That bill says it's about holding doctors or health practitioners legally accountable for providing care to a child who survives an abortion.
But there was a bill passed in 2002 that already makes it a criminal offense to let a born baby die. In fact, there was a case in 2013 where a doctor did just such a thing and was found guilty of three counts of murder.
The Facts on the Born-Alive Debate - FactCheck.org
So, I can appreciate your point here, that the new bill put legal ramifications on doctors if they don't do what they would normally do for a baby born at a particular gestational period much shorter than the 40 week normal process. But I think in practice, the bill was about as much waste of time and effort as the many election laws that are coming down the pike to stop a phenomenon that isn't happening. These abortions that might be considered as relevant to this law are literally millions to one.
PolitiFact | Reports of the 'born alive' abortion scenario are rare
"In 2017, there were zero deaths with an underlying cause of death of "Termination of Pregnancy," Lewis wrote in an email.
Just like the stolen election brouhaha, it isn't happening. So, I certainly don't fault a Senator for voting against a bill that seems to want to just add some legal penalties on the books for something that isn't happening out there in real life world; for which there are already laws on the books that make it a homicide offense to actively kill or to be shown to have 'let a baby die', as in the Gosnell case.
You're all tied up in knots that VP Harris is an evil person because she voted against a bill that really didn't mean anything as far as addressing any of the real world problems that people have. But because you believe the abortion issue to be the issue of sin that God has established before the foundations of the world were set in place, you've decided to fight this battle over some bill that was voted against. I get that! I just don't agree that it's an issue of any importance in this matter of whether or not abortions should be legal. And I rather that Sen. Harris saw it in much the same light.
And right now, on this specific position, you're no better off voting for the GOP contender. He is on record pretty loudly that these 6 week bans that are being considered aren't long enough. So, understand that means that he isn't against abortion as you believe in your mind to think that he is. He may say that 6 is not enough and 24 is too many, but he isn't against abortion. The killing of an unborn child. Yet you are allowing this issue to color your behavior and your witness for Christ. You seem to be pouring out some reverent praise for some man that you believe to be God's man over an issue that he isn't even in agreement with you on. But that's the most important issue on which you are going to make your decision as to who you believe should run the nation for the next four years.
WHY?
Has he got video of you on Epstein's island? You are literally fighting an ugly battle with ugly words that isn't going to change under either of the present major contenders for the presidency. You don't find that odd?
From the first link:
First, in terms of a baby’s viability — the ability to survive outside the womb — one
2015 study in the New England Journal of Medicine on preterm births said:
“Active [lifesaving] intervention for infants born before 22 weeks of gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.” The study noted the “extremely difficult” decision on whether to use treatment for infants “born near the limit of viability,” saying that while in some cases treatment is clearly indicated or not, “in many cases, it is unclear whether treatment is in the infant’s best interest.”
So, understand please that this new law would allow a doctor to let a baby die that was 22 weeks or less. That is the recommended medical process according to the NEJM, which is, I believe, one of the standard bearers of a lot of our medical processes. And would make it a personal decision, that one would likely have to prove for some medical reason, even after 22 weeks.
So, what would be gained by the creation and passage of this bill that we don't already have to deal with a phenomenon that isn't even happening?
Vote wisely, friend.
