Posted on 03/16/2016 6:21:45 PM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: Abortion Activist: Child Surviving Abortion Shouldn’t Necessarily Receive “All Available Medical Care”
Abortion activists believe the decision to kill an unborn baby in the womb should be between a woman and her doctor. However, some believe women and doctors should be able to make that same decision about babies outside of the womb, too.
On Tuesday, a pro-abortion professor testified before a U.S. Senate hearing that families should be the ones to decide whether babies born alive after failed abortion attempts should receive potentially life-saving medical attention.
CNS News reports Diana Greene Foster, a professor and researcher at the University of California San Francisco, made the admission as U.S. Senators considered a federal bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to babies who survive abortions.
According to the report:
A panel of expert witnesses discussed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), which would ban abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy; and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), which would require health care practitioners to provide medical treatment to a child born alive in their presence after an abortion attempt.
“Just to be clear,” said [Louisiana Sen. David] Vitter. “Nobody disagrees that a child born alive should get all available medical care for survival?”
“I do disagree,” Foster replied. “I can imagine situations where the doctors and nurses have decided that there’s not a point in medical intervention. And by whisking the baby away [to attempt treatment], you’ve taken away a woman’s chance to hold her child and say goodbye.”
“Okay, so if there is care available towards survival, you think that in some cases that care should be denied?” Vitter asked.
“I think that the law says that all– that the child has to be taken away and receive medical care if there are signs of life – which doesn’t allow for the physician or nurse, or more importantly the wishes of the family, to say that they don’t think that care is going to help in this case and that they want to be able to hold their child,” Foster said.
Kathi Aultman, a former abortion doctor who is now pro-life, pointed out the deadly outcome of Foster’s position.
“The worst complication for an abortionist is to have the baby born alive, and I do not feel that the abortionist has the best interests of that child at stake and the mother may not either,” Aultman told the Senate hearing.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
“The bill is not saying that you must give that baby extraordinary care,” she continued. “They’re just saying you have to give them the same care you would give any other baby at that gestation. And at that gestational age they do need to be where they can get the best help, and the mother can go with them.”
Foster defended her radical position in front of abortion survivor Melissa Ohden, who also testified during the hearing on Tuesday. Ohden survived a saline infusion late-term abortion.
“As a child who was initially left to die after an abortion, I believe that timely, appropriate medical care is incredibly important to children like me,” Ohden said prior to the hearing.
On Tuesday, Ohden told the Senators that she is personally aware of 207 abortion survivors like herself. These people are alive today because they received medical care after the failed attempts to abort them — care that abortion activists like Foster would allow doctors and women to deny.
“If my birth mother had gone to Planned Parenthood, I believe I would not be here today,” Ohden said during the hearing.
Planned Parenthood does about 330,000 abortions a year, more than any other group in the U.S. In September, Planned Parenthood leaders refused to say medical care should be given to a baby born alive after an abortion.
The shocking refusal came during the abortion business CEO’s Congressional testimony under oath. Planned Parenthood’s president claimed that she never heard of a case where a baby was born alive after an abortion.
Unless asked to do so. Mosque training these days is not about turning the other cheek. Even in suburban America. Especially in suburban America, in fact.
>Most Muslim children are not suicide bombers, nor are their parents training them to be such.
Any persons following islam are dangerous and need to be contained. islam is pure evil and overpowering. islam can not be allowed in the modern world.
“Any persons following islam are dangerous and need to be contained. islam is pure evil and overpowering. islam can not be allowed in the modern world.”
I agree. To muslims life is cheap even their own.
So, call it what is really is. The execution (murder) of an innocent baby.
There’s a special place in Hell for these people.
The whole place is evil. EVERY square inch of it.
Good one, Morgana!!
And Obama feels the same way.
Evil is not insanity.
It is much worse.
Yes, you're right. I was thinking of spiritual insanity, as in a hatred of God.
"Holding" their child isn't what they have in mind. Killing it is.
Sick people.
This is horribly true --- and more often than not, the whole Muslim village. It's the indiscriminate nature of the terrorists' aggression which is most barbaric.
And on the theme of "indiscriminate": some FReepers hijack threads like this one (a thread "about" abortion and infanticide, the killing of preborn and newborn babies) to advocate for the extermination of Muslims. Not you, Morgana, but some --- and I won't ping him by naming him.
We need to be mindful that although all suicide bombers are Muslims, most Muslims are not suicide bombers. Their preborns and newborns are not our enemies. Their majorities, though gravely mislead, are not combatants. And their victims are, more often than not, the more peaceful Muslims who would not cooperate with the berserk muhammo-nihilists.
It helps a little to know about ISIS' murderous opposition to Alawites, Druzes, Dervishis, Kurds, Sufis, etc. etc. ---all Muslims who are not ISIS.
It also helps to recall to mind --- sometimes one hardly dares say it --- that even if they are not obedient to the God we love, who indeed IS love, they are human beings created by that same God.
Romans 11:32
For God has enclosed all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
Prolife thread, so easily hijacked.
Just don’t be deceived into thinking muslims are pro life. First of all even though abortion is not allowed in islam, their women do have them.
Second this is a religion that tells their people to kill the infidel. The infidel is everyone who is not muslim. These are people who have taken their babies, but suicide bombs on them, and have killed Jews. Their evil knows no limits. They will use their babies and children to carry out jihad. This point I’ve had to argue out with other freepers who I will not name at this time. This freeper said I was not christian because I don’t support muslims. Yes I don’t support a culture/religion of death! I don’t support a religion that worships the devil.
Even if they are not in jihad, remember they have these “honor killing”, a woman who dishonors a family. They kill rape victims, not a rapists. The list goes on.
Jesus died for us, their religion/god demand you die for him.
We can’t even trust their babies, why you ask? Their parents may have put a suicide vest on them. Their parents from birth are teaching them to kill and destroy.
However, hating on their babies isn't Christian. Nor is it a realistic defense strategy.
Neither is it appropriate to hijack an anti-abortion thread to advocate the elimination of disfavored children.
I don’t hate their babies I fear their babies just like I fear their adults. Both can be dangerous. I have learned they will stoop to any level to kill us.
You are correct these threads should not be hijacked. I am at a loss to understand why they are. Muslims are not prolife.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.