Born Alive Infants Protection Act

FOXNews | 8/5/02 | Vets_Husband_and_Wife

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Thank GOD for this President!!!!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The murdering of our nations most innocent, just got harder to do!!!

PRAISE GOD!!

[Stone Mountain]

Uhhh... link? What are we talking about?

[hellinahandcart]

The bill was just signed.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

BREAKING ON FOX right NOW! Sorry I thought the "Breaking news" and the source would lead people there. MY bad!!

[My Favorite Headache]

It is more symbolic than anything else. I have read that this was pretty much the standard in this country and he was just signing this into law.

[yendu bwam]

The fact that 25 Democrats voted against this in the House tells me that the Democrats have lost all morality.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I predict that the abortion mills will simply ignore this law and proceed business as usual. What is the penalty for allowing an infant to die (or smothering it after a botched abortion)? A fine?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Not true. I don't have the statistics at hand, but there are still "late term" abortions being performed in this country. That is where the baby is born feet first, and before the head leaves the birth canal, they stick a needle into the base of the babies skull, all the while the baby is kicking, and then they suck out the baby's brains.

It is at present 2 inches from legal murder,.. in that given another two inches the baby would be OUT of the birth canal and delivered. THEN IT COULD BE CALLED MURDER AND PEOPLE TRIED AND CONVICTED.

You are going to hear an outcry from the womens lib groups, etc. after the signing of this today. Just watch!!

The American Medical Association, has previously (and very publicly) stated there is NEVER a threat to a womans health if she can deliver like this. Besides, it is breach!!

Perhaps some womens excuses for needing this are that they will kill themselves, or even the baby if it is born. But physically there is no threat to a woman. PERIOD. So Doctors need to get these women locked up if they are a threat to them or an unborn child. They should be in a mental institute until the birth of the child, then the child taken away from them.

This was a good move by the President. I welcome it!!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The fact that 25 Democrats voted against this in the House tells me that the Democrats have lost all morality.

You will get no arguement from me!

[Ed_NYC]

They never had any!

[garv]

Are you confusing this legislation with the partial birth abortion ban? While I applaud Bush signing this bill, it does not stop PBA.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

They will try to skirt around it, thats for sure!!

I just find it extremely encouraging that this President will speak out against this slaughter! Plus, he withheld funding that would have allowed abortions to be paid for by US citizens in other countries too.

Its been a LONG time since we had an administration that stood up for LIFE this way. Who would take a stand at all regarding babies, and the murder of them.

It has LONG been a taboo to even address this issue!! Thank GOD this President answers to a higher power, he answers only to HIM, GOD!! It is evident in his actions, like this act he just signed.

Glad to see it..and hope he continues to lead by example.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Yes it does. You have to see the legislation that happened previously in congress. They called a child that could survive out of the womb, a baby instead of a fetus. They humanized it. This is heading in the right direction.

What we need is the act to be put on the forum. I hope someone can find it, and soon. That way there won't be any confusion regarding what he just signed. In listening to him, he was explaining the rights of the unborn. I really need to get the act and put it on here.

I'm going searching for it..and I will check back on occassion to see if it is already here.

[My2Cents]

The fact the Democrats have no morals is not new news. It's why they are called "The Evil Party."

[Ravenstar]

Sadly however it is also evident that this President is a part of the Good Ol' Boy network. He has done everything he could to keep Slick willie from being prosecuted, like leaving 99% of Slicks Federal District Attorneys in place, thus assuring no finding of Wrong doing even though the quid pro quo is obvious. Mark Rich Pardon for Library donation! is just one example.

Ravenstar

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Senate Passes Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

(July 18, 2002)

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate on July 18 gave final congressional approval to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (H.R. 2175).

The bill would guarantee that live-born infants are afforded full legal rights under federal law, regardless of their stage of development or whether their live births occurred during an abortion.

When the legislation was originally introduced in 2000 by Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.) (since retired), it was attacked by some pro-abortion groups, but they later muted their criticism. The bill passed the House 380-15 on September 26, 2000, but it was killed in the Senate by anonymous objection at the end of the 2000 session.

The legislation was reintroduced in the current Congress by Congressman Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). It had passed the House on March 12 by a voice vote, and on July 18 cleared the Senate by unanimous consent.

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which worked for over two years in support of the legislation, welcomed the action.

"Some newborn infants, especially those who are born alive during abortions, have been treated as non-persons," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "This bill says that every infant born alive, even during an abortion and even if premature, is a full legal person under federal law."

In a March 12 statement, the Bush Administration said that it "strongly supports" the bill, which "would ensure that infants who are born alive, at any stage of development, are individual human beings who are entitled to the full protections of the law," and "would provide guaranteed legal protection whether or not the infant's delivery was natural or the result of an abortion."

Babies whose lungs are insufficiently developed to permit sustained survival are often spontaneously delivered alive, and may live for hours or days. Others are delivered alive during attempted late-term abortions or even as a method of late-term abortion.

The bill would codify (for federal law purposes only) the traditional definition of "born alive" that is already found in the laws of most states: complete expulsion from the mother, accompanied by heartbeat, respiration, and/or voluntary movements. The bill would also codify the traditional principle that the legal term "person" and other equivalent terms "shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

The bill defines a child as "born alive" only if it displays the specified vital sign(s) after "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother" -- in other words, after pregnancy has ended.

Nevertheless, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) attacked the bill after its original introduction in 2000. In a July 20, 2000 statement, NARAL said the bill would "effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus “in direct conflict with Roe [v. Wade]."

In reality, of course, Roe v. Wade dealt only with the constitutional status of the "unborn fetus." There is nothing in Roe to support the claim that infants who are born alive may be considered anything less than legal persons, regardless of their stage of lung development (i.e., "viability").

The bill was supported by lawmakers who take different positions regarding the constitutional or statutory rights of unborn children, because it explicitly leaves those as open questions by incorporating a rule of construction that says nothing in the bill "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive' as defined [in the bill]."

A letter from NRLC to the Senate explaining the necessity for the bill, a copy of the official March 12 Bush Administration statement on the bill, and other documents on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act are posted on the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/index.html

The report of the House Judiciary Committee on the bill is posted at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp107:FLD010:@1">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp107:FLD010:@1(hr186):

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

It may not be all I had hoped for, as you stated. But it is a step in the right direction. I guess I'm just relieved to SEE any movement in the RIGHT direction. My hopes were definelty higher than what the act proposes. But I do like the trend.

Here is an excerpt I particularly liked "Nevertheless, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) attacked the bill after its original introduction in 2000. In a July 20, 2000 statement, NARAL said the bill would "effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus “in direct conflict with Roe [v. Wade]."

Anything that upsets that group.. makes me happy!! :o)

[NYer]

In a related story,

PHILADELPHIA (AP) _ A judge Monday overturned his unusual decision that temporarily barred a woman from having an abortion, allowing her to end her pregnancy.

Luzerne County Common Pleas Judge Michael Conahan dissolved the temporary injunction forbidding Tanya Meyers, 23, from ending her pregnancy. He also dismissed the lawsuit filed by her ex-boyfriend, John Stachokus, who had sought to force her to carry her pregnancy to term,

``Her right to privacy has been restored and she is free to go on with her life,'' said Susan Fritchey, an attorney with the Women's Law Project and co-counsel for Meyers. ``It's a great relief for her.''

Stachokus, 27, had said he was willing to take full or partial custody of the child and claimed in his suit that Meyers was being pressured by her mother to have the abortion. The case gained the support of abortion opponents and fathers' rights groups, which said men should have a say in the outcome of a pregnancy they helped create.

AP-ES-08-05-02 1358EDT

[Brookhaven]

It is more symbolic than anything else. I have read that this was pretty much the standard in this country and he was just signing this into law.

No, it isn't the standard. There are two pretty gray areas. A live birth during an abotion procedure, and a child that is born severly deformed. The argument is they would both have died anyway, so you shouldn't do anything to preserve their lives. The definition of deformed has been stretched over the years (and continues to be stretched) so that children that could have been saved and led long (if inperfect lives) are allowed to die.

The news announcer I saw on this story put an interesting spin on the story. "the bill would protect the rights of babies born alive, even if it was the result of an abortion." As though they shouldn't have rights, even if they are outside of the mother.

[garv]

It is a step in the right direction and I'm happy to see it. It also shows how far into barbarism we've slipped since Roe. The fact that viable infants, entirely outside the womb, needed legislation to protect their most basic human right offers a glimpse of the horror.

Anyone want to argue the slippery slope theory now?