|
 esterday,
as expected, the House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act. The bill is as simple as they get. It
gives legal status to a baby who is born, literally, alive.
The baby, in the circumstances the bill covers, is "alive"
in anyone's dictionary; as the bill defines it: The "complete
expulsion or extraction from his or her mother" of a baby who
"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."
But if you
get your news from the Associated Press wire, as a good portion
of the news-reading and -gathering world does, this is what you
found yesterday after the vote: Headline: "House Oks Fetus
Protection Bill." First sentence: "The House voted Tuesday
to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having
been "born alive," which would give the fetus legal protection."
But, wait,
you say, didn't NRO just report this was about babies born
alive? What's this about a fetus?
Well, evidently
the AP stylebook defines all babies as fetuses. Maybe Peter Singer
wrote the handbook?
As
was noted yesterday on NRO, this isn't the first misnomer incident
regarding the Born-Alive Act. Just earlier this week, the Congressional
Quarterly's Daily Monitor also described the bill as all
about "fetuses." They compounded the problem by saying
the bill would prohibit partial-birth abortions, too. In their Tuesday
edition, however, the Daily Monitor referred to "newborns"
and "babies."
The bit about
partial-birth abortion, as it turns out, is exactly what the Associated
Press added into their story later last night, after hearing some
pro-life criticism of the original piece. In a middle-of-the night
revision of the evening story on the bill, "House Expands Protection
of Fetuses" appeared with this additional error:
The legislation
is aimed at an abortion procedure critics call "partial-birth"
in which a fetus is partially delivered before being destroyed.
Thirty states and the District of Columbia already have laws against
the procedure.
The bill, of
course, has nothing to do with partial-birth abortion, which is,
as is suggested by its name, partial birth: The baby is only
partly delivered; the skull is punctured so the infant dies before
it is legally born.
Interesting
to note, too, is that the 30 menacing state-level laws restricting
partial-birth abortion the AP mentions actually no longer have the
force of law thanks to the Supreme Court's June 2000 Stenberg
decision.
Whether it
be ignorance (they didn't read the bill? "Thomas"
was down?) or advocacy-purposefully misleading readers-the press
seems to care not one wit about telling the truth when it comes
to this latest bill to pass the House.
And despite
folks who think the bill is unnecessary, it speaks to something
that is happening in hospitals and clinics today. Just refer to
the testimony
of nurse Jill Stanek, who has herself witnessed the induced labor
of babies, born alive and left for dead by hospital staff (and at
a Christian hospital, too).
Pro-abortion
groups who originally opposed the bill backed off. Pro-abortion
congressmen who thought the bill unnecessary voted for it (it passed
by a voice vote). The press ought to get with it. Infanticide isn't
in style with most of America yet.
|
