” as you showed is never born alive after a botched abortion and is simply a deliberate diversion from the issue which is providing care to actual viable babies born alive after the botch job.

 

you say it says in the first paragraph why it doesn't apply to abortion clinics, while it does not say how they are exempt or something.
But let me toss this on something rather obvious:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/involuntary-manslaughter/
In federal court, an involuntary manslaughter charge can result in a sentence of imprisonment for one to six years

The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant recklessly or negligently commits an act that results in the death of another person.

Negligence usually means that the defendant was not aware of the risk but reasonably should have been aware of it.


In these cases, it's claimed they would even be aware their negligence would result in death.

 

Well, that's ironic. Since their conscientious efforts would also result in death. But somehow that ISN'T manslaughter?

 

yeah... whatabout(ism) with the unborn child.... is just you avoiding admitting that the law the GOP are trying to push through is already covered and the ripping on the Dems is uncalled for. There already is a law covering this. All it is, is right wing going emo over nothing and wasting tax money on it.