NRL News

Az. House Judiciary Committee rejects bill to authorize infanticide

by | Feb 21, 2019

Sponsor says her “intent” was misunderstood

By Dave Andrusko

Arizona State Rep. Raquel Terán

The anti-life lobby does it level best (in a manner of speaking) to hide its insatiable appetite for death. For example, how could anyone think the governor of Virginia or members of the Arizona House of Representatives would really and truly want abortion survivors not to be treated, aka, infanticide?

Easy. Just listen to them.

Yesterday the Arizona House Committee on Judiciary unanimously turned back Rep. Raquel Terán’s House Bill 2696 to authorize infanticide. The vote was 8-0, although two Democrats took the coward’s way out by voting “present.”

Rep. Terán screamed “foul.” HB 2697 explicitly repealed the 1975 law that required abortionists doctors to use all “available means and medical skills” to save the baby who survives an abortion but it also would repeal the 2017 law which put teeth in the 1975 requirements.

But that was merely a “drafting error,” for which Terán told the committee chair she took full responsibility. All she really wanted to do, according to the pro-abortion and very sympathetic Arizona Republic was to “repeal Arizona’s controversial 2017 fetal resuscitation law.”

Arizona State Rep.John Allen

Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, turned down Terán’s request to withdraw the measure. He noted 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.”

So what is this “controversial” 2017 fetal resuscitation law?

“The bill would require hospitals and clinics providing abortions at 20 weeks or beyond to have medical equipment on site to care for a fetus delivered alive,” the Arizona Republic reported at the time. “At least three Arizona clinics offer terminations at and beyond 20 weeks gestation,” the pro-abortion chimed in.

The inadequacies in the 1975 law remedied by the 2017 law is exactly why pro-abortionist hate it so. The 1975 law didn’t specify what “delivered alive” meant or specify what is required of the abortionist when a baby survived an abortion. That way abortionists could pick and choose which babies (if any)they would try to save, and to what extent.

As the Arizona Republic wrote in 2017

SB 1367 defines “delivered alive” as showing one or more of these signs of life: breathing, a heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation or definite movement of voluntary muscles.

It requires the Arizona Department of Health Services to set policies that clinics, hospitals and physicians must follow to care for a baby delivered alive, including having neonatal emergency equipment and trained staff in the room for all abortions performed at or after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Proponents of HB 2697 invoked babies born with a “fatal fetal condition.” In fact the 2017 law addresses babies who are not expected to live longer than three months. Even so the doctor/abortionist must confirm the fatal condition after the baby is born and “must confirm that additional treatment will only prolong the act of dying,” according to reporters Alia Beard Rau and Mary Jo Pitzl.

As an illustration of how the Arizona Republic mischaracterized the story, a caption described HB2697 as an “anti-abortion bill.”

That’s wrong on two scores. Pro-lifers opposed HB2697 and as the hundreds of people who came to the capitol yesterday were quick to point out, this is not about abortion but about what we owe babies who are born alive following an abortion.

Categories: Legislation