{"id":283334,"date":"2023-01-12T11:25:30","date_gmt":"2023-01-12T17:25:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=283334"},"modified":"2023-01-12T11:23:43","modified_gmt":"2023-01-12T17:23:43","slug":"reps-feign-concern-babies-abortion-deny-care","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/reps-feign-concern-babies-abortion-deny-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion reps feign concern for ‘babies’ who survive abortion… while voting to deny them care"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The U.S. House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Wednesday, but not before pro-abortion House members made shocking comments<\/a> about the bill, calling it “dangerous,” and feigning concern for the safety of children unintentionally born alive<\/a> during abortions \u2014 even referring to them as “infants” and “babies” who should be left to die without medical assistance.<\/p>\n

The bill aims to ensure abortion survivors receive age-appropriate medical care rather than being left to die<\/a> or actively\u00a0killed<\/a> by an abortionist. The bill states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

An infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

If the child is born alive during an abortion, health care practitioners who are present must “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and … following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required … ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.”<\/p>\n

All but two<\/a> House Democrats voted against this bill. But two pro-abortion reps in particular voiced alleged concerns that providing medical care to a struggling abortion survivor could endanger the babies’ lives<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For every dollar given, 34 more people can be reached with the truth about abortion. Will you join us in this life-saving work as a monthly donor today?<\/i><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said (emphasis added), “The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants<\/strong> by stating that that infant<\/strong> must immediately be brought to the hospital. It directs and mandates certain medical care that may not be appropriate.” However, Nadler did not attempt to explain or expound upon his remarks.<\/p>\n

Likewise, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)\u00a0claimed<\/a>\u00a0that taking the child to the hospital after treatment could be harmful. The legislation (emphasis added) \u201crequires immediately taking a struggling baby<\/strong> to a hospital. That hospital could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby<\/strong>,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Then she quickly pivoted: “This is nothing more than part of the effort to make abortion illegal nationally in this country.”<\/p>\n

Schakowsky failed to state how<\/em> providing medical care to a struggling premature infant would make abortion illegal.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): "[The bill] requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital. That hospital could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby." pic.twitter.com\/gsw9atN06u<\/a><\/p>\n

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) January 11, 2023<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n