The Senate effort to pass the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act failed yesterday, with much credit to be given to Democrats who misrepresented the purpose of the bill to the American public.

The debate surrounding the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act has been plagued by claims that a woman’s right to choose is under attack. Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, both candidates for president, expressed their concern for the bill because it would supposedly bar women’s access to reproductive health care.

According to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, whose state recently passed a bill loosening restrictions on abortions through the time of birth, the bill “is carefully crafted to target, intimidate, and shut down reproductive health care providers.”

However, it has been established that the bill does not touch abortion access. A basic read-through of the bill (it’s short; a quick read) makes it clear that the bill’s purpose was to deal with infants — babies that have been delivered and have lived. This means that there was no intention of inhibiting a woman’s “right to choose,” despite many Democrats’ claims to the contrary.

The bill only mandates that an infant delivered post-failed abortion be given care equivalent to that of “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” As Sasse, the sponsor of the bill, stated, the bill is about preventing infanticide. Given recent remarks made by lawmakers endorsing such a practice, most notably in Virginia, this bill would have been important and necessary.

NARAL, a pro-choice organization, furthered the narrative these democratic senators concocted, calling this bill extremist and anti-science. Yet NARAL’s position itself is both extremist and anti-science. An infant born post-abortion is, in fact, an infant; this means, on the grounds of basic logic and science, anything other than providing necessary medical care for the sake of the child’s life is infanticide. And supporting a bill that would prohibit infanticide is not extreme; it’s basic human decency.

The bar for this bill was extremely low. It called for lawmakers to stand against infanticide in all cases, regardless of whether the child was wanted or not. It called for an objective view of life once an infant is born.

And still, the left manipulated the conversation. If the bill doesn’t touch abortion, well, then it is certainly redundant and, therefore, unnecessary. That was the claim of Senator and former Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, in a statement he released explaining his vote against the bill.

Citing a 2002 bill against infanticide, some opposers of Sasse’s bill assert that his would be unnecessary. But history and research has made clear that this bill is important.

A report from the Heritage Foundation notes cases across the country in which a child has survived a botched abortion. Realistically, more have occurred but have not been reported because there is no federal requirement for such data. Cases like that of Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden underscore the ability to survive an abortion, as well. The report also notes that it is not universal practice to work to preserve the lives of these infants who survive.

Yet there was no recognition of these basic facts in the left’s narrative.

A child is a child so long as it is convenient. That is the precedent being set behind these veiled expressions of concern for women’s health care, and it is a dangerous one.

And if this is women’s health care, count me out.

Liana I.
FFL Cabinet
Liana is a follower of Christ and current communications student at Fairleigh Dickinson University. She enjoys writing, reading, and serving others.

Read more articles