By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. This appears the January digital edition of National Right to Life News. Please read the issue in its entirety and pass it along to pro-life friends and family.
Around 11:30 am Friday, I will walk over to the National Mall, in between Madison Drive and Jefferson Drive, to join hundreds of thousands of members of the greatest movement for social justice of our time for the annual March for Life.
Some years the temperatures in Washington, DC have been in the 20s, even the teens. One year we almost were snowed out. This year the forecast is for a balmy 45 with sunny skies.
Rain or shine, freezing or “warm,” an army of compassion and resolve meets to hear inspirational speakers and then assembles on Constitution Avenue to march to the Supreme Court. There we will peacefully, as always, send the message that we can see Roe v. Wade’s expiration date on the horizon.
There is an especial urgency in the air. As the chart at the end of this editorial summarizes, we have a pro-life President who, in his first year in office, has been absolutely faithful to his promises given to our Movement when President Trump was a candidate. We also have great pro-life leadership in the Senate—Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—and in the House—Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wi.)
As we’ve discussed in several places in this the January digital edition of National Right to Life News, the House will vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act this week. What does H.R. 4712 say? Simply that if a baby survives an abortion attempt, he or she will receive “the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
Many of you may do a double take. Wasn’t this addressed years ago?
Didn’t Congress in 2002 (without a dissenting vote) pass the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush and codified as 1 U.S.C. §8? And didn’t that law state that “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes?
It did. But these are abortionists we’re talking about. Unquestionably some are still evading the law. But there is another reason to believe babies are surviving abortions: the specter of abortionists changing their abortion procedures because “many researchers want tissue from late-gestation infants ‘untainted by feticidal agents,’” to quote from the final report of The House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives issued in January 2017.
These ghouls are looking for “intact fetal cadavers,” and when there are changes made to the abortion technique to increase the likelihood of procuring them, the alterations increase the chances that unborn infants will be born alive during late second-trimester abortions.
Whether it’s an overt act of violence against the abortion survivor, or grossly neglecting him or her, what possible justification can there be for not treating an abortion survivor with the same degree of care you would any other baby? The baby is no longer “in utero.” The abortionist did his best to kill the child but she survived.
Here are just three rationalizations.
*Failing to care for the abortion survivor is like the way a continuation foul in called in basketball. The player is fouled as he is in the motion of going to the basket. Instead of the referees stopping the play at that point, he is allowed to take several steps more to score a basket. Although foul and basket are yards (and seconds) apart, they are treated as if it were all one continuous action.
The abortionist “fouled” the child in utero and failing to treat the child ex utero is like one continuous action—ensuring a dead baby.
*It’s a plot to outlaw all abortions. This is so stupid, such sophomoric propaganda, it doesn’t justify a response. But what is the fear that motivates the bogus allegation? That if you treat a baby outside the womb who had survived an abortion, people just might start to think about what makes that child different from the child who was inside their mother’s womb five minutes before?
*The intent argument. The intention was to produce a dead baby. “Interfering” with that desire—by treating the baby as you would any other baby of similar gestational age—is an abridgment of “autonomy,” aka an infringement of her “right to privacy,” or her liberty interest, or whatever. This, of course, sidesteps the fact that under federal law “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a ‘person’ for all federal law purposes.”
A House vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act is a great gift to the hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers who will assembly January 19 in our nation’s capital. It’s also a down payment on the justice owed to unborn babies and infants who survive the abortionist’s assault.
Pro-life accomplishments of the Trump Administration
MEXICO CITY POLICY
President Trump restored the “Mexico City Policy,” which prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform or promote abortion overseas. The policy was later expanded to include a broad range of health-related U.S. foreign aid and renamed Promoting Life in Global Health Assistance.
The Trump administration cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund due to that agency’s involvement in China’s compulsory-abortion program.
President Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court and is working closely with the Senate to fill vacancies in Federal and Appellate Courts.
In 2016, the Obama Administration issued a regulation to prevent states from withholding Title X funds that providers deemed unsuitable, such as Planned Parenthood. President Trump signed into law H. J. Res 43 to restore authority to states to direct Title X funds to providers they deem suitable.
The Trump administration has taken action to protect the moral and religious rights of conscience so that medical professionals, religious institutions and employers may not be forced to participate in abortion.
OTHER LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
In advance of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R. 7) and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36), the White House issued a statement affirming that President Trump would sign the bills. The Senate has not yet taken action on these measures.
Additionally, during his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Trump expressed support for directing funding away from Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. In a September 2016 letter to pro-life leaders, he noted that, “I am committed to…defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women.”