Arizona moving close to passage of law requiring abortion survivors to be care for
By Dave Andrusko
Less than a month after it passed the Arizona Senate 18-12, the Arizona House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee has advanced Senate Bill 1367 on a vote of 6-3.
“The bill would require hospitals and clinics providing abortions at 20 weeks or beyond to have medical equipment on site to care for a fetus delivered alive,” according to the Arizona Republic, “If a delivered baby is breathing, has a heartbeat and is moving, doctors must use all available means and medical skills to save its life.” SB 1367 now moves to the full House.
According to the pro-abortion blog rewire.news, “At least three Arizona clinics offer terminations at and beyond 20 weeks gestation.”
In a passionate two-hour discussion yesterday, pro-abortionists relentlessly criticized what sponsor Steve Smith has called “the good Samaritan abortion bill.”
“This bill is not about Planned Parenthood, it’s not even really about abortions per se,” Smith said, according to CourtHouse News. “We’re just talking about a living baby in front of you with clear signs of life.”
Courthouse News’ Jamie Ross included an extended set of quotes from Smith, explaining why he said the legislation is needed
During the hearing, Smith testified about two instances where he said a fetus was alive following an abortion but did not receive medical care.
“Here you have a woman who went in, had an abortion, baby survives, baby lives, baby is alive,” Smith told the panel of one incident. In that case, the fetus was alive for over an hour without medical care, he said.
“An hour and 18 minutes a living, human being child lay on effectively a cold steel table until it died with no medical attention given to it, with doctors nearby. That’s pretty disheartening to say the least,” Smith said.
In another incident, he told the panel an abortion clinic called 911 when a fetus was reported to be breathing.
“By the time the paramedics got there and got to the hospital, baby died,” Smith said. Both incidents are cited in the bill.
“The bill is simply saying when there is an abortion, if the baby lives we aren’t talking abortions anymore,” he continued. “Can we just exact a little bit of medical care to this child?”
Opponents argued the bill would needless inflict pain on children born with anomalies incompatible with life and put medical professionals at risk. Rewire included the bizarre argument that SB1367 “is essentially a new form of targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP laws.”
On the other hand, the pro-abortion site said it had talked with state Rep. Smith earlier in March.
“All we’re saying is if this is happening, we want to make sure that the baby is taken care of,” Smith said. “We want the Department of Health Services to adopt some basic operating procedures for the minimum standards of care that these places will have to follow.”