March 3, 2020

USA: CNN Caught Heat From Conservatives For Publishing A Report That Refers Euphemistically To A Newborn Baby As A “Fetus That Was Born.” ๐Ÿ˜ง The #BornAlive Act Failed To Pass In The Senate.

The Washington Examiner
written by Becket Adams
February 25, 2020

CNN caught heat from conservatives Tuesday for publishing a report that refers euphemistically to a newborn baby as a “fetus that was born.”

As it turns out, though, CNN is not even close to being the first newsroom to deploy this nonsensical term to refer to newly born infants. There is a long history of newsrooms deploying this dystopian gobbledygook in service of promoting the "pro-choice" line, which relies on denying the humanity of both unborn and newborn children.

The Associated Press reported in 1999 that Wisconsin officials argued in court that a man should be prosecuted for attempted murder based on the "born alive" rule, which, according to the Associated Press, “says that a person can be charged for injuries to a fetus that is born alive.”

Congressional Quarterly reported in 2001 that supporters of a bill banning the cloning of human embryos argued the measure would prevent “the deliberate destruction of fetuses that are born alive, often during botched abortions.”

The Associated Press in 2008 defended then-Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to born-alive bills, arguing that Illinois already had legislation “protecting aborted fetuses that were born alive and were considered able to survive.”

At what point, exactly, do we stop referring to them as “fetuses that were born alive”? When it no longer complicates the "pro-choice" argument?

National Public Radio in 2008 also hosted journalist Cynthia Gorney, who argued that born-alive bills proposed in the Illinois legislature “would have made an explicit crime for failing to protect a fetus that was born alive.”

HuffPost reported in 2013 that a federal law signed by George Bush “extends legal protections to fetuses that are born alive after attempted abortions.”

The Daily Mail reported in 2015 that a bill to defund Planned Parenthood would “be followed up by another bill that would criminalize non-compliance with a 2002 law that protects fetuses that are born despite an abortion attempt.”

The Associated Press in 2015 reported on a legal case where a “fetus was born alive 22 weeks into the pregnancy, but died less than two hours later.”

The child was alive for two hours and we are still calling it a "fetus"?

States News Service reported in 2019 that an “anti-choice” bill introduced by the Wisconsin Legislature would require “health care providers to care for a fetus that is born alive during an abortion or face a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison.”

And so on.

Honestly, the biggest problem with the article that CNN published on Tuesday is not its choice of dystopian wordplay to deny the humanity of newborn children. The biggest problem is that its headline refers to two pro-life measures that failed this week in the U.S. Senate as “abortion restriction bills,” which is an outright lie. The bills mandated only that infants who survive abortions be provided the same medical care as any other newborn child. CNN, however, reports that the bills “would require abortion providers to work to ‘preserve the life and health’ of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion …”

“Child.” The word they are looking for “child.”

Or are we still doing that thing where we pretend not to know the moment when an unborn child becomes a newborn infant?
The Daily Signal
written by Rachel del Guidice
February 25, 2020

In a setback to pro-life activists, the Senate on Tuesday defeated one bill that would require medical care for babies who survive abortion and another that would prohibit late-term abortions. Only three Democrats voted to protect abortion survivors.

“This body ought to be able to stand 100 to zero against that barbarism,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a floor speech before the Senate votes, referring to allowing the survivors of botched abortions to die.

“It’s inhumane and it’s passive infanticide, and the Senate should today condemn and prohibit that practice,” Sasse said.

Almost all Democrats, however, voted against the two bills.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which failed 56-41, would have required proper medical care for infants who survive abortion and set criminal consequences for health care providers who violate the law.

Democrats voting yes were Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Doug Jones of Alabama, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which failed 53-44, would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks. Proponents say the legislation is long overdue, noting that the United States is one of only seven countries, including China and North Korea, that allow abortions after the 20-week mark.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote no on the 20-week ban.

Casey and Manchin were the only Democrats to vote yes.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; did not vote on either bill.

Republicans, who hold 53 seats in the Senate, failed to reach the 60-vote supermajority they needed to advance the bills. Democrats hold 45 seats, and independents who caucus with them hold two.

In a recent commentary, Melanie Israel, a research associate in The Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, argues that the two pieces of legislation shouldn’t be controversial.

“Treating a baby born after an attempted abortion with the same care provided to any other newborn should not be controversial in a civilized society,” Israel wrote, adding:
Knowing that the vast majority of Americans support federal abortion policy that is far more restrictive than the status quo, you would think that Congress could agree that the Pain-Capable bill would be a practical policy to reflect our nationwide consensus. But every time the bill has received a vote in the Senate, it has failed to amass the 60 votes necessary to proceed.
In an emailed statement, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, criticized Senate Democrats for opposing the bills.

“Today, Democrats had an opportunity to stand on the side of science, to stand on the side of reason, and to stand on the side of precious life,” Cruz said. “Instead, Democrats stood on the side of barbarity and cruelty, continuing their tradition of neglecting moral responsibility in the name of their radicalized, pro-abortion agenda.”

In remarks delivered before the vote, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the bills “anti-doctor, anti-women, [and] anti-family.”

Republican lawmakers took to Twitter to share their frustration.

No comments: