How far we’ve fallen: Even ‘born alive’ legislation is controversial now

How far we’ve fallen: Even ‘born alive’ legislation is controversial now

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is calling it quits after eight years in the House of Representatives. Though she announced her intention not to seek another term in the midst of her unsuccessful presidential campaign, it’s also evident that she is no longer welcome in the Jackass Party. Ironically, most of Gabbard’s stances would have made her a mainstream Democrat before Barack Obama dragged the party to the left. She’s a 1990s Democrat who arrived just a little too late to the crazy party.

This lame duck congresswoman seems intent on spending her final days filing bills that remind everyone why the Democrats don’t want her anymore. Among other bills that got under liberals’ skin, Gabbard filed one that would protect babies born alive after botched abortions.

The bill is going nowhere under Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.

Yes, American society really has become so callous and uncaring that a “born alive” bill is controversial. All such legislation would do is to mandate that abortionists switch roles entirely from taking lives to saving lives in the event that one of their victims escapes the scalpel and forceps.

Trending: Do as he says, not as he does: Biden again violates own mask mandate

The controversy lays bare the fact that it’s the principle of not killing children that the “pro-choice” crowd actually opposes — not the premise. For as long as I can remember they insisted that they would surely stick up for the rights of children outside the womb because those are actual living, breathing human beings. But tough luck for those Untermenschen fetuses located inside the womb. With their opposition to “born alive” bills we can see that they could care less about the distinction between fetuses and babies.

Which is entirely understandable because fetuses are babies. People who are opposed to killing children after they are delivered should probably oppose killing them before delivery as well. Same goes for those who support abortion — they ought to pick a side and stop pretending that the magic ride down the birth canal changes everything. It changes nothing.

Tulsi Gabbard is one of those few remaining Democrats who’s still trying to stake out a moderate position on the issue of abortion. Like most moderate positions, hers is an incoherent mess because it tries to find middle ground between what’s right and what the abortion lobby demands. What does she believe? At least as recently as a 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, Gabbard said that she wants to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare.”

That formulation, which was once the ultimate artifact of Clintonian triangulation when it was first aired on the 1992 campaign trail, has not aged well among Democrats. There’s no way around it — “safe, legal, and rare” is at its core a necessary evil argument.

This does not sit well with the fanatical abortion boosters because the implication still lingers, no matter how “necessary” abortion may be, that it is evil. This, they cannot abide. The fanatics want bold abortion defenders, not milquetoast abortion condoners.

On rare occasions, politicians field questions on why they oppose “born alive” bills and their answers are usually as twisted as their ideology. Barack Obama, for example, was asked in 2008 why he worked so diligently to quash born alive bills in the Illinois Senate. The whole segment was CNN propaganda, of course, in which Wolf Blitzer framed it as a “Republicans pounce” story, and Jessica Yellin “fact-checked” it in the manner we’ve all become accustomed to. Then she cut to a segment in which Obama lied through his teeth about the bill and why he opposed it. Obama waxed indignant at the suggestion that he would allow a child to die on the birthing room floor. Of course he supported medical care for little babies — of course! — just not this particular bill.

Obama proceeded to argue that the bill was redundant and then added, “What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade.” Except it didn’t. The Roe decision, as atrocious as it is, protects the “right” to kill children only inside the womb.

“OK, good fact check.” said Blitzer to Yellin.

Wait, who got fact-checked? Did Yellin go back and check to see if Obama’s representation of the bill was accurate? How about his rationale for opposing it? No, she and Blitzer simply accepted the Obama version of events as the truth. That’s “fact-checking,” CNN style.

If they had dug a little deeper they would have found what Obama said at the time: “And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the decision to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

Oh, the burden!

The burden of what, exactly? The burden of having to call a doctor to try to save the life of the child they were just trying to kill, of course. Obama’s statement is an admission that the “doctor” already in the room — an abortionist — isn’t really qualified to saved lives, only to take them.

But listen to what he’s really saying. By no means does Obama oppose the bill because of a technicality while simultaneously agreeing that the dying child should still be saved. The woman has already made her choice. Obama did not support this bill just the same way that he doesn’t support any other pre-existing law that supposedly makes this one redundant.

Clearly, any attempt to save the child’s life, whether in utero or ex utero is a threat to the Democrat’s favorite industry. That was still a rather extreme position when Obama opposed born alive legislation in the Illinois Senate in 2002. But now it’s the Democrats’ default position.

Tulsi Gabbard’s bill was opposed by none other than the feminist blogger and lawyer Jill Filipovic. If you’ve ever wondered just what the heck people do with an overpriced degree in “gender and sexuality studies,” just ask her. It was her minor in college.

Filipovic tweeted: “Tulsi Gabbard also introduced a redundant bill that claims to protect infants in the infinitesimally rare cases they are born after attempted abortions (infants are already legally protected) but in fact just criminalizes doctors, vilifies women, and fear-mongers about abortion.”

This seems to be the standard objection to born alive bills — that they’re redundant because born alive infants are already protected under other laws, most which the pro-abortion Left hates too, such as the Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002, which Filipovic derided in an earlier tweet as “pretty ridiculous.” It is also illegal under good old-fashioned laws against homicide.

She may have a point in that we don’t really need more laws; we need only to enforce the ones we already have. This argument would be a little more persuasive if Filipovic actually opposed legislative redundancy. As a feminist, would she actually oppose an “equal pay” bill just because it’s been the law of the land since the Kennedy Administration? Does it matter to her that there have been roughly a zillion other equal pay laws passed since then at the state and local levels? Would she oppose a bill that criminalized wife-beating simply because garden variety assault is already illegal in all fifty states?

Doubt it.

But as a matter of fact, laws that require abortionists — or “doctors,” as they liked to be called — to save born alive infants’ lives are not enforced. No one on Filipovic’s side cares because they hate those laws.

For example, Jon Dunn, CEO of Planned Parenthood of San Bernardino and Orange Counties, testified under oath about a child born during an abortion: “I know they kept it warm and comfortable for the very brief period that it was alive. I don’t think there was even time to call 911.” Why would they need to call 911 when there was a trained “doctor” right there? He later remarked that, “It is [the abortionist’s] medical judgment what to do in that circumstance.”

No, it isn’t. The law requires that the “doctor” standing there attempt to save the child’s life, which apparently Planned Parenthood isn’t doing. Shocker.

Perrin Larton, who is in the business of buying and selling “fetal tissue” (baby parts), testified that “sometimes they [babies] just fall out.” She said that this happens “every couple of months.”

Has anyone gone to jail? No?

While it may be true that another born alive bill won’t succeed where existing state and federal laws have failed, it is not true that no problem exists. We live in a society in which living, breathing infants, fully emerged from the birth canal, are left to die. This is murder even by the absurd definition of the “pro-choice” Left. And yet nothing ever happens to these people. Children are tossed in the same medical waste container as all the other children who were killed inside the womb — or sold piecemeal to ghouls like Perrin Larton.

Tulsi Gabbard is not a pro-lifer heroine — far from it — but she’s one of the last Democrats in Congress who actually seems to care that born alive children are being murdered. This is the kind of evil we’re up against, and we should not forget it.

Benny Huang

Benny Huang

Benny Huang is a lonely conservative in the very liberal Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts. Born in Taiwan, he came to the United States at a young age. He also blogs at Patriot Update.

Comments

For your convenience, you may leave commments below using Disqus. If Disqus is not appearing for you, please disable AdBlock to leave a comment.