The Corner

Politics & Policy

Is Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Bill ‘Anti-Abortion’?

Senator Ben Sasse, R., Neb., speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, D.C., September 4, 2018. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Last night on the Senate floor, Patty Murray (D., Wash.) blocked Republican senator Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on behalf of Senate Democrats. The bill mandates medical care for any infant born alive after an attempted abortion procedure.

In the wake of the Democrats’ decision to refuse unanimous consent — on the grounds that infanticide is already illegal (in this context, it is not) — Sasse’s legislation was mischaracterized as being “anti-abortion” by reporting from both The Hill and Politico. Others have purposely misrepresented the content of the bill, calling it “anti-choice” and trying to make it appear as if Republicans are using the born-alive legislation to chip away at abortion rights:

These are smears meant to distract from the actual substance of the legislation — and it’s the very messaging that Democratic politicians are relying on to justify their decision to block it. In reality, nothing in the bill restricts or limits the right to an abortion. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act provides the following:

  • creates criminal penalties for doctors who allow infants to die rather than providing medical care after attempted abortion procedures
  • mandates that a child born alive in an abortion clinic be transported to a hospital for further care
  • requires health-care practitioners to report any violations of the law
  • institutes penalties for intentionally killing a newborn, including fines and up to five years’ imprisonment
  • grants the woman on whom the abortion is performed civil cause of action against the abortionist and protection from prosecution if her child is not cared for after birth

None of these provisions is “anti-abortion.” None of them limits abortion rights. None of them “controls women’s bodies.” Notably, the bill doesn’t even mandate any particular kind of medical care at all; it requires that physicians “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.”

But there’s a reason that Democrats and abortion-rights supporters are so focused on and opposed to this legislation, to the point of lying about it. Although the bill doesn’t restrict abortion rights, it brings into crystal-clear focus the irrationality of the pro-abortion position. If those who support abortion concede that perhaps there is something wrong with permitting an infant to die the moment after birth if it was meant to have been aborted one minute earlier, suddenly the question becomes, “Why is it acceptable to perform that abortion one minute earlier?”

If the infant has moral status when it is wholly outside the womb, why not one minute earlier when it is partially, or even wholly, inside his or her mother? Does the moral status of this human being hinge on its developmental stage or its location? These are the types of questions that defenders of the abortion movement will do anything to avoid confronting.

Including distorting a bill that does nothing more than prohibit infanticide.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

LEARN MORE

Most Popular

Immigration

Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More
Immigration

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More