How could you possibly oppose treating born-alive abortion survivors differently than other babies?

By Dave Andrusko

We talked yesterday about the welcomed news that the House will vote next week on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. The bill—H.R. 4712—simply says 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.” Not more but not less medical care.

First, to be clear, these babies were not being treated prior to the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA), passed without a dissenting vote, subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush and codified as 1 U.S.C. §8. The law stated 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.

Alas, in addition to those abortion “practitioners” who still evade the law, there is the specter of abortionists changing their abortion procedures because “many researchers want tissue from late-gestation infants ‘untainted by feticidal agents,’” according to the final report of The House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives issued in January 2017.

In the quest for “intact fetal cadavers,” the change in technique increases the likelihood that unborn infants are born alive during late second-trimester abortions. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act would strengthen enforcement of existing law, such as BAIPA

Put aside the thirst for intact organs from aborted babies for a moment. How can anyone oppose treating an abortion survivor with the same degree of care you would any other baby? The baby is no longer “in utero,” for heaven’s sake. The abortionist did his best to kill the child but she survived.

The arguments against are as obvious as they are lame. Whether justifying overt violence, or, in this case, gross neglect, here are just three…

*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. Which, 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 vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act–what a great gift to the hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers who will assembly January 19 in our nation’s capital.