NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Abortion Industry and media mangle the truth so they can pretend Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act is not needed

by | May 13, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

Talk about striking a nerve. The Abortion Industry and its multitudinous defenders in the media are in hyper-overdrive trying to explain away the Democrats’ adamant resistance to providing equal care to abortion survivors as you would to any other baby delivered at the same gestational age.

They have fixated on President Trump’s use of the word “execute.” In his State of the Union Address, the President boldly told the nation what happens when a baby survives a “failed” abortion: “They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

This allows them to avoid the truth: if the abortionist and the mother give the thumbs down to anything beyond providing a blanket, the baby is left to die. So rather than be honest, they quibble over the President’s use of the word “execute.”

The latest “fact check” comes from the reliably pro-abortion Associated Press writer David Crary. There are obfuscation and rabbit trails galore. Let me focus on just two.

First, Crary tells us

What’s clear is that he is oversimplifying a deeply complex issue. It’s already a crime to kill babies, but not necessarily a crime to forgo sophisticated medical intervention in cases where severe fetal abnormalities leave a newborn with no chance of survival.

Let’s be clear, unlike Crary. Under the 2002 Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes.

The BAIPA was a response to troubling indications, well summarized in the House Judiciary Committee’s excellent 2001 report on the legislation, that some abortion providers and pro-abortion activists did not regard infants born alive during abortion procedures as legal persons – especially if the infants were deemed to be “pre-viable” (i.e., have limited life expectancy due to prematurity).

Such a mindset puts a substantial number of live-born infant persons in jeopardy of gross neglect or overt violence.

But BAIPA had no enforcement powers, which is why the Abortion Industry is adamantly against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act which does!

So it’s a crime to actively kill an abortion survivor. But there is also infanticide by neglect, which Crary obscures by his phraseology—“but not necessarily a crime to forgo sophisticated medical intervention in cases where severe fetal abnormalities leave a newborn with no chance of survival.”

Nowhere does the Born-Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act talk about “sophisticated medical intervention,” let alone when the “newborn with no chance of survival.”

What it does explicitly require is 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 require futile measures, but rather, requires that babies born alive during abortions are treated in the same manner as those who are spontaneously born prematurely. (My emphasis)

Second, what about Kermit Gosnell, the West Philadelphia abortionist convicted of three counts of murder after executing babies he consciously delivered alive? Well, lo and behold, his hideous experience is evidence the law is NOT required.

Crary writes

In past years, anti-abortion activists have often cited the case of a Philadelphia doctor, Kermit Gosnell, as part of an effort to stigmatize other abortion providers across the country. Abortion-rights advocates say the Gosnell case proves their contention that existing laws are adequate. He performed extremely late-term abortions, then snipped the spines of infants born alive during the procedures. In 2013, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without the chance for parole.

Pardon? Let’s ignore for a moment that Gosnell was convicted of hundreds of counts of ignoring the 24 week limit on abortion.

The prosecution (and the Gosnell Grand Jury) believes he snipped the spinal cords of hundreds of viable babies whom he delivered alive but avoided prosecution for all but three by destroying records.

How does that prove “that existing laws are adequate”?

Gosnell also negligently killed one woman during a botched abortion, and had absolutely zero health or safety standards at his Women’s Medical Society. One clinic worker testified, “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”

How does that prove “that existing laws are adequate”?

His filthy, flea infested clinic wasn’t inspected for 17 years!

How does that prove “that existing laws are adequate”?

Then there is the massive Grand Jury report which eviscerated the entire legal and medical establishments and did not pull punches about the pro-abortion politics involved, either:

…[T]he Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety. Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer.”

How does that prove “that existing laws are adequate”?

Finally, Gosnell actually applied to join the National Abortion Federation. “However the NAF denied Gosnell’s facility membership citing records that weren’t being kept properly, risks not being fully explained to patients, patients being left unmonitored, anesthesia being misused, and other violations,” as Matthew Wagner pointed out. “In fact, the NAF evaluator called it the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected (although she never reported any of the violations to the proper authorities).”

One more time. How does that prove “that existing laws are adequate”?

It doesn’t, and it also shows how cowardly the NAF—the abortion industry’s trade association —was when Gosnell’s hideous incompetence and disregard for women was flung right in their face.

Categories: Media Bias