2020 Dems voted to block newborn care

[reason10]

https://freebeacon.com/issues/2020-...qGvLaaIC7rab8H-OYVttA0l1oPGb2rV40xyLEpZMYrvWk

2020 Dem Presidential Hopefuls Vote to Block Newborn Care

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Cory Booker (D., N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) all voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday evening. Their votes put them at odds with not just the general public, but Democratic voters. A vast majority of voters, including those who identify as pro-choice, support providing care to newborns who survive abortion; 70 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents, and 86 percent of Republicans back the policy, according to the McLaughlin & Associates poll commissioned by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

The bill would have required doctors to provide care for infants who survive late term abortions, rather than letting those born alive die on the table. A 2016 study posted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that 60 percent of babies born at 22 weeks gestation—what is commonly seen as the borderline of viability—were able to survive when they received "active care" from doctors.

Remember that empty statement from Clinton about making abortions safe, legal and rare? Well, so much for moderation.

Now they are precisely the Feminists Rush Limbaugh originally and accurately tagged them to be.

 

[marvin martian]

https://freebeacon.com/issues/2020-...qGvLaaIC7rab8H-OYVttA0l1oPGb2rV40xyLEpZMYrvWk

2020 Dem Presidential Hopefuls Vote to Block Newborn Care

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Cory Booker (D., N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) all voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday evening. Their votes put them at odds with not just the general public, but Democratic voters. A vast majority of voters, including those who identify as pro-choice, support providing care to newborns who survive abortion; 70 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents, and 86 percent of Republicans back the policy, according to the McLaughlin & Associates poll commissioned by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

The bill would have required doctors to provide care for infants who survive late term abortions, rather than letting those born alive die on the table. A 2016 study posted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that 60 percent of babies born at 22 weeks gestation—what is commonly seen as the borderline of viability—were able to survive when they received "active care" from doctors.

Remember that empty statement from Clinton about making abortions safe, legal and rare? Well, so much for moderation.

Now they are precisely the Feminists Rush Limbaugh originally and accurately tagged them to be.

Ghastly. The modern Democratic party has become a death cult.

 

[Caroljo]

Sick pukes. I'd call it murder to let a child die like that with no care.

 

[Nostra]

Abortion at any age.

 

[llovejim]

https://freebeacon.com/issues/2020-...qGvLaaIC7rab8H-OYVttA0l1oPGb2rV40xyLEpZMYrvWk

2020 Dem Presidential Hopefuls Vote to Block Newborn Care

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), Cory Booker (D., N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D., Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), and Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) all voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday evening. Their votes put them at odds with not just the general public, but Democratic voters. A vast majority of voters, including those who identify as pro-choice, support providing care to newborns who survive abortion; 70 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents, and 86 percent of Republicans back the policy, according to the McLaughlin & Associates poll commissioned by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

The bill would have required doctors to provide care for infants who survive late term abortions, rather than letting those born alive die on the table. A 2016 study posted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that 60 percent of babies born at 22 weeks gestation—what is commonly seen as the borderline of viability—were able to survive when they received "active care" from doctors.

Remember that empty statement from Clinton about making abortions safe, legal and rare? Well, so much for moderation.

Now they are precisely the Feminists Rush Limbaugh originally and accurately tagged them to be.

we already have laws that make what you are talking about illegal. the repubs just wanted another vote to pander to their dumbass base who actually thought it was legal to kill any infant for any reason, outside of the same reason older people are allowed to die if the infant has such a severe physical defect it is not able to live without incredible medical intervention, and then not for very long. the repubs wanted to give their base some red meat, and democrats did not want to play that nonsensical game for political reasons when laws were already on the books covering the same thing. have someone read this to you-


Legal experts pointed to several specific laws relevant to newborns:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, first passed in 1974 and subsequently revised, including major updates in the 1980s. The relevant portion of the law makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adoption of policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to "persons" also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an abortion.

• State laws. State, rather than federal, laws "are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born during the process of abortion," said Teresa S. Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and director of the university’s Prolife Center. In 2002, Collett said, Congress identified 30 states that had some statutory protection for infants surviving an attempted abortion.

"Most states would allow prosecution of doctors for killing or failing to resuscitate after a live birth," said Douglas O. Linder, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

In fact, the highest-profile case of this type was prosecuted under state laws: The 2013 trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to three life terms for killing a series of late-term newborns in gruesome fashion.

"Not to provide standard newborn care for those infants that happen to survive an abortion and emerge breathing could be considered a form of negligent killing or homicide," Duncan said.

There is a long tradition in Congress by both parties of putting forward bills that seek to force the other party into casting awkward votes. This law would fall into that category, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor and author of the books Beyond Abortion: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Privacy and After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate.

The Senate bill "mostly appealed to Republicans because it would put Democrats in a difficult political situation," Ziegler said. "Polls show that most Americans are uncomfortable with later abortions, much less anything after a live birth. Focusing on this issue is strategically savvy, even if it would make very little difference to the overall number of abortions."

In reality, both sides agree that active killing of a breathing newborn is -- and should be -- illegal.

"There is a broad consensus that a child that takes its first breath has crossed a bright line from fetus to child and should be protected by the law," Collett said.

"This is a clear-cut concept that we can all agree upon," said Gretchen Ely, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo’s School of Social Work and a board member for Social Workers for Reproductive Justice. "The notion that anyone supports executing infants after birth is preposterous."

More complicated are cases in which the newborn is so severely disabled that they may not survive beyond a few days.

"Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has written.

A failure to resuscitate, which is typical in such cases, "is a much more contentious issue," said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. "Babies born post-abortion, spontaneous or induced, with horrible and potentially painful conditions incompatible with life, would not be routinely resuscitated or aggressively treated by most medical teams. In fact some would not even know how to try, or lack the technology to do so, especially in rural areas."

Caplan said he is unaware of examples of "medically active killing," and that while "allowing to die does happen," it occurs "very rarely—say, a baby born with no lungs at 20 weeks."

In such a scenario, Trump’s image of an "execution" is hyperbole, experts said.

"I do not have a clue what is meant by ‘executing’ after birth," said Leslie Francis, director of the Center for Law and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Utah who also serves as a member of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and previously served as a director of the Disability Law Center.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...hecking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/

 

[llovejim]

Sick pukes. I'd call it murder to let a child die like that with no care.

so does everybody else. do you ever read the news at all or do you just watch Fox? there are already laws on the books covering what this politically inspired bill was covering...it was just some typical bullshit republican pandering to their ignorant base.

 

[Alinvegas]

we already have laws that make what you are talking about illegal. the repubs just wanted another vote to pander to their dumbass base who actually thought it was legal to kill any infant for any reason, outside of the same reason older people are allowed to die if the infant has such a severe physical defect it is not able to live without incredible medical intervention, and then not for very long. the repubs wanted to give their base some red meat, and democrats did not want to play that nonsensical game for political reasons when laws were already on the books covering the same thing. have someone read this to you-


Legal experts pointed to several specific laws relevant to newborns:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, first passed in 1974 and subsequently revised, including major updates in the 1980s. The relevant portion of the law makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adoption of policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to "persons" also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an abortion.

• State laws. State, rather than federal, laws "are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born during the process of abortion," said Teresa S. Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and director of the university’s Prolife Center. In 2002, Collett said, Congress identified 30 states that had some statutory protection for infants surviving an attempted abortion.

"Most states would allow prosecution of doctors for killing or failing to resuscitate after a live birth," said Douglas O. Linder, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

In fact, the highest-profile case of this type was prosecuted under state laws: The 2013 trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to three life terms for killing a series of late-term newborns in gruesome fashion.

"Not to provide standard newborn care for those infants that happen to survive an abortion and emerge breathing could be considered a form of negligent killing or homicide," Duncan said.

There is a long tradition in Congress by both parties of putting forward bills that seek to force the other party into casting awkward votes. This law would fall into that category, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor and author of the books Beyond Abortion: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Privacy and After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate.

The Senate bill "mostly appealed to Republicans because it would put Democrats in a difficult political situation," Ziegler said. "Polls show that most Americans are uncomfortable with later abortions, much less anything after a live birth. Focusing on this issue is strategically savvy, even if it would make very little difference to the overall number of abortions."

In reality, both sides agree that active killing of a breathing newborn is -- and should be -- illegal.

"There is a broad consensus that a child that takes its first breath has crossed a bright line from fetus to child and should be protected by the law," Collett said.

"This is a clear-cut concept that we can all agree upon," said Gretchen Ely, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo’s School of Social Work and a board member for Social Workers for Reproductive Justice. "The notion that anyone supports executing infants after birth is preposterous."

More complicated are cases in which the newborn is so severely disabled that they may not survive beyond a few days.

"Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has written.

A failure to resuscitate, which is typical in such cases, "is a much more contentious issue," said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. "Babies born post-abortion, spontaneous or induced, with horrible and potentially painful conditions incompatible with life, would not be routinely resuscitated or aggressively treated by most medical teams. In fact some would not even know how to try, or lack the technology to do so, especially in rural areas."

Caplan said he is unaware of examples of "medically active killing," and that while "allowing to die does happen," it occurs "very rarely—say, a baby born with no lungs at 20 weeks."

In such a scenario, Trump’s image of an "execution" is hyperbole, experts said.

"I do not have a clue what is meant by ‘executing’ after birth," said Leslie Francis, director of the Center for Law and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Utah who also serves as a member of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and previously served as a director of the Disability Law Center.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...hecking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/

Yup, here you are, right on Queue

 

[Nostra]

in West Virginia? You believe West Virginia is controlled by democrats? And what in the hell does the KKK have to do with democrats today or somehow being pro-choice? are you on drugs?

Ok, VA. not W. VA.

The Klansman baby killer is still yours.

 

[llovejim]

Ok, VA. not W. VA.

The Klansman baby killer is still yours.

why do you lie so much? even after you read trump's tweets about 2 black congresswomen to go back to Africa, you say "no racism." but this guy, as a college student, in 1985, showed up at a Halloween party in blackface and that means he is in the KKK and a racist!! do you even get how incredibly different those two facts are and how hypocritical to boot, if I had boots on? you refuse to see the racism dripping off Trump and make believe democrats have racist ties for wearing blackface at a halloween party 30 years ago.

and the Virginia law did not have anything even remotely connected to killing babies or even allowing babies to die if somehow they survived an abortion!! read something, if you can. get a clue. here is what the Virginia Law stated-

HB 2491 Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.
Introduced by: Kathy K.L. Tran | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Abortion; eliminate certain requirements. Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman's informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.

 

[Caroljo]

so does everybody else. do you ever read the news at all or do you just watch Fox? there are already laws on the books covering what this politically inspired bill was covering...it was just some typical bullshit republican pandering to their ignorant base.

Can you post a link to the laws already on the books?

 

[Drumcollie]

we already have laws that make what you are talking about illegal. the repubs just wanted another vote to pander to their dumbass base who actually thought it was legal to kill any infant for any reason, outside of the same reason older people are allowed to die if the infant has such a severe physical defect it is not able to live without incredible medical intervention, and then not for very long. the repubs wanted to give their base some red meat, and democrats did not want to play that nonsensical game for political reasons when laws were already on the books covering the same thing. have someone read this to you-


Legal experts pointed to several specific laws relevant to newborns:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, first passed in 1974 and subsequently revised, including major updates in the 1980s. The relevant portion of the law makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adoption of policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to "persons" also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an abortion.

• State laws. State, rather than federal, laws "are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born during the process of abortion," said Teresa S. Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and director of the university’s Prolife Center. In 2002, Collett said, Congress identified 30 states that had some statutory protection for infants surviving an attempted abortion.

"Most states would allow prosecution of doctors for killing or failing to resuscitate after a live birth," said Douglas O. Linder, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

In fact, the highest-profile case of this type was prosecuted under state laws: The 2013 trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to three life terms for killing a series of late-term newborns in gruesome fashion.

"Not to provide standard newborn care for those infants that happen to survive an abortion and emerge breathing could be considered a form of negligent killing or homicide," Duncan said.

There is a long tradition in Congress by both parties of putting forward bills that seek to force the other party into casting awkward votes. This law would fall into that category, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor and author of the books Beyond Abortion: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Privacy and After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate.

The Senate bill "mostly appealed to Republicans because it would put Democrats in a difficult political situation," Ziegler said. "Polls show that most Americans are uncomfortable with later abortions, much less anything after a live birth. Focusing on this issue is strategically savvy, even if it would make very little difference to the overall number of abortions."

In reality, both sides agree that active killing of a breathing newborn is -- and should be -- illegal.

"There is a broad consensus that a child that takes its first breath has crossed a bright line from fetus to child and should be protected by the law," Collett said.

"This is a clear-cut concept that we can all agree upon," said Gretchen Ely, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo’s School of Social Work and a board member for Social Workers for Reproductive Justice. "The notion that anyone supports executing infants after birth is preposterous."

More complicated are cases in which the newborn is so severely disabled that they may not survive beyond a few days.

"Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has written.

A failure to resuscitate, which is typical in such cases, "is a much more contentious issue," said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. "Babies born post-abortion, spontaneous or induced, with horrible and potentially painful conditions incompatible with life, would not be routinely resuscitated or aggressively treated by most medical teams. In fact some would not even know how to try, or lack the technology to do so, especially in rural areas."

Caplan said he is unaware of examples of "medically active killing," and that while "allowing to die does happen," it occurs "very rarely—say, a baby born with no lungs at 20 weeks."

In such a scenario, Trump’s image of an "execution" is hyperbole, experts said.

"I do not have a clue what is meant by ‘executing’ after birth," said Leslie Francis, director of the Center for Law and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Utah who also serves as a member of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and previously served as a director of the Disability Law Center.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...hecking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/

They should pass a law about bad English. A lot of work...But was a point made?

 

[Drumcollie]

Sick pukes. I'd call it murder to let a child die like that with no care.

Anybody would...Just democrats aren't allowed to say it out loud.

It ain't Healthcare that is for sure.

 

[Colorforms]

we already have laws that make what you are talking about illegal. the repubs just wanted another vote to pander to their dumbass base who actually thought it was legal to kill any infant for any reason, outside of the same reason older people are allowed to die if the infant has such a severe physical defect it is not able to live without incredible medical intervention, and then not for very long. the repubs wanted to give their base some red meat, and democrats did not want to play that nonsensical game for political reasons when laws were already on the books covering the same thing. have someone read this to you-


Legal experts pointed to several specific laws relevant to newborns:

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, first passed in 1974 and subsequently revised, including major updates in the 1980s. The relevant portion of the law makes certain types of federal funding for states conditional on their adoption of policies to prevent improper withholding of treatment from newborns, including those with disabilities.

• The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 established that federal legal protections that applied to "persons" also covered children born at any stage of development, including after an abortion.

• State laws. State, rather than federal, laws "are the primary source of protection against active or negligent killing of infants born during the process of abortion," said Teresa S. Collett, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas and director of the university’s Prolife Center. In 2002, Collett said, Congress identified 30 states that had some statutory protection for infants surviving an attempted abortion.

"Most states would allow prosecution of doctors for killing or failing to resuscitate after a live birth," said Douglas O. Linder, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

In fact, the highest-profile case of this type was prosecuted under state laws: The 2013 trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, who was sentenced to three life terms for killing a series of late-term newborns in gruesome fashion.

"Not to provide standard newborn care for those infants that happen to survive an abortion and emerge breathing could be considered a form of negligent killing or homicide," Duncan said.

There is a long tradition in Congress by both parties of putting forward bills that seek to force the other party into casting awkward votes. This law would fall into that category, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor and author of the books Beyond Abortion: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Privacy and After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate.

The Senate bill "mostly appealed to Republicans because it would put Democrats in a difficult political situation," Ziegler said. "Polls show that most Americans are uncomfortable with later abortions, much less anything after a live birth. Focusing on this issue is strategically savvy, even if it would make very little difference to the overall number of abortions."

In reality, both sides agree that active killing of a breathing newborn is -- and should be -- illegal.

"There is a broad consensus that a child that takes its first breath has crossed a bright line from fetus to child and should be protected by the law," Collett said.

"This is a clear-cut concept that we can all agree upon," said Gretchen Ely, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo’s School of Social Work and a board member for Social Workers for Reproductive Justice. "The notion that anyone supports executing infants after birth is preposterous."

More complicated are cases in which the newborn is so severely disabled that they may not survive beyond a few days.

"Many abortions that occur later in pregnancy involve fetal anomalies incompatible with life, such as anencephaly, the absence of the brain and cranium above the base of the skull, or limb-body wall complex, when the organs develop outside of the body cavity," the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has written.

A failure to resuscitate, which is typical in such cases, "is a much more contentious issue," said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University Langone Medical Center. "Babies born post-abortion, spontaneous or induced, with horrible and potentially painful conditions incompatible with life, would not be routinely resuscitated or aggressively treated by most medical teams. In fact some would not even know how to try, or lack the technology to do so, especially in rural areas."

Caplan said he is unaware of examples of "medically active killing," and that while "allowing to die does happen," it occurs "very rarely—say, a baby born with no lungs at 20 weeks."

In such a scenario, Trump’s image of an "execution" is hyperbole, experts said.

"I do not have a clue what is meant by ‘executing’ after birth," said Leslie Francis, director of the Center for Law and Biomedical Sciences at the University of Utah who also serves as a member of the ethics committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and previously served as a director of the Disability Law Center.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...hecking-donald-trumps-tweet-saying-democrats/

Then you would think that democrats would applaud the measure. Instead they reject it, giving the impression that they are okay with allowing babies to die after birth.

That's incredibly tone deaf.

 

[marvin martian]

why do you lie so much? even after you read trump's tweets about 2 black congresswomen to go back to Africa, you say "no racism." but this guy, as a college student, in 1985, showed up at a Halloween party in blackface and that means he is in the KKK and a racist!! do you even get how incredibly those two beliefs are and how hypocritical to boot, if I had boots on? you refuse to see the racism dripping off Trump and make believe democrats have racist ties for wearing blackface at a halloween party 30 years ago.

and the Virginia law did not have anything even remotely connected to killing babies or even allowing babies to die if somehow they survived an abortion!! read something, if you can. get a clue. here is what the Virginia Law stated-

HB 2491 Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.
Introduced by: Kathy K.L. Tran | all patrons ... notes | add to my profiles

SUMMARY AS INTRODUCED:
Abortion; eliminate certain requirements. Eliminates the requirement that an abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy and prior to the third trimester be performed in a hospital. The bill eliminates all the procedures and processes, including the performance of an ultrasound, required to effect a woman's informed written consent to the performance of an abortion; however, the bill does not change the requirement that a woman's informed written consent be first obtained. The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals.

You support this guy, right?

 

[llovejim]

They should pass a law about bad English. A lot of work...But was a point made?

yeah, if you could read and write English above a 4th grade level it would not have zoomed over your head, grammar bitch. we have had laws against murdering anyone, including BABIES, OF COURSE, forever. and letting an infant die by ignoring it if somehow it survived an abortion is murder by laws on the books. what country do you clowns live in? why do you think it is legal to murder kids and infants? or to let them die out of neglect? why are you so spectacularly stupid and uninformed?

Can you post a link to the laws already on the books?

here is the latest federal law- plus almost every state has laws about making doctors liable for not treating any person who is in obvious medical distress. On what planet do you live?

In 2002, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which guaranteed to infants born at any stage of development full legal rights. .Feb 26, 2019
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act 2019: why it matters - Vox

https://www.vox.com/policy-and.../born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-2019-sasse

 

[llovejim]

You support this guy, right?

sure, why not. everybody in 1985 saw no real problem with blackface at a freaking Halloween party, even most black people. you do know society has changed a little the last 30 years, right? you need to get out more, and learn to read.

do you have use that picture of melania as your avatar because you wish trump would mistreat your ass at home and ignore you pretty much in public? are you envious of melania? that would explain your weird crush on such a huge ass-hole like trump.

 

[Drumcollie]

yeah, if you could read and write English above a 4th grade level it would not have zoomed over your head, grammar bitch. we have had laws against murdering anyone, including BABIES, OF COURSE, forever. and letting an infant die by ignoring it if somehow it survived an abortion is murder by laws on the books. what country do you clowns live in? why do you think it is legal to murder kids and infants? or to let them die out of neglect? why are you so spectacularly stupid and uninformed?




here is the latest federal law- plus almost every state has laws about making doctors liable for not treating any person who is in obvious medical distress. On what planet do you live?

In 2002, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which guaranteed to infants born at any stage of development full legal rights. .Feb 26, 2019
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act 2019: why it matters - Vox

https://www.vox.com/policy-and.../born-alive-abortion-survivors-protection-2019-sasse

Could you learn to write proper English?

 

[marvin martian]

sure, why not. everybody in 1985 saw no real problem with blackface at a freaking Halloween party, even most black people. you do know society has changed a little the last 30 years, right? you need to get out more, and learn to read.

OK, just confirming you still support the KKK. Thanks!

 

[Drumcollie]

sure, why not. everybody in 1985 saw no real problem with blackface at a freaking Halloween party, even most black people. you do know society has changed a little the last 30 years, right? you need to get out more, and learn to read.

Can't read that...Write it properly please.

 

[llovejim]

Then you would think that democrats would applaud the measure. Instead they reject it, giving the impression that they are okay with allowing babies to die after birth.

That's incredibly tone deaf.

how many laws do you want saying the same thing? do you know how stupid that is?