Early this evening, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act failed to pass the US Senate by a vote of 53-44. The bill fell short by seven votes.

Three Democratic senators, Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama voted yes on the bill. Aside from these outliers, the votes fell along party lines.

The bill, sponsored by Republican Senator Ben Sasse, would require that newborns who have survived a botched abortion receive the same medical care that would be given to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Controversy has surrounded the bill. Just a month earlier, Virginia Delegate Kathy Tran came under fire from pro-lifers for sponsoring a bill that allow abortions up until the point of birth. When Governor Ralph Northam sought to clarify her explanation, pro-life advocates were further disturbed. Rather than walk back her insinuation of infanticide, Northam claimed that the newborn would be “kept comfortable” and would only be resuscitated if it aligned with the wishes of the family. While Democrats have repeatedly denied that this would be infanticide, basic logic and science seem to disagree.

Infanticide: the killing of an infant. Should the word infant require clarification, Merriam-Webster classifies an infant as “a child in the first period of life.” A child in its first introduction to the world is an infant. To kill that infant would be, as basic English tells us, infanticide.

Democrats assert that the bill would have limited the options for doctors after a baby is born post-failed abortion. And, on one level, that is true. It requires that the child receive proper medical care, as past cases indicate that this is not universal practice. However, to put any option on the table other than working to preserve the child’s life does, in fact, fall under the realm of infanticide.

Additionally, concerns arose among pro-choicers that the bill would limit access to reproductive healthcare. But Senator Sasse denied such claims, “We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”

Objectivity was the goal of this bill. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have ensured that the issue of desire or the child’s convenience would not influence the level of medical care a survivor of abortion could receive.

The claims against this bill were many. But there was not one which stood on solid ground.

We can surely expect the issue of third-trimester abortions to continue to be of national prominence as the country gears up for 2020.

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