Regardless as to whether a victim is wounded in a crime or an attacker is wounded by a would-be victim defending against it, the subsequent priority in both cases is to quickly get medical attention for the wounded individual. The value of human life — whether victim or criminal — has priority over all else.
Similarly, setting aside the argument by liberals that a woman has the right to choose to abort a fetus since, they claim, it does not yet qualify as a human life, there should be no debate over saving the life of a child born due to a botched abortion. Yet every Democratic member of the U.S. Senate recently failed to join with their fellow Republicans to memorialize this simple right to life — refusing to defend the life of such a newborn unable to advocate on its own behalf.
On January 22, the Senate voted on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” which, as its title suggests, seeks to “prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
Despite the fact there should be no debate over the issue, Senate Democrats voted the bill down. While receiving a simple majority vote of 52-47, the bill fell short of the two-thirds majority mandated to become law. After Democrats successfully blocked the legislation, Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) used her social media account to make the bill’s simple intention clear:
“Senate Democrats just voted to block the Born-Alive Act. This isn’t complicated: babies who survive a failed abortion deserve medical care. It’s truly unbelievable that protecting these precious lives is a partisan issue. I’ll never stop fighting for the voiceless.”
How did Democrats respond to the above criticism? They claimed Republicans were “pushing an unnecessary messaging bill… It’s already law: any child born in America regardless of circumstance is afforded equal protection… (It) would only harm doctors and women.”
To this contention, Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) stated:
“Republicans are NOT the radical party on the issue of life. Don’t let them put you in a corner. Democrats can’t even concede that a baby, born alive, should receive medical treatment if they survived an abortion. As the father of six, 3 of whom we adopted, this makes me sick.”
It is naive for Democrats to suggest there is no need for the bill since “it’s already law.” When it comes to the rights of a newborn child to live, even if a previous law paid a Florida abortion clinic $1,200 for its services. However, on the day of the abortion, the surgeon failed to arrive on time, resulting in the birth of her female child. One of the clinic’s owners, without a medical license and perhaps concerned about losing the fee, cut the baby’s umbilical cord, then placed the child in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it away. An enraged public criticized the decision to only charge the owner with unlicensed health care rather than murder.
So shocking was the news that even supporters of abortion rights such as the president of a Florida county chapter of the National Organization for Women admitted the incident “really disturbed me.” She also acknowledged such incidents could occur again by stating, “I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.”
The issue of protecting the life of a post-abortion live birth came up during the September 10, 2024 presidential debate. ABC moderator Linsey Davis incorrectly stated, after President Donald Trump claimed the Democrats’ vice-presidential nominee, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, supported “execution after birth, that “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” Actually, there are 12 such states, including Minnesota, where Walz repealed the state’s born-alive care law.
It is clear that some people will, unless made abundantly clear to them by law, embrace a live birth which is the result of a failed abortion as non-human. What is the danger in passing a second law — or even a third or fourth if necessary — to underscore the point to all that the right of life immediately attaches to a post-abortion live birth?
We extend the right to life to a wounded criminal despite having broken the law — why not then for the innocent life of an aborted live-birth child who has survived a failed effort to kill it?
Image: Pexels/Vidal Balielo Jr.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.