Democrats block passage of bill aiding newborn babies

Thinking about the institution of slavery, Thomas Jefferson once said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

If Jefferson were alive today, he would say, "I tremble for my party when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Why do I say this?  Senate Democrats recently voted to block legislation that would have required that medical care be provided to babies who survive abortion procedures.  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act did not receive the 60 votes necessary to advance out of the Senate.  The final tally was 56 for, 41 against, with every single vote against the bill cast by Democrats.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) addressed the chamber prior to the vote, saying: "The piece of legislation we're voting on today, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is not about abortion.  The bill we're voting on doesn't change anyone's access to abortion.  It doesn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade.  It is about babies that are already born."

In other words, babies.  Infants.  Viable young human beings outside the womb.  He added, "There is nothing in the bill that's about abortion.  Nothing.  It's about infanticide.  That's the actual legislation."  Sasse cited CNN's characterization of the bill as requiring "abortion providers to work to 'preserve the life and health' of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby."  Because a "fetus that was born" is, by definition, a newborn baby.  And Democrats voted, en masse, not to preserve the life and health of newborn babies.

Those on the left demand we pay for health care for illegal aliens.  They want insurance to cover the costs of "sex change" operations and procedures.  They worry endlessly about "marginalized" groups being bullied and feeling "unsafe."  Yet they have seen to it that taxpayers subsidize the abortions that Planned Parenthood commits — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

And now, when confronted with the specter of countless unwanted babies longing to be cared for, they have essentially decided to just let them lie on a sterile counter until they die.  Can there be anything as heartless, as ghoulish, as truly evil?

Incredibly, Senate Democrats had the chutzpah to label Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act bill "anti-choice" and "yet another effort to attack & limit a woman's right to health care."  This is so preposterous that it would be hilarious if its underlying ideology — and its real-world results — were not so heinous.  The bill has nothing to do with women's health care.  The baby was born and is a separate entity.  Is the woman's health going to be markedly improved if her already born baby is left to die?  Moreover, does letting countless female babies needlessly expire advance the cause of women's health?  Is the desire to prevent these deaths somehow an "attack" on women's "right to health care"?  Is the bill "anti-choice"?  Only if laws prohibiting murder are "anti-choice," too.

Image credit: Pixabay, public domain.

Thinking about the institution of slavery, Thomas Jefferson once said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

If Jefferson were alive today, he would say, "I tremble for my party when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Why do I say this?  Senate Democrats recently voted to block legislation that would have required that medical care be provided to babies who survive abortion procedures.  The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act did not receive the 60 votes necessary to advance out of the Senate.  The final tally was 56 for, 41 against, with every single vote against the bill cast by Democrats.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) addressed the chamber prior to the vote, saying: "The piece of legislation we're voting on today, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is not about abortion.  The bill we're voting on doesn't change anyone's access to abortion.  It doesn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade.  It is about babies that are already born."

In other words, babies.  Infants.  Viable young human beings outside the womb.  He added, "There is nothing in the bill that's about abortion.  Nothing.  It's about infanticide.  That's the actual legislation."  Sasse cited CNN's characterization of the bill as requiring "abortion providers to work to 'preserve the life and health' of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby."  Because a "fetus that was born" is, by definition, a newborn baby.  And Democrats voted, en masse, not to preserve the life and health of newborn babies.

Those on the left demand we pay for health care for illegal aliens.  They want insurance to cover the costs of "sex change" operations and procedures.  They worry endlessly about "marginalized" groups being bullied and feeling "unsafe."  Yet they have seen to it that taxpayers subsidize the abortions that Planned Parenthood commits — to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

And now, when confronted with the specter of countless unwanted babies longing to be cared for, they have essentially decided to just let them lie on a sterile counter until they die.  Can there be anything as heartless, as ghoulish, as truly evil?

Incredibly, Senate Democrats had the chutzpah to label Sasse's Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act bill "anti-choice" and "yet another effort to attack & limit a woman's right to health care."  This is so preposterous that it would be hilarious if its underlying ideology — and its real-world results — were not so heinous.  The bill has nothing to do with women's health care.  The baby was born and is a separate entity.  Is the woman's health going to be markedly improved if her already born baby is left to die?  Moreover, does letting countless female babies needlessly expire advance the cause of women's health?  Is the desire to prevent these deaths somehow an "attack" on women's "right to health care"?  Is the bill "anti-choice"?  Only if laws prohibiting murder are "anti-choice," too.

Image credit: Pixabay, public domain.