The Republican Party has been going out of their way to tie the Democrats to infanticide. Is this what the left really believes in? Ralph Northam’s poorly worded comments have been used to make the case. Laws pushed by Democrats in Virginia and New York have also been targets. Furthermore, Republicans have capitalized on a recent bill opposed by most Democrats to further the point. Could it be true? Do Democrats and infanticide go hand in hand?
We all know who the Democrats are. I want to be sure we’re all on the same page when it comes to infanticide. Thus, let’s see how Webster’s dictionary defines the word. We will need to define “infant” as well.
An infant is a child that has been born but is in the first period of life. Infanticide is killing an infant. Thus, we must determine if Democrats wish to kill babies after they are born.
Democrats and infanticide; The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act of 2019.
From henceforth this bill will be referred to as the BAASPA. It has the following stated goals.
- If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
- Any 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.
The bill failed to pass the Senate by a vote of 53-44. All Republicans present voted for the bill. 3 Republicans didn’t vote. 44 Democrats voted against the bill. 3 Democrats voted for passage. Thus, Republicans are accurately blaming Democrats for the failure of the bill.
When a bill fails to pass, the legal status of the issue it addressed remains unchanged. Thus, we need to look at the legality of infanticide under current law. More specifically, we should look at current legal protections for infants born from botched abortions.
The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
This bill defined a child after “complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother” as born alive under any of the following conditions.
- If it breathes.
- Has a heartbeat.
- Movement of voluntary muscles.
- Pulsation of the umbilical cord.
Under this law babies born despite botched abortions are alive. Therefore they have every legal protection that any other human has. So why did Republicans find the BAASPA necessary? Because it only impacted botched abortions. It placed a higher standard on care for these babies than on any other baby born alive. It does so by requiring that any such baby, after receiving appropriate care, be “immediately transported and admitted to a hospital”. This requirement is not placed on doctors delivering babies who are “born alive” at birth centers. Moreover, this bill wasn’t protecting babies. It was targeting abortion doctors.
Does the current law appropriately punish infanticide?
Dr. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor found guilty of killing 3 infants after they were born. Prosecutors were seeking a death sentence. Defense attorneys reached a post-conviction deal that landed the Dr. 3 life sentences. The case occurred in 2013 under our current laws.
Clearly, infanticide is currently illegal. Dr. Gosnell received a life sentence for each baby killed. He was also found culpable in the death of a 41 year old woman. That landed him a sentence of 2 1/2 to 5 years. Therefore, it is impossible to even argue that sentencing is more lenient for killing babies after botched abortions.
This maneuver is a political stunt by Republicans. Don’t want to take my word for it? Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony list admitted as much.
“It’s important to have this vote as many times as we possibly can, and we believe Leader [Mitch] McConnell will allow that to heppen. We play to win, but even if we come up short, it’s worth it because we need to show where they [Democrats] stand.”
Conclusions on Democrats and Infanticide
Years ago, The Agenda Project ran the above ad accusing Republicans of pushing granny off the cliff. This move by Republicans is even more deplorable. The GOP introduced legislation for the sole purpose of tying Democrats and infanticide together in public opinion. This wasn’t a PAC ad. It wasn’t fringe party members making the accusations. President Trump tweeted the following.
“The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.”
Senator Ben Sasse said the following.
“Planned Parenthood and others refuse to draw a line between abortion and infanticide. That’s what their lobbying the last week has shown. That should tell us something about what these groups are really about.”
Republicans have the right to their opinion on abortions. They do not have the right to their own facts. Infanticide is currently illegal. Under current law, life sentences have been given for infanticide. It is a damnable lie to say that a vote against BAASPA is a vote for infanticide.
All but seven states currently have laws that expand the definition of murder. These laws make any killing, even accidental killings, in the comission of a homicide murder. Hence, a woman receiving a botched abortion who then is complicit in preventing lifesaving medical care for the infant could be charged with murder in some states under BAASPA. Right? Not so fast. The law states…
The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted for a violation of this section, an attempt to violate this section, a conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.
The mother seeking the abortion can’t be prosecuted for violations of this bill. I’m assuming therefore, that if the mother physically held the baby, preventing transfer to a hospital, no charges could be filed? If so, this bill creates a legal loophole for the mother. It grants her immunity for the crime of blocking a human being from receiving life saving medical care. However, that exception would only apply in this specific case. One where the perpetrator is the mother, and the victim is an infant. Which party was supporting infanticide?