Image 01 Image 03

Montana Rejects Measure to Save Babies ‘Born Alive After an Attempted Abortion’

Montana Rejects Measure to Save Babies ‘Born Alive After an Attempted Abortion’

“…infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons; requiring health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant…”

Do you guys remember the Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell? We know he murdered at least four babies born alive, among other horrific crimes.

Gosnell popped into my head when I saw Montana rejected a measure requiring doctors to provide medical care “for any infant born alive after an attempted abortion, induced labor, or other method.”

Referendum 131 is clear as day: “An act adopting the born-alive infant protection act; providing that infants born alive, including infants born alive after an abortion, are legal persons; requiring health care providers to take necessary actions to preserve the life of a born-alive infant; providing a penalty; providing that the proposed act be submitted to the qualified electors of Montana; and providing an effective date.”

I’ll attach this short of Mother Angelica because it needs to be said: “Woe to us if we keep voting for murder.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Colonel Travis | November 10, 2022 at 3:05 pm

Is this nation too far gone?
Not sure how to classify it as anything else right now.

    Seems that way. I’m not sure how people get to a point where denying care to a baby is the right thing to do in their minds.

    CommoChief in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 10, 2022 at 5:16 pm

    No. Just certain people in certain places.

    Alabama passed this last year. The law created an affirmative duty to provide medical care to preserve the life of a baby who survived an abortion attempt and was ‘born alive’. This means that they can’t simply provide palliative care but must begin to treat the baby to ensure the baby doesn’t die.

“I don’t know how to process this. Montana voters were asked whether babies born alive should be given basic human necessities… and 226K people said no.”

The next steps will extend the window and target adult conservatives.

    Concise in reply to venril. | November 10, 2022 at 6:43 pm

    Absolutely appalling. But let me see if I understand, absent this measure, a baby, born alive, and I don’t give a crap whether it was a botched abortion or now, IT WAS BORN ALIVE!. This born alive baby, dare I say it, a person, can legally be left to die? There’s a word for this. I think it’s murder. Everywhere but Montana. Oh and after Tuesday, CA, VT, and MI apparently.

      henrybowman in reply to Concise. | November 10, 2022 at 10:00 pm

      I’m wondering if this can be traced to the Californification of Montana. If so, I had no idea it had progressed so far along.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | November 10, 2022 at 3:22 pm

Abortion is the Left’s most holy of holy rituals.

There are no words to properly express my disgust with people that voted for this. Even just a few years ago, the idea that you would just sit by and watch a baby die on a cold, metal table for lack of care was unthinkable. Now that we have a pedophile in the white house, I guess all moral standards are thrown out.

In California we voted to murder babies who have not managed to escape their mothers’ wombs. Heck, we made it part of our California constitution.

DNA is the key; it can tell you that the baby is a unique individual. They use it in forensics to identify unique individuals, and the rules don’t change for convenient abortions.

DNA can also precisely tell us what a male and a female are, despite delusions to the contrary. But that is another story (but same screwed up political party….).

it’s not essential for the baby. It is essential if you believe you own that kid as a slaver would.

It’s likely to be a huge medical cost as the aborted baby won’t be in good shape probably, even discounting being way premature. So the law is there to keep the cost of abortions low, insurancewise.

Revulsionwise, it supports the idea that it’s cute things that people want to protect, and ought to be argued on that basis in order to get a stable political agreement.

    gonzotx in reply to rhhardin. | November 10, 2022 at 3:58 pm

    That was a down vote, really you are insane

      rhhardin in reply to gonzotx. | November 10, 2022 at 4:10 pm

      Clickbait on the right, like on the left, works by refusing to figure the motivation of the other side. The clicks are the thing, not any sort of reconciliation.

        SaltyDonnie in reply to rhhardin. | November 10, 2022 at 4:22 pm

        It’s also cheaper to put COVID patients in with the elderly, since they are a drain financially. I know the motivation – its the banality of evil.

          rhhardin in reply to SaltyDonnie. | November 10, 2022 at 4:29 pm

          Banality of evil was Hannah Arendt’s observation about the Nazi spiel. It was based on human decencies, care for family and animals, and so forth. The lesson being that virtue that goes public turns into the worst sort of evil, nothing to do with German character or anything.

          How much quicker the Nazis could have worked if there had been clickbait as a medium back then.

          It’s a wicked solution, first processed in privacy, in darkness, then with pride and prejudice in parades with social progress.

    Yes, the legal acts are there to sustain affordable supply, the progressive price of social justice, and delegation of State’s Choice and corporate interests as her Choice with religious/ethical sanction.

Please dear God, it’s time for the second coming

You become unique and irreplaceable when you’re called on to do something for somebody else. Moral phenomenology.

You grow into it or you don’t.

Rupert Smedley Hepplewhite | November 10, 2022 at 4:00 pm

But we are mandated to preserve endangered species. Parts of America have lost their humanity.

What arguments were made against it? I can’t even imagine how the opposition to such a measure could explain itself to the voters, let alone explain itself so well as to attract a majority. Seriously, what did the “no” campaign say?

    rhhardin in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 4:36 pm

    I’d imagine that the argument for it is that there’s no essential difference about things inside the woman or outside, and it’s an abortion. The same argument that pro-life makes, but with the opposite starting and ending identity, namely fetus stays fetus instead baby stays baby.

    Both are misguided – what society values isn’t human life but cute things. Outside the woman, society takes an interest where inside (before sonograms) society didn’t. A basis for a political agreement on the matter, if it’s taken up. Go for cute sonograms.

      A baby was her, his, and societal interest throughout a pregnancy and after birth. It still is, until a baby is replaced with a fetus for social distancing preceding elective abortion, clinical cannibalism, and carbon sequestration.

        rhhardin in reply to n.n. | November 10, 2022 at 5:11 pm

        Killing is a pretty popular entertainment in all media, and men are essentially bullets in war. You get youtube videos of drones dropping grenades on Russians today. It’s only killing cuteness that produces tear-jerkers, like Titanic. That registers as societal concern.

    bigskydoc in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 6:13 pm

    I usually avoid interacting in this type of binary discussion, but you, of everyone here, will likely appreciate the subtle problems with the way this proposition was written.

    Let’s say a baby is born anencephalic, or with another malformation that is completely incompatible with life. This bill would criminalize the physician that leaves that baby with his mom, to die, instead of taking him from his mom, rushing him to the NICU to intubate him, place lines, etc, only to prolong his death.

    Criminalizing doctors for not doing everything possible to prolong life, in a truly futile situation, is not the way to go.

    A better written, more tailored law would likely have passed.

      Colonel Travis in reply to bigskydoc. | November 10, 2022 at 7:34 pm

      Reading more about this, you are correct. At the same time, the people working against this bill and making the most noise in the media portrayed themselves as anti-government, anti-busybody, anti-authoritarian interference, etc. when they were the biggest leftist suck-ups to government in America.

      It is yet another case of Republican stupidity, as the creator of this ballot proposal didn’t think things through well enough, and leftist deceit taking advantage. I wear to dear God in heaven I do not understand why (R)s cannot beat the left into the ground. It is not that hard. The only logical conclusion is that they are indeed that dumb and can’t or they don’t want to.

      You are spot on. Another example would be an eighteen week preemie with negligible odds of surviving, let alone thriving, even with the best and most expensive medical care. Similarly, the doctrine of futility is applied all the time in dealing with difficult medical/ethical issues in both pediatric and adult patients at end of life.

      The proposition would likely have passed if it simply said that in the eyes of the law an infant that survived an attempted abortion, at whatever stage of pregnancy, should be treated identically to any other similarly situated infant. Thus, under both state and federal law, this infant would be regarded as a person with full natural and legal rights. However, merely being a legal person wouldn’t by itself determine what degree of medical care must be provided with the goal of preserving life at all costs. The usual medical/legal/ethical rules would apply, including the concept of futility.

      NDS, MD, JD

    Bartlett in reply to Milhouse. | November 10, 2022 at 6:33 pm

    This wasn’t a hidden or subtle opposition campaign.

    Among other concerns, the measure would have made it a felony to fail to provide unspecified services to preserve the “life and health” of an infant in any circumstance where the infant shows signs of life, whether or not it was possible for the infant to actually survive. Hospice and comfort care probably didn’t qualify, even when the delivery was natural and everyone wanted the baby to live. Sometimes it’s just not in the cards, and the measure didn’t contemplate that.

    Failing to provide necessary care in other circumstances is malpractice, which isn’t criminal. Intentionally failing to provide care can rise to the level of criminality, but even then it’s not commonly charged. And this measure didn’t even mention intent.

    Worst of all. the measure never even bothered to state what I think was its primary purpose, which was to save infants when their death was intended but not accomplished. Rather than a “live-born survivor of abortion” measure, it became a strange and heavy-handed grab-bag that threatened to upend a lot of neonatal medicine, or so the arguments went. Hospital chaplains said they’d be prohibited from baptizing dying children. Doctors said they’d be forced to resuscitate children born with malformations incompatible with life outside the womb. Nurses feared they’d be criminally charged if they failed to report marginal cases fast enough, because the measure included “mandatory reporter” language. And all those people were loud.

    Over-reach killed this thing.

      Thank you for the explanation. It appears we need to be a lot more careful in writing these laws.

      bigskydoc in reply to Bartlett. | November 11, 2022 at 6:00 am

      Excellent synopsis of the multitude of problems with this measure.

      Thankfully, Montanans took the time to read the language, understand the implications, and voted it down, rather than voting based on the media portrayal.

      I firmly believe that a clean bill, simply criminalizing providers who kill survivors of botched abortion attempts, would have passed.

Moloch will be appeased.

A baby “burden” left on a cold slate in an office, a clinic, a chamber. Social progress.

Excess carbon sequestered. Climate justice.

First choice (i.e. to fuck or abstain) implies informed consent, safe sanctuary, and shared responsibility between a man and woman. With social progress, dignity and agency are denied, sanctuary is selective, chambers are filled, clinics are stocked, and responsibility is progressive and liberal. The Pro-Choice ethical religion offers a wicked solution to a hard problem: keep women, and girls, affordable, available, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence aborted and sequestered in darkness.

Did these people honestly know what they were voting for?

    bigskydoc in reply to gonzotx. | November 10, 2022 at 6:17 pm

    We did, and we could read the actual implications of the law as written.

    Even many staunch pro-life folks voted against this poorly written bill.

    Support likely came from people who didn’t understand the implications of the bill as written.

    As they say, the devil is in the details.

Just like Obama, who voted against a similar state bill when he was an Illinois senator.

Despicable. Wanton, deliberate destruction of innocent human life is wicked. People in favor of this are morally bankrupt.

Probably because the good people of Montana understand that there is no such thing as “born alive after a botched abortion.”

A alive baby outside the womb is already a person, isn’t it?

    Peabody in reply to geronl. | November 10, 2022 at 6:43 pm

    Well, the title says, “born alive”. How can you abort a baby after they’ve already been born? Doesn’t a baby who has been born require a birth certificate? And if they die, then a death certificate?

    JoAnne in reply to geronl. | November 11, 2022 at 6:28 pm

    That baby is a baby from the time of conception. Every thing it will be is there when sperm meets egg.

I was surprised to learn Michigan’s abortion referendum that passed did away with the requirement of the father’s child support.

“Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”

I read ‘every individual’ to include the father and ‘postpartum care’ is care for the child after birth. I know what they mean, but as they say, the devil is in the details. They will have to adhere to it as stated, or rewrite it, which would be like a ‘bait and switch’ making the referendum null and void.