Republican senators, led by Sen. John Lankford from Oklahoma, have renewed their push to set federal standards for the care of infants born alive following unsuccessful abortion attempts. Their longstanding goal has been to ensure that medical personnel provide the same level of care to these children as they would to any other newborn. Although existing laws acknowledge the personhood of all infants born alive, there are currently no federal mandates regarding their care once outside the womb. Previous efforts by Republicans to change this have been met with resistance from Democrats. However, with the GOP controlling Congress and the White House, there is now a renewed possibility for success.
Sen. Lankford, in unveiling the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on January 16, stated, “No child should be denied medical care simply because they are ‘unwanted.’” He expressed concern that, under current circumstances, if an abortion fails and a child is born alive, doctors might not be obligated to act, potentially leading to the child’s death through neglect. Lankford emphasized, “That’s not an abortion, that’s infanticide.”
The proposed legislation would make it illegal to intentionally end the life of a newborn who survives an abortion attempt. It mandates that any healthcare professional present at the birth must provide the newborn with life-preserving care equivalent to that given to any other infant at the same stage of development. Furthermore, the bill requires the immediate transfer of the newborn to a hospital for further medical attention. Those who fail to adhere to or report breaches of this law could face fines and up to five years in prison. However, the mother of the child would not face prosecution under this legislation.
The bill has garnered support from 43 Senate Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune from South Dakota. Thune characterized the proposal as “a basic standard of decency,” and argued that it should receive widespread bipartisan backing. Despite this, previous attempts to pass similar legislation have faced significant opposition. In 2019, Sen. Patty Murray from Washington, a committed supporter of abortion rights, blocked an earlier version of the bill, arguing that federal law already prohibits infanticide.
Fast forward to 2023, when a comparable bill faced resistance from 210 House Democrats, with the exceptions of Texas Representatives Henry Cuellar, who voted for it, and Vincente Gonzalez, who voted present. Despite Democratic opposition, the Republican majority succeeded in passing the bill in the House. This move prompted criticism from Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who accused Republicans of furthering an “extreme anti-choice agenda.” Pelosi took to social media, stating, “Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation, or harassment.”
Organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have also voiced disapproval of the bill, arguing it constitutes a “cruel and misguided attempt to interfere” with personal medical decisions. The then-president of the organization, Dr. Iffath Abbasi Hoskins, contended that the bill could hinder families from making crucial quality-of-life decisions during emotionally taxing situations, such as providing comfort or spiritual care.
In contrast, pro-life advocates have lauded the legislative effort, emphasizing the importance of protecting infants who survive abortion attempts. Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life Action, described the bill as a reflection of “common sense and basic humanitarian practice.” She urged Congress to align U.S. laws with the sentiments of the majority of Americans, who, she claimed, oppose leaving living infants without medical care.
The debate surrounding this legislation highlights the deep divisions between pro-life and pro-choice perspectives in the U.S. While Republicans argue for the protection of newborns who survive abortion attempts, Democrats and pro-choice advocates stress the importance of preserving reproductive rights and ensuring that personal medical decisions remain free from government interference.
The bill is expected to be brought to a vote this month, setting the stage for a contentious debate in Congress. Whether it will ultimately pass and be signed into law remains uncertain, as the political landscape continues to be shaped by differing views on reproductive health and the rights of infants born following failed abortions.
The ongoing discourse also touches on broader themes of medical ethics and the role of government in personal health care decisions. As lawmakers continue to grapple with these complex issues, the voices of both pro-life and pro-choice advocates will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping the future of related legislation in the United States.
Though the bill’s outcome is yet to be determined, its introduction has already sparked a significant conversation about the responsibilities of medical professionals, the rights of newborns, and the scope of reproductive health care in the country. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders on all sides will likely continue to advocate passionately for their respective positions, seeking to influence public opinion and legislative outcomes.
In the meantime, the issue remains a focal point of discussion among policymakers, healthcare professionals, and advocacy groups, highlighting the ongoing tensions between differing beliefs about life, choice, and the role of government in healthcare decisions. The outcome of this legislative effort may have lasting implications not only for abortion survivors but also for the broader landscape of reproductive rights in America.
1 Comment
We’ll see a rush from Democrats to oppose this life saving act. Even pro choicer’s will agree that a baby born alive during a abortion attempt should not be killed