NRL News

A deliberately distorted explanation of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

by | Apr 10, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

I grant you no major “mainstream media” outlet, let alone the Washington Post, would ever be honest about abortion, but don’t you think describing a veteran pro-abortion propagandist as a “freelance journalist and commentator on politics, gender and culture” is just a tad disingenuous?

That’s the Post’s description of Laura Bassett who wrote an op-ed that ran today under the headline, “Republicans are pushing another false claim about abortion to rile up voters: It worked in 2016. Will it work next year?”.

I just popped her name into the search engine for NRL News Today stories and Bassett’s name crops up over and over again. She might as well been a member of the Obama Administration so slavishly and unswervingly did she praise him.

Just to take a few of her more incendiary and purposefully inaccurate statements…

*”An attempted abortion late enough into a pregnancy to result in a live birth is extremely rare and happens only when the mother’s life is at risk or the fetus has a fatal condition.” This is an impenetrable-to- the- truth mantra that pro-abortionists use as a shield.

It’s just stated as if it were gospel that these abortions are only performed when the baby has a fatal anomaly or the mother’s life is at risk. It simply isn’t true. Women have these late abortions for a multiplicity of reasons, as even Guttmacher, the abortion industry’s think-tank, acknowledges.

Then there is

*“Republicans are pushing legislation in both the House and Senate that purports to address such atrocities by criminalizing doctors who fail to take every step necessary to revive a child born alive after a failed abortion.”

“To take every step necessary…”No, no, no, and no. What does the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act , in truth, require?

S.311 would enact an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded “the same degree” of care that would apply “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age,” including transportation to a hospital.

This language does not dictate bona fide medical judgments nor does it require futile measures. Rather S.311 requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely.

*Bassett, who specializes in confusion, attributes to pro-lifers the very behavior she is habitually guilty of. She writes

Part of the reason Republicans have been able to make some headway with this line of attack is that Ralph Northam, Virginia’s Democratic governor, garbled his response to a similar bill proposed in his state in January, misspeaking in a way that appeared to endorse afterbirth abortion and sparking a national firestorm.

First of all, Northam has not retreated from what he said on a program of WTOP radio. And he didn’t “misspeak” at all. He was very explicit in what he supported.

When defending the abortion-through-40-weeks proposal of Del. Kathy Tran, Northam said

“When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable.”

To repeat, third trimester abortions are not done only in cases of “severe deformities.” And so what if the baby has anomalies, severe or otherwise? To repeat the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act does not require “futile” care, it requires equal care.

*Bassett keeps talking about “afterbirth abortion” when the issue is treatment—or, in this case, non-treatment—of abortion survivors. Here is what Northam said about abortion survivors:

The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother

Beyond “comfort care,” anything and everything is optional. For example, whether the baby is resuscitated is up to the mother, although if Northam were even a tiny bit candid he would acknowledge that a woman in that situation is putty in the hands of the abortionist.

The part about “and then” can be read two ways. Did Northam mean that once the baby is resuscitated, what else is done will depend on a “discussion” between the abortionist and the mother? Or did he mean the abortionist will have that conversation with the mother prior to actually resuscitating the baby?

The reason the phrase “afterbirth abortion” may sometimes be used is because the logic of not treating an abortion survivor is the same as the logic behind taking the child’s life in the first place: it’s up the mother. The child has no rights of her own.

However, under the provisions of The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, the abortion survivors does have protections. BAIPA established that the terms “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” in federal law include every infant born alive, even after an abortion.

You get the point. Bassett mangles, garbles, muddles, and distorts in order to turn the truth inside out. It is not pro-life Republicans but pro-abortion Democrats, and their media enablers like Bassett, that are gung-ho to recycle their deliberately confused, blurred and misleading talking points of 2016.

Categories: Abortion Survivor