Image 01 Image 03

Democrats Block Sen. Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Democrats Block Sen. Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act


Democrats have let their infanticide flag fly. Comments by embattled Virginia Governor Northam (who is, ironically, not in the hot seat because of his endorsement of murdering new-born babies, but because of racist yearbook photos recently made public) inflamed the personhood debate.

In response to Northam’s horrifying suggestions, Sen. Sasse (R-NE) introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and requested unanimous consent. It was defeated by Democrats who objected his request for unanimous consent, citing state-level laws protecting against infanticide.

Okay… So why not codify those protections at the federal level?

Sasse’s bill would’ve required the Senate’s opinions on infanticide to be on record, but there is nothing in the bill itself that should be the least bit controversial or contentious.

Exercising “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,” is one provision. And another provision requires “following the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required” to “ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a hospital.”

Sasse on the issue:

The Washington Times has more:

Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, asked for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to be approved by unanimous consent after an outcry over comments last week by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam decried on the right as pro-infanticide.

“There are only two sides of the debate on the floor debate tonight: You’re either for babies, or you’re defending infanticide,” said Mr. Sasse in his floor speech. “That is actually what the legislation is that’s before us.”

Disagreeing was Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, who objected to the request for unanimous consent, effectively derailing the bill. Forty Republicans and no Democrats cosponsored Senate Bill 130.

“We have laws against infanticide in this country,” said Ms. Murray. “This is a gross misinterpretation of the actual language of the bill that is being asked to be considered and therefore I object.”

Mr. Sasse, who has also sought to use the Rule 14 process to expedite the legislation, said the issue had taken on new urgency as state Democrats push to remove obstacles to third-trimester abortions.

Democrats in state houses are actively working to roll back abortion restrictions. WT ctd:

In New York, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a bill two weeks ago clearing the path for late-term abortions, which included removing the death of the unborn from the criminal code. Other bills expanding abortion access are pending in New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

State Democrats have argued that such legislation is needed to “codify” the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in the face of a threat from jurists appointed by President Trump, but the legislators have also been accused of overreaching, seeking to go beyond Roe and remove third-trimester limits supported by most Americans.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, blasted the Sasse bill as “just the latest attack in the decades-long Republican effort to eliminate a woman’s right to control her own body.”

“For example, imagine being pregnant and learning that your baby has a terminal condition,” Ms. Feinstein said in a statement. “This bill would limit that mother’s decisions and require her doctor to administer unwanted medical care that could prolong her pain and suffering—even putting her health and safety at risk.”

True to form, Democrats take the rarest of cases, suggest they’re commonplace, ultimately making outliers mainstream.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which defined newborn infants as humans.

Full text of the bill here:

Born-Alive Abortion Survivo… by on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


UnCivilServant | February 5, 2019 at 11:56 am

Sadly, I am not surprised. Murdering native born children and importing socialists seem to be the two tentpoles of their party.

This new level of extreme evìl incarnate in America shall not go unanswered. The worm will definitely turn.


“We have laws against infanticide in this country”…. which is why the Dems are pushing for their new laws to dilute them. Late term abortion is the highest sacrament of the Party. Only time before being old is a hindrance to the collective. Social Darwinism is ascendant.

    p1cunnin in reply to alaskabob. | February 5, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    Isn’t that the objective of single payer health insurance? Let some bureaucrats decide who gets care and who doesn’t? In the interest of “cost containment” and “efficiency”…

      CDR D in reply to p1cunnin. | February 5, 2019 at 5:51 pm

      Infants now, next the elderly. Finally, the politically disfavored.

      If these filthy bastards ever attain complete control, and succeed in disarming you, they WILL come for you sooner or later. And don’t expect them to make you “comfortable”.

Dont worry the media will be along any second now to ensure America see’s what their Democrat representatives are getting up to. Any second now.

OleDirtyBarrister | February 5, 2019 at 1:11 pm

The US Constitution does not provide a police power to Congress or the federal govt. in general.

I don’t see language of jurisdiction and the traditional jurisdictional triggers, like findings of interstate commerce or a substantial affect on IC, the use of articles of interstate commerce, or tax and spend type powers (e.g., hospitals and medical service providers that receive federal payments from Medicare, Medicaid, federal grant money, etc.).

The idea is noble, but I am not sure Congress has much power to stop it, particularly in private facilities not receiving federal money. States have the police powers to protect the health, safety, health, and morals of the public.

    The most obvious power would be the 14th amendment. Just as if some states were to make it lawful to murder black people.

    But as I understand it, to use this power there must first be a legislative finding that some states are actually failing to give equal protection. Which shouldn’t be hard to do, but it’s a hoop that must be jumped through.

      Is that for Congress to apply, or for the courts?

      Either way, it’s a big political problem for the Democratic Party. I’m just not in a rush to hail Sasse as a hero of myth and legend because of the jurisdiction issue Ole raised above.

    I think if you look hard enough you’ll find the laws for federal prosecution for murder are already in place

Ok, so they blocked unanimous consent. How about a recorded vote on the floor? Is there going to be any effort by the Republicans to force these clowns to go on the record? Would be nice if the President made reference to this and Northam’s advocacy for infanticide at the SOTU.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to AJR. | February 5, 2019 at 2:37 pm

    FTA the bill was co-sponsored by 40 Reps and no Dems. IIRC there are 53 Reps in the Senate, meaning that 13 did not join in sponsoring this bill. Once more the true nature of the Go-Along to Get-Along nature of Roll-Over Party Senators is revealed.

Life, dignity, human rights, and science are negotiable throughout human evolution from conception.

Pro-Choice is an ethics philosophy that is selective and opportunistic, not limited to selective/recycled-child or the “wicked solution.” With respective to elective abortion, it is two choices too late, that denies women’s franchise, and a human life, for cause of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and democratic leverage. Planned parenthood is s summary judgment and the cruel and unusual punishment of a wholly innocent human life.

For example, imagine being pregnant and learning that your baby has a terminal condition

Feinstein is such a hammerhead. We all have terminal conditions. Nobody gets out of life alive.

However, while I suspect that Sasse means well (in the same sense that, say, DiFi does not), the Senate is not in the business of issuing feel-good homilies—and not even the poor abused Commerce Clause gives it the authority to play national nag-in-chief. Until somebody does something real about it (“real” meaning properly legal at federal judiciary level), abortion is a constitutional right, and niggling around its edges is not a proper job for the federal government. Too many R’s are handling abortion the way too many D’s handle the right to keep and bear arms—chip away at it, redefine it, obsess over the cosmetics, harass the innocent, vilify the maybe-not-quite-so-innocent, throw tantrums, spread lies. It’s disgusting when D’s do it, and it’s disgusting when R’s do it.

The D’rats made a colossal blunder by stepping undeniably into infanticide territory. Time to capitalize on that. It’s not going to happen by putting fuzzy “sense of the Senate” resolutions on record.

It’s all about keeping women from occupying the mother role.

Pro-Choice or selective-child is a summary judgment and cruel and unusual punishment of a human life who is logically and practically wholly innocent. It denies women’s judgment. It denies men their Posterity. It denies a human life her voice to protest and arms to defend against what is quite literally a wicked solution, a final solution, for the sake of social, economic, and democratic progress.

Subotai Bahadur | February 5, 2019 at 5:40 pm

The matter about it being “indefensible” is a bit more complex. For something to be indefensible, someone has to be attacking it. Do you see any of our national media objecting to murdering infants? Do you see any of our Republican Party standing up and screaming like a ruptured eagle about it being immoral? No.

Noting that Your Humble Servant is not a Christian of any flavor, but I have to state that we are now two or more totally incompatible people trapped in the same borders. And that their is only one way that can be resolved. It will not be tidy, and the winner is not certain. It would behoove those who believe in the value of life and the individual over the collective to be ready.

Subotai Bahadur

regulus arcturus | February 5, 2019 at 8:13 pm

It is a very short step from permitting infanticide to mandating it.

    not that far a jump, look at the countries that have almost eliminated downs syndrome, think about the Chinese, with their one child policy, the have more male children the female, a generation of men might not have wifes