It's who they are

How is it that 43 votes out of 100 is a majority?

Filibuster rules.

It's not, but it's decisive since you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.

I'm very pleased those Dems voted for women and their rights, I doubt the three that didn't will have a seat in the future

I'm very pleased those Dems voted for women and their rights

Mommy ?

Mommy…… Please Don't kill me !

I guess "Motherhood" just isn't a "Thing" for some.

"The born alive abortion survivors."  ? ?  Next thing on the agenda---Mexico will pay for the wall.

Sasse is a christian dominionist.

'The biggest brain cult' is on roll.

"The born alive abortion survivors."  ? ?

Health care professionals call it a live birth and treat the newborn as such, immediately placing the newborn with a professional perinatal social worker so the child can be adopted.

No law should have inflammatory misnomers in it's title like "abortion survivors" or infanticide.

Health care professionals call it a live birth and treat the newborn as such, immediately placing the newborn with a professional perinatal social worker so the child can be adopted.

Then nobody should commit political suicide by voting against a meaningless Bill, should they?

Then nobody should commit political suicide by voting against a meaningless Bill, should they?

Who did that?

Are you suggesting that you may have voted for one of these democrats and now you have changed your mind?

or that you don't mind politicians wasting time on meaningless redundant bills?

It is fairly clear what I meant.

The Party of Infanticide....

The party of debasing women and their rights by the constitution

The party of debasing women and their rights by the constitution

Do you support the rights of children who survive abortion? Here's a woman who survived her birth mother's botched abortion:

Jump to search

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Long title	Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
Acronyms (colloquial)	BAIPA
Enacted by	the 107th United States Congress
Citations
Public law	107-207
Statutes at Large	116 Stat. 926
Codification
Titles amended	1
U.S.C. sections created	1 U.S.C. § 8
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 2175 by Steve Chabot ( R – OH ) on June 14, 2001 Passed the House on March 12, 2002 (186–107) Passed the Senate on July 18, 2002 (unanimous consent) Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 5, 2002

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA" Pub.L.   107–207 , 116  Stat.   926 , enacted August 5, 2002, 1 U.S.C.   § 8 ) is an Act of Congress . It extends legal protection to an infant born alive after a failed attempt at induced abortion . It was signed by President George W. Bush .

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002

Contents

• 1 Legislative history
  • 1.1 Committee of the House
• 2 Interpretation of the Bill
• 3 See also
• 4 References

Legislative history [ edit ]

• Based on H.R. 2175 - passed March 12, 2002
• Introduced on June 14, 2001 ^[1]
• Reported by Committee on August 2, 2001 ^[1]
• Passed House on March 12, 2002 ^[1]
• Passed Senate by unanimous consent July 18, 2002. ^[2]
• Signed into law by President Bush in Pittsburgh at the Pittsburgh Hilton . ^[3] on August 5, 2002 ^[1]
• The original author of the bill was Congressman Charles T. Canady of Florida who had by then retired from Congress.

Committee of the House [ edit ]

The bill was approved by the committee on July 12, 2001. The committee consisted of 32 representatives, 25 of which voted for the bill, 2 against and 10 were not present during the vote. This vote allowed the bill to be passed onto the entire house of representatives. ^[4]

Interpretation of the Bill [ edit ]

• Defines a "Born alive infant" as "Person, human being, Child, Individual".
• Acknowledges human rights of any child born within the United States.
• "Born Alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
• Decisions may continue to be made by medical professionals as to whether to resuscitate an infant based on medical efficacy, but not in regard to the legal standing of the patient.

115th CONGRESS 2d Session

H. R. 4712

---

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 20, 2018

Received

---

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title .

This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings .

Congress finds as follows:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

SEC. 3. Born-alive infants protection .

(a) Requirements pertaining to born-Alive abortion survivors .— Chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1531 the following:

“ § 1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors

“(a) Requirements for health care practitioners .—In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive (as defined in section 8 of title 1, United States Code (commonly known as the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’)):

“(1) D EGREE OF CARE REQUIRED; IMMEDIATE ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL .—Any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive shall—

“(A) exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age; and

“(B) following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under subparagraph (A), ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.

“(2) M ANDATORY REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS .—A health care practitioner or any employee of a hospital, a physician’s office, or an abortion clinic who has knowledge of a failure to comply with the requirements of paragraph (1) shall immediately report the failure to an appropriate State or Federal law enforcement agency, or to both.

“(b) Penalties .—

“ (1) I N GENERAL.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

“(2) I NTENTIONAL KILLING OF CHILD BORN ALIVE.—Whoever intentionally performs or attempts to perform an overt act that kills a child born alive described under subsection (a), shall be punished as under section 1111 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

“(c) Bar to prosecution.—The mother of a child born alive described under subsection (a) may not be prosecuted under this section, for conspiracy to violate this section, or for an offense under section 3 or 4 of this title based on such a violation.

“ (d) Civil remedies.—

“(1) C IVIL ACTION BY A WOMAN ON WHOM AN ABORTION IS PERFORMED.—If a child is born alive and there is a violation of subsection (a), the woman upon whom the abortion was performed or attempted may, in a civil action against any person who committed the violation, obtain appropriate relief.

“(2) A PPROPRIATE RELIEF.—Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—

“(A) objectively verifiable money damage for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of subsection (a);

“(B) statutory damages equal to 3 times the cost of the abortion or attempted abortion; and

“(C) punitive damages.

“(3) A TTORNEY’S FEE FOR PLAINTIFF.—The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action under this subsection.

“(4) A TTORNEY’S FEE FOR DEFENDANT.—If a defendant in a civil action under this subsection prevails and the court finds that the plaintiff’s suit was frivolous, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff.

“ (e) Definitions.—In this section the following definitions apply:

“(1) A BORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—

“(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or

“(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than—

“(i) after viability, to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or

“(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.

“(2) A TTEMPT .—The term ‘attempt’, with respect to an abortion, means conduct that, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in performing an abortion.”.

(b) Clerical amendment .—The table of sections for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item pertaining to section 1531 the following:

“1532. Requirements pertaining to born-alive abortion survivors.”.

(c) Chapter heading amendments .—

(1) C HAPTER HEADING IN CHAPTER .—The chapter heading for chapter 74 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “ Partial-Birth Abortions ” and inserting “ Abortions ”.

(2) T ABLE OF CHAPTERS FOR PART I .—The item relating to chapter 74 in the table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “Partial-Birth Abortions” and inserting “Abortions”.

Passed the House of Representatives January 19, 2018.

I find it surprising that 10 lines of 50 (20%) of the proposed amendment is adding tort protection for the mother,

and another 5 (10%) new lines for definitions,

when most states already have laws that regulate every aspect of these procedures, live birth and newborn rights.

I thought the GOP was all for tort reform and states rights, especially in the case of abortion.

I guess I was wrong again. 

Well, considering the original law had no penalties for anything, since it just defined who was a person:

116 STAT. 926 PUBLIC LAW 107–207—AUG. 5, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2175: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–186 (Comm. on the Judiciary). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002): Mar. 12, considered and passed House. July 18, considered and passed Senate. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002): Aug. 5, Presidential remarks. Æ
Public Law 107–207 107th Congress

An Act To protect infants who are born alive. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002’’. SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT. (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘§8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant ‘‘(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. ‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being ‘born alive’ as defined in this section.’’. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: ‘‘8. ‘Person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ as including born-alive infant.’’.

Approved August 5, 2002.

congress

That's it, the above is the ENTIRE law.  It is just a single page long.  The formatting is all screwed up from the copy and paste from the PDF.

Now, do you understand why they added the rest of the text to the law?  To create clarity as to what punishments there are in case of a violation of the law.  If someone violated this law as it stands now, there is no set punishment unless they find ANOTHER law that was violated at the time.

Duplicates state laws unnecessarily Tom.

Per the Justice Department in 2013;

No one, was prosecuted under the first law from 2008 through 2013.

rewire.news

the 2019 version was just a political stunt.

The pro-life movement is totally bogus.

Here we have high drama for a case that, statistically, doesn't exist.

At the same time, non-implantation of zygotes results in ten times as many "dead babies" as all abortions... and the "pro-lifers" don't give a $hit. They don't really care about the "dead babies". Their purpose is to control women's lives.

ten times as many "dead babies" as all abortions.

I can't believe I even have to explain this, but abortion is an intentional act.  Non implementation is not.  How does that possibly escape your grasp?

That's like arguing you shouldn't care about murders because cancer kills more people.  Or how could you possibly be upset by lynchings when more than ten times more people are killed every year in lawnmower accidents!  You really don't care about lynchings, You just want to protect BIG LAWNMOWER, don't you!

I repeat, Sean... Non-implantation "kills" ten times more babies than abortion.

If your worry is dead babies, you should be ten times more upset.

But as you have just recognized, your worry is not for the dead babies. You don't give a $hit about the babies. They are just an excuse for interfering in adults' lives.

The pro-life movement uses the babies.

and lawnmowers "kill" more people than the Klan ever did.

You use people like Heather Heyer to distract us from the victims of Big Lawnmower.  You obviously don't give a shit about her. 

Seriously Bob, intent is a foundational concept of morality. Do you not understand it?  It's mind boggling a purportedly educated adult equates natural causes of death with intentional. 

The topic is abortion, not lawnmowers.

Why are you trying so hard to change the topic?

I'm sorry Bob.  It's my fault for overestimating your abilities.  

I see things must be kept very literal and simple.    

Abortion Bad! Miscarriage Bad!  But Not same thing! 

Cancer Bad!  Murder Bad! But not same thing!

Does that help?

Why are you trying so hard to change the topic?

Why is abortion, up to and even after birth, so important to progressives?

It isn't. It's interdiction is important.

It's not about abortion!

It's not about abortion!

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act... 

Unadulterated bullshit commentry

Use the off topic on Sean if he can't stay on topic

Oh, I see, your'e caught up in the name. Let me explain it. It involves a BABY WHICH SURVIVED AN ABORTION.

Bob, why do you try to equate an act of God/Nature to an intentional human act?

Oh, I see, your'e

That should be "you're".

I'm not caught up in the name; I'm giving it the significance that it deserves. The bill is part of the ongoing effort by the anti-abortion movement to limit abortion by any means and under any pretext. To say " It's not about abortion! " is hypocritically misleading, right at the edge of an outright lie.

Abortions in the third trimester are very rare — just 1.4 percent of all abortions take place at 21 weeks or beyond, according to Planned Parenthood.

If such abortions are rare, then "survivors" must be non-existent. The anti-abortion camp is ginning up a case that, practically, does not exist.

Meanwhile... there are ten times as many "dead babies" due to non-implantation as to all abortions... and you, the anti-abortion people, don't give a $hit!

It is obvious that you don't care at all about the "babies". This is all a hypocritical maneuver to control women's lives.

an act of God

Tom! Are you saying that God is a baby-killer?

Nope, what I am saying is that a natural process is not the same thing as an artificial act.  Lack of implantation is not an artificial act, it is a natural act.  Abortion is an artificial act.  Big difference between the two.  Trying to equate them to being equal where nature equals a human's choice is completely idiotic, sophomoric, and facetious in the extreme.

Do you care about the "dead babies"? Why does it matter how they died?

Saying "natural act" is meaningless. The babies are dead. If you care about the babies, you should be calling for research to ensure that all zygotes implant. But you don't lift a finger. You don't give a $hit about the babies.

So along with the radical democrats who voted against it, we can also add your name.

It's a farce, and anyone making anything significant of it is farcical.

A farce? Then why are you so upset?

Then why are you so upset?

I'm not in the least upset. I probably should be, for the sake of women ... but hey! I'm a guy. My engagement on the subject of abortion is purely intellectual. Not emotional at all. I've never been pregnant; I've never had to consider abortion as a real, immediate thing.

So your farce amuses me. Your hypocrisy amuses me.

And why is natural or not (and that is your definition, as someone never able to understand what going through a pregnancy means) something you feel others have a voice in?   "Natural'?  WTF is that and what does it have to do with ANYTHING?  Don't believe abortion is murder.   Period. Who are you to try to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when you don't even know anything?  (Not personal you, meant for everybody with that opinion)  Know what a miscarriage feels like?  Know what an abortion feels like?  Know what a d&c feels like?  It is so patronizing to think anybody but the woman has that choice to make.  And the worst part?  The very same people give zero fucks to living children and adults.  Just STOP. 

How many of these people voted or are sponsoring/have sponsored legislation to end the Death Penalty for violent criminals?  You see, if they have voted for this bill and are working towards ending the Death Penalty, they are essentially telling everyone that criminals have a right to life while babies don't have any rights whatsoever.  Remember, this bill was not about abortion, only about babies that were BORN ALIVE FROM AN ABORTION.

Well, I do know that Jeff Merkley is one of those people whom think that violent criminals have right to life while innocent babies born from abortions deserve to be murdered.  Ron Wyden, on the other hand, actually believes babies should be treated like criminals, since he voted to keep the death penalty and make it harder to appeal and voted against The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Remember, this bill was not about abortion

Correct

No, it was about making some pretty unnecessary amendments to the same Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act from 2002 signed by Bush.

This was nothing more than the Dems denying Trump another hollow victory,

like rebranding NAFTA the USMCA.

The amendments were frivolous and already covered by most state laws.

Just more political theater.

This was nothing more than the Dems denying Trump another hollow victory,

You really think that's how the American people see it?  Even most pro-abortion people don't like exterminating a baby.

We thank the progressives for taking such an extreme position - one that is not shared by all democrats.

The latest Marist Poll:

"Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way," said  Barbara Carvalho , director of The Marist Poll.

In a substantial, double-digit shift, according to the poll, Americans are now as likely to identify as pro-life (47 percent) as pro-choice (47 percent). Just last month, a similar survey conducted by The Marist Poll found Americans more likely to identify as pro-choice than as pro-life by 17 percentage points (55 to 38 percent). Democrats moved in their pro-life identity from 20 percent to 34 percent.

finance.yahoo

Shared by a large majority.

Nope, READ - Not even democrats like exterminating a baby.

This is a STUPID bill that is just part of the lies told by the same people that must control women's fertility.  Every damn time.  This is bullshit and another attempt to do it.  People just don't get abortions at 9 months for shits and giggles, and the reasons things happen are usually tragic for the family.  Don't like abortion?  Stop trying to control women's contraception, which should be part of her healthcare, a uterus is more complicated than a penis, and pregnancy can impact a woman's health.  Contraception is a part of well woman care.  Way way more important than meds just to get it up.  Which is covered and never threatened to be taken away.  So glad some people had the balls to vote against that crap.

pregnancy can impact a woman's health.

Then don't get pregnant. Take those little pills!


So glad some people had the balls to vote against that crap.

Me too! Because they're going to pay for that vote!

In fact, based on reports from 38 of the 50 state Attorneys General, who were requested to report to the House Judicial Committee in 2013,

not one person was prosecuted for violating the 2002 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act between the Act's passage and 2013.

( Old article from 2013)

rewire.news

The U.S. Senate voted in January 2019 to block the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act , which in the words of the bill itself would prohibit:

a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

Fox News reports that the bill was blocked by Democrats in the Senate, including all of the Democrats currently running for president in 2020 (I could not find any coverage of this vote on CNN). The Fox News article mostly discussed the Republican support for the bill, but it does have some information about why Democrats opposed it:

Opponents, noting the rarity of such births and citing laws already making it a crime to kill newborn babies, said the bill was unnecessary. They said it was part of a push by abortion opponents to curb access to the procedure and intimidate doctors who perform it, and said late-term abortions generally occur when the infant is considered incapable of surviving after birth.

“This bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health,” New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said on the Senate floor.

...Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., objected to Sasse's bill, saying the legislation was unnecessary and amounted to a political stunt.

Fox News

(I could not find any coverage of this vote on CNN).

I'm not surprised. That's why I listed those who voted against it. I want everyone possible to see those names.

We have some technical problems with flagging here. Will open when the problem is fixed

Alerted TiG and he is  working on it, thanks  [SP]

Ok, I can now see the two I flagged as a test after TiG reset something.  Try it now

and let me know when I can delete thos two flags...SP  6:36 PM CST