In a series of developments that should surprise nobody, the Senate just voted tonight on whether to mandate medical care for babies who survive attempted abortions. It passed 53-44… but died anyway, because of the insane rules both parties currently support.
Motivated as a response to Virginia’s embattled Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam’s monstrous defense of infanticide last month, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have supplemented the 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which recognizes abortion survivors as human beings but doesn’t specify how to handle them.
The Daily Caller News Foundation has more on tonight’s vote:
Democratic presidential hopefuls Harris, Klobuchar, Booker, Brown, Gillibrand and Warren voted against the bill. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also voted against the measure. Democratic Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth described the bill as an obvious effort “to bully doctors out of giving reproductive care,” and voted against it.
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Bob Casey, and Doug Jones voted in favor of the bill.
Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t vote.
“Those senators who voted against this bill that obviously protects human beings will have a lot to answer for when they face the voters,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins said, according to a press release. “Senators who could not bring themselves to vote to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act should reconsider whether or not they have what it takes to serve,” March For Life President Jeanne Mancini also said in a statement.
Before the vote, senators took turns giving statements for and against, with Democrats like Tammy Duckworth and MazieHirono attempting to change the subject with dishonest non-sequiturs about late-term medical emergencies and general complaining about Donald Trump’s judicial nominees. Because on an issue this clear-cut, they didn’t have anything else to offer.
On the bright side, the vote accomplished what it was realistically intended to do: not to become law (there’s virtually no way a version of the bill will make it through the Democrat-occupied House of Representatives), but to force Democrats up for reelection or eyeing the White House into putting their stance on the record.
If Republicans are sure to keep reminding the American people about it, confirmation that every major Democrat presidential hopeful thinks its fine to starve newborns to death because Mom’s first attempt to get rid of them failed should help to clarify the choice next year whether to keep Trump in office.
It will also be a damning indictment of any state where voting to protect infanticide doesn’t cost an incumbent his or her Senate seat, particularly with 77% of Americans firmly on the other side.
That said, it can’t be stressed enough that this bill got enough votes to pass under how the Senate is supposed to work — a simple majority — and only failed because Republicans choose to leave the legislative filibuster untouched.
The filibuster wouldn’t even have to be abolished; the GOP could have invoked the “two-speech rule” limiting the number of times senators can speak on a particular bill, then forced Democrats to actually filibuster it. That would have taken time, but eventually they’d run out of breath or speeches and the bill would have passed.
Granted, putting in that time or effort may have been a waste in this case given the Democrat House. But the refusal of Mitch McConnell’s Senate GOP to do any of this over the last two years, from the beginning of Trump’s presidency through the Obamacare repeal debacle, is a big part of why Republicans lost the House in the first place.
For now though, let’s hope pro-lifers fight like hell to hold every Democrat accountable for protecting outright murder, and demand our Republicans prepare to do better if the American people see fit to give them one last chance in power.
Copyright Disclaimer: Citation of articles and authors in this report does not imply ownership. Works and images presented here fall under Fair Use Section 107 and are used for commentary on globally significant newsworthy events. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Community Guidelines Disclaimer: The points of view and purpose of this video is not to bully or harass anybody, but rather share that opinion and thoughts with other like-minded individuals curious about the subject.