“It’s a discussion worth having”: the born-alive abortion survivor and “fourth trimester abortion”

By Dave Andrusko

We have now reached the countdown stage. There are only four more days before the Senate is scheduled to vote whether to proceed (“invoke cloture”) on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. As we come closer to Monday, let’s ponder what a refusal to allow a vote on whether to treat abortion survivors as you would any other premature infant signifies.

*Yesterday, a pro-abortion member of the Arizona House of Representatives frantically tried to stop debate on her bill. Why? Because of her “drafting error,” she left herself wide open to the wholly accurate charge that she favored infanticide.

She lamented that all she wanted to do was pull the teeth out of a 2017 law which made a 1975 law more specific about how to treat an abortion survivor. Left unsaid was without the enforcement mechanisms and the list of actions the abortion team must take in the case of a “failed abortion,” the abortionist could chose to define whether the child had been “delivered alive” and whether he would do anything meaningful to save the baby.

But the House Judiciary Committee chairman said no. Rep. John Allen rightly observed that numerous Democrats sponsored HB 2697.

“This is a core value of a lot of members on the other side of the aisle who signed onto this bill,” Chairman Allen said when Terán repeated her request to hold the bill. “It’s a discussion worth having.”

*Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse has played a prominent role in this unfolding and very revealing debate. He wrote an op-ed for a state newspaper, which we have reposted, in which Sen. Sasse wrote

A refusal to condemn infanticide would be the tragic culmination of abortion radicalism. Under the sway of a multibillion-dollar abortion industry that hands out millions of dollars in campaign donations, some politicians no longer have the courage even to defend a baby outside of the womb. The old slogan of “safe, legal and rare,” has been tossed aside, and some politicians appear to be comfortable with abortions even into the “fourth trimester.”

This is madness, plain and simple.

It is, but not if you’ve already imbibed a strain of extremism that is frightening not just to pro-lifers, but those countless millions of Americans who would be bewildered if they knew what the Democratic Party now stands for. One more….

*”What’s the difference between abortion and infanticide?”asked Professor Justin Dyer in an extremely thoughtful investigation at “The Public Discourse.” The subtitle is “The two issues are uncomfortably entangled.”

Prof. Dyer untangled a lot of tangled webs in the comments about treating abortion survivors made by pro-abortion Va. Gov. Ralph Northam, first on the radio, and then (even more revealingly) in his subsequent clarifications:

As the public conversation focused in on Northam’s comments, before they were quickly overshadowed by the discovery of a shockingly racist photo from his medical school yearbook page, the Governor’s office released a statement that third-trimester abortions always arise in tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor.

The Governor’s clarifying statement inadvertently brought to the table this clarifying question: is an infant, marked for abortion but delivered alive, even in tragic circumstances, a person whom the law ought to protect?

Grappling seriously with this question takes us very quickly to the heart of the debate over Roe v. Wade and its legacy today.

Okay, this is a teaser, but I want you to read the entire essay. Ask yourself what were/are the ticking time bombs in the Roe decision that would explode in infanticide? And why are pro-abortion Democrats so adamant in their embrace of abandoning newborn babies who miraculously escape the abortionist’s clutches?