Image 01 Image 03

Trump Promises ‘Born Alive’ Executive Order That Requires Medical Care for Abortion Survivors

Trump Promises ‘Born Alive’ Executive Order That Requires Medical Care for Abortion Survivors

“This is our sacrosanct moral duty.”

President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

The legislation requires medical care for babies who survive abortion.

From Catholic News Agency:

“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” said Trump Sept. 23, speaking in a pre-recorded video address during the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast virtual even.

The Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act has been introduced several times in Congress, but has failed to become law. The bill stalled in the House of Representatives in 2019-2020 because an insufficient number of members signed a discharge petition which would have triggered a vote on the bill.

The proposed law would not have created any new limit or restriction on access to abortion, but would require that infants born alive after an attempted abortion be given appropriate medical care consistent with that given to a child of the same gestational age born under a different circumstance. Several states have passed their own version of the bill.

This is the first time President Donald Trump addressed the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast:

“I want to express my deep gratitude everyone who prays for me, for the First Lady, and for our great country,” Trump said.

The president also spoke of how he grew up near a Catholic church in the New York City borough of Queens, and had seen for himself the “incredible work” the Church does for the marginalized.

“I grew up next to a Catholic church in Queens, New York and I saw how much incredible work the Catholic Church did for our community. These are amazing people. These are great, great people,” the president said.

“Catholics of all backgrounds share the love of Christ with the most vulnerable, as they care for the elderly, the homeless, and neighbors in need. Our nation is strong because of Catholics and all people of faith,” he added.

The bill states:

A health care practitioner who is present must (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to another child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) immediately admit the child to a hospital. The bill also requires a health care practitioner or other employee to immediately report any failure to comply with this requirement to law enforcement.

A person who violates the requirements is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

Additionally, an individual who intentionally kills or attempts to kill a child born alive is subject to prosecution for murder.

The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.

A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.

I have a bone to pick with The Associated Press.

Yes, I’m Catholic. Yes, Trump addressed Catholics. But is this headline necessary?

It makes it seem like Trump made this promise just to appease us Catholics. Not because he’s genuine or truly cares about saving unborn human beings.

It also makes it seem like us Catholics are the only people who are pro-life. Catholics appear at the forefront in the fight against infanticide, but we are not the only ones who are pro-life.

Oh well. Why did Trump do this? Only God knows what’s in his heart. It’s not up to us to assume or judge.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Trump did it because it’s right!

End of story!!!

    True, and he also is a master at driving the narrative, even when he flies in the face of the prog/media agenda. I’ve found, when talking with prog friends and family, that they don’t even know what a partial birth abortion is. This will force the media to finally talk about it.

Pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness is the American Dream enshrined in our national charter.

Unlike one-child, selective-child has been normalized. Standing with survivors is a good beginning. Baby steps.

What’s Gov Blackface going to do?

Since I ain’t Catholic, instead of being pro-life could I just be anti-infanticide? That seems a more accurate description.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to CommoChief. | September 25, 2020 at 7:22 pm

    What kind of condition will these “saved” babies be in? Will they be healthy, normal children with their full intellect intact?

      Their condition will be ….alive.

      Dude, are you seriously arguing in favor of killing a baby? That’s what we call human beings once they are born.

      Do you want to ask the same questions about trauma patients in an ER? Maybe instead you could board military casevac flights and conduct your questioning there?

        JusticeDelivered in reply to CommoChief. | September 26, 2020 at 2:05 pm

        Dude, I did not suggest anything, I simply asked, my question is will these babies be basket cases, or will they be in condition to achieve their full potential? There are things worse than dying.

          There are several pool shots of Trump with a bunch of kids and young adults. Those folks are survivors of abortion.

          As you implied, some doubtless will have complications, some will perish soon after regardless of treatment.

          All are entitled to full protection under law after birth.


Regardless of its virtues, how is this a matter for an E.O.?

Despite the constant whining about “fascism” from all those people who haven’t a clue what that means, PDJT has (to date) shown tremendous respect for the defined limitations as well as the powers of his office. This is one of the things which distinguishes him from the sorry examples of his near predecessors. But this E.O. is an arbitrary and unjustified power grab; a serious reversion to the anti-American caprices of his troglodytic predecessors in the Oval Office.

Well, on the good side, at least he didn’t say anything about having a phone and a pen.

    clintack in reply to tom_swift. | September 25, 2020 at 7:27 pm

    This. Very uncharacteristic of Trump.

    Has anyone actually seen a copy of the EO he promised to sign? Perhaps the early press reports are overblown, by just repeating the details of the proposed bill?

“”President Donald Trump promised to sign an executive order for the Born-Alive Infant Abortion Survivors Act.

The legislation requires……..””

This on a website by and for lawyers????

    Daiwa in reply to txvet2. | September 25, 2020 at 9:26 pm

    Beat me to it. Should be corrected.

    Barry in reply to txvet2. | September 25, 2020 at 10:26 pm

    Not everyone that writes here is a lawyer. Not everyone that reads here is a lawyer. Not everyone that comments here is a lawyer.

    Lawyers make mistakes just like non lawyers.

      txvet2 in reply to Barry. | September 26, 2020 at 12:26 am

      True, but the rest of us slugs have no standing, as the lawyers occasionally remind us. Besides, after I posted it, I thought that I was probably had misunderstood her meaning – she might have been referring to the Act, not the EO.

It’s a wash, because I was thinking Pelosi was a good cantidate for a late term aborting…

I wonder where that sorting button got to that let me view the most recent first…

I don’t see how anyone could have a problem with this EO. Not even the “It’s a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body” abortion extremists.

Fine, do what you like with your own body abortion lovers. But once the baby is out of the woman’s body, it’s not her body anymore (actually the embryo/fetus isn’t part of a woman’s body even in the womb as the placenta doesn’t connect the woman to the fetus but rather separates the two; even a cursory fact check confirms this as it’s entirely possible for the child to have a different blood type than the mom and if they were actually connected their blood would mix and kill them both).

Is abortion about terminating a pregnancy or is about killing the baby? If it’s only about terminating the pregnancy and the child lives through the ordeal, the pregnancy has still been terminated. We’re constantly told that abortion must be legal to save the life and/or health of the mother.

Even if that were true, what sort of medical condition can only be cured by making sure the baby is dead? And the woman has to know the baby’s dead?

And BTW, abortions done for “medical necessity” only amount to less than 4% of abortions. And even that figure is a lie. No abortions are ever medically necessary. If a woman develops complications during pregnancy there are other options available. The fetus is too small to put any real stress on the woman’s body until it’s six months along. After that the baby can survive outside of the womb. You can’t get an abortion in a Catholic hospital, and no Catholic can perform and abortion (or have one or help procure one). A nun working as a nurse in a Catholic hospital in Phoenix found that out in 2009 when she approved an abortion for a woman who was having a difficult pregnancy. Her Bishop excommunicated her. Actually, as he put it she had already excommunicated herself. Participating in an abortion in any way is a grave sin, a serious violation of Catholic moral teaching. You can’t be in communion and willfully violate the Church’s moral law.

She claimed the woman would have died otherwise. Every doctor who investigated the case says she wouldn’t have died and that had the woman been prescribed bed rest she and her child could have been separated and both of them could have been treated. As one Catholic doctor and medical ethicist put it, those doctors who say an abortion is medically necessary actually mean that it’s just the easier thing for them to do instead of taking on the more difficult task of treating the woman.

If abortion were truly a lifesaving procedure and ever medically necessary, and Catholic hospitals refused to allow them, the lovelies at Planned Parenthood and NARAL would be screaming that the government must shut them down. But Catholic hospitals don’t have worse outcomes than any other hospital.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Arminius. | September 26, 2020 at 3:22 pm

    “Catholic moral teaching”

    Pedophiles in the church, and the lengths the church went to in order to cover for them, leave little doubt that the church is in no position to claim high morality. That is not the only problem with them.

    I learned first hand as a child about the church’s morality.

    All bureaucracy’s morph over time to serve their own interests, the Catholic church is not an exception, and they are why our founders created separation of church and state.

    Incidentally, I stopped using a church affiliated health care system and their hospital because they were corrupt, and the icing on the cake, was that they felt they had a right to stick their nose into our family decisions. That led to the whole extended family blackballing them.

    There is an arrogance about the church which goes back a long time.

      No argument from me. The problem isn’t that this Bishop wasn’t wrong to excommunicate that nun. The problem is that the church doesn’t hold people to it consistently. It’s an open secret in Rome that that the clergy has a much higher percentage of gays than the average male population in any country. They would change out of clerical garb and go to gay bath houses or cruise Rome’s parks looking for casual hookups. One park in particular was especially popular for cruising priests. So naturally muggers and robbers would focus on that park, since they knew the priests wouldn’t want to explain what they were doing there.

      They thought they were fooling people. They weren’t. The entire population of Rome, and most of Italy, knew all about it. It became a national Joke.

      That’s the real problem with the pedophile priests getting away with their crimes. Because everyone has dirt on everybody. So if a Bishop treats a Catholic seminary like a meat market when he goes cruising for young men it would be a huge scandal for the church if the secret got out. So when a pedophile gets accused of molesting a child, he’ll keep the Bishop’s secret if he sweeps the Pedophile’s crime under a rug. Former Archbishop McCarrick of Washington D.C. was notorious for his abuse of subordinate priests and seminarians. Not pedophilia, perhaps, but he was still abusing his authority to force priests and seminarians into non-consensual relations. Not unlike Harvey Weinstein. Archbishop Wuerl of Pittsburg claimed he was shocked and had no idea what McCarrick was up to. But McCarrick used to be a priest in Wuerl’s diocese it’s been proven that he knew about McCarrick since at least 2004. So you’ve got to wonder what kind of dirt McCarrick had on Wuerl to get away with the same sort of crimes that landed Weinstein in prison.

      A little known fact is that most priests don’t take vows at all. But they do make “promises” of obedience to their bishop, chastity, and to pray the liturgy of the Hour.

      Then a great many of them promptly break their “promises,” demonstrating that they don’t believe a word of what they’re preaching. Priests like McCarrick are in the business for other reasons. McCarrick had a beach house in New Jersey that he used for his trysts. He took frequent vacations to Fort Lauderdale where he hid his true identity and just lived an openly gay lifestyle. Since he didn’t take a vow of poverty he can’t be accused of breaking it, but he didn’t live a very wealthy and hedonistic lifestyle that I don’t believe he could have had if he hadn’t joined the clergy.

      Before I get accused of saying something I’m not, it would be just as bad if the Archbishop of Washington kept a yacht on the Potomac and used it for affairs with the married women in his diocese. They’re still breaking their “promises” as well as what they’re preaching. Since they’re hypocrites they can hardly hold politicians who claim to be “Catholic” responsible when they support abortion. And as hypocrites they are subject to extortion when they learn about pedophiles in their midst.

If that Baby is a U.S. Citizen, the Baby has rights.
My view grants those rights at conception, however that is a fight for another day.

    Milhouse in reply to snowshooze. | September 27, 2020 at 12:50 am

    There are almost no rights that depend on citizenship. Certainly the baby has the same God-given rights as every human being. And it has the same constitutionally protected rights as every person who is in the United States