New York State abortion bill now allows babies, At any point of pregnancy, to be aborted

[B-Man]

More on the vote.   Democrats block bill to ensure medical care for abortion survivors by Kimberly Leonard

Original Article       .

[B-Man]

For many, the rite of abortion now includes euthanasia.

Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris wants to force every American to give up his private health insurance, but she can’t get herself to support legislation that compels doctors to give an infant who survives an abortion attempt the same care they would provide any other human being. She’s merely one of 44 Democrats who voted to keep negligent homicide legal against babies marked for termination. Presidential candidates Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all voted against Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, as well.

 

Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time.

 

 

Sen. Patty Murray claimed the bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, regardless of a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As bills in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts

 

 

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/senate-vote-born-alive-infants-proves-democrats-arent-pro-choice-theyre-pro-infanticide/

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits euthanasia. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal.

 

I'm on board with this.  It is already illegal, and I make the same complaint about superfluous legislation when Democrats propose it for gun control, or when they proposed it for financial reform.

[B-Man]

There’s no good way to spin the Democrats’ vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

 

So many in the Main Stream Media simply ignored it.

 

 

 

Mainstream Media Blacks Out The Democrats’ Infanticide Vote

by David Harsanyl

 

So I was going to have a little fun at the expense of CNN this morning, contrasting the news site’s headline for the Democrats’ gun restriction bill—“House to vote on guns background check bill with bipartisan support”—which has garnered exactly four Republican co-sponsors, with its headline for the Sen. Ben Sasse’s anti-infanticide bill, which I was certain would be solely about the “GOP” despite having four Democrat Senators voting to move the bill forward. Turns out, it was even better.

 

There was nothing to contrast because, as far as I can tell, CNN doesn’t feature a single story on their website regarding the Democratic Party blocking of Sasse’s Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would have saved newborn babies who survive abortion attempts from negligent homicide.

 

CNN didn’t even bother producing one of those predictably prejudiced pieces, like the ones we saw in Politico or the Washington Post yesterday, mischaracterizing Sasse’s bill as “anti-abortion.” They didn’t bother with the “conservatives pounce!” stories like the Daily Beast or Vox. They didn’t bother, like so many others, to distract from the number of viable babies being aborted by stressing only 1.5 percent of the procedures are in post-20 weeks, rather than pointing out there are somewhere around 15,000 to 18,000 aborted every year. They just ignored it.

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

[IDBillzFan]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Bingo. Kamala Harris is the poster child for that image.

[B-Man]

Please note................I am not Gorrell, Branco, or Lisa........................lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

[B-Man]

 

Quote

 

CBS News‏Verified account @CBSNews

FollowFollow @CBSNews

"Record-breaking" preemie weighing as much as an onion at birth goes home healthy      https://cbsn.ws/2NxTyyH 

 

.

 

 

24 weeks................................... Stop pretending like pro-aborts don’t know an unborn baby is a human being.

 

They know. It’s self-evident. They just don’t care.

 

 

 

.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

.

 

 

24 weeks................................... Stop pretending like pro-aborts don’t know an unborn baby is a human being.

 

They know. It’s self-evident. They just don’t care.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Exactly, because feminist filth is more important than unborn children. This is the eventual evolutionary outcome of the feminist movement. Enjoy!

[/dev/null]

11 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

Thanatos has been great at harvesting votes for Democrats

[JaCrispy]

On 1/23/2019 at 8:06 PM, B-Man said:

In a late term abortion (which NY just legalized)

 

the baby is killed by poison injection and then delivery is induced.

 

Think about that.

 

They're delivering the child anyway.

 

Why kill him ahead of time?

 

Why not deliver him alive and put him up for adoption?

 

Why does he need to come out dead?

Wow...that’s just effed up! I could understand not wanting to go through with delivery, but to deliver and still kill the child is just Satanic imo...they probably wear black robes and start chanting during the process- scum bags.

[B-Man]

Exposing the obscenity of infanticide Washington Times, by Tammy Bruce

Original Article     .

[B-Man]

National News correspondent, Yahoo News

 

Quote

 

Alexander Nazaryan‏Verified account @alexnazaryan

FollowFollow @alexnazaryan

"It's not late term abortion; it's murder," @GOPChairwoman says of VA measure. She is basically accusing Democrats of killing children.

That seems like an incendiary charge.

7:24 AM - 28 Feb 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ummmm.

[B-Man]

Quote

 

Ben Domenech‏Verified account @bdomenech 2h2 hours ago

Illinois is next on the abortion extremism front: bill would repeal the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act,

Abortion Performance Refusal Act,

and life and health requirements post-viability

 

 

 

 

..http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/01/illinois-considers-another-terrifying-law-allowing-infanticide/#.XHlWH8ohWMk.twitter

 

FTA:

 

The bill’s definition of abortion makes it clear that abortions are intended to result in the death of the child: “‘Abortion’ means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.”

 

If that isn’t enough, the bill goes further: Any qualified “health care professional” — “including, but not limited to, a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant”—may provide abortions (emphasis mine). There’s more:

• Abortion clinics become exempted from rules for ambulatory surgical treatment centers, unless they use “general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia.”
• Any health insurance policy issued in the state must include abortion coverage without any cost-sharing requirement.

• All instances of the phrase “pregnant woman” are changed to read “pregnant individual” and instances of the phrase “her unborn child” (in a section which, as small consolation, remains, on the intentional homicide of wanted unborn children) have the possessive pronoun removed, in order, it appears, to make allowance for pregnant transgender people.

Separately, a companion bill, HB 2467, would repeal the parental notification law. This bill, however, has a mere three sponsors.

 

Why this law? Why now? Although CBS News, for example, describes it as motivated by “uncertainty surrounding the fate of Roe v. Wade,” the 2017 law was already billed by its supporters as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” so whatever desire abortion rights activists in other states might have to eliminate any laws that would criminalize abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is not an issue in Illinois.

 

Instead, this bill is part of a larger strategy to normalize abortion, under any circumstances, at any point in pregnancy. As Rewire.News reported, “It’s pushing back against a deliberate strategy of the anti-abortion movement of stigmatizing and siloing women’s reproductive health care, and these bills are saying we need to treat reproductive health care like any other health care,” said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois.

 

 

.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

..http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/01/illinois-considers-another-terrifying-law-allowing-infanticide/#.XHlWH8ohWMk.twitter

 

FTA:

 

The bill’s definition of abortion makes it clear that abortions are intended to result in the death of the child: “‘Abortion’ means the use of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of an individual known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus.”

 

If that isn’t enough, the bill goes further: Any qualified “health care professional” — “including, but not limited to, a physician, advanced practice registered nurse, physician assistant”—may provide abortions (emphasis mine). There’s more:

• Abortion clinics become exempted from rules for ambulatory surgical treatment centers, unless they use “general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia.”
• Any health insurance policy issued in the state must include abortion coverage without any cost-sharing requirement.

• All instances of the phrase “pregnant woman” are changed to read “pregnant individual” and instances of the phrase “her unborn child” (in a section which, as small consolation, remains, on the intentional homicide of wanted unborn children) have the possessive pronoun removed, in order, it appears, to make allowance for pregnant transgender people.

Separately, a companion bill, HB 2467, would repeal the parental notification law. This bill, however, has a mere three sponsors.

 

Why this law? Why now? Although CBS News, for example, describes it as motivated by “uncertainty surrounding the fate of Roe v. Wade,” the 2017 law was already billed by its supporters as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” so whatever desire abortion rights activists in other states might have to eliminate any laws that would criminalize abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is not an issue in Illinois.

 

Instead, this bill is part of a larger strategy to normalize abortion, under any circumstances, at any point in pregnancy. As Rewire.News reported, “It’s pushing back against a deliberate strategy of the anti-abortion movement of stigmatizing and siloing women’s reproductive health care, and these bills are saying we need to treat reproductive health care like any other health care,” said Colleen Connell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois.

 

 

.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the ACLU shut down and their assets seized. 

[4merper4mer]

On February 28, 2019 at 6:01 AM, /dev/null said:

 

Thanatos has been great at harvesting votes for Democrats

I didn't know that dude was political but most in Hollywood are.  I thought he was pretty good in Infinity War.  I wonder what role he'll play in End Game.

[Nanker]

On 2/20/2019 at 11:37 AM, LABillzFan said:

 

And that is the ultimate result. Getting you or anyone to agree and admit: Anytime. Anywhere. Any reason.

 

It sounds good until it's openly practiced.

 

That said, I don't read you as a 34/Tibs/TH3/Coach Tuesday leftist. You seem a bit more balanced. It's the far left -- the part that has all the money -- that will explode when they find out women are aborting babies because they're gay.

We’ve been told a million times that being gay is not a choice. Therefore it must be genetic. Won’t be terribly long until the human genome map will be completely understood and the “gay gene” identified. That might cause the gay community to suddenly become pro life. 

On 2/20/2019 at 9:16 PM, PBLESS said:

Glad your mother didn't feel that way.

Just think of him as another missed abortion opportunity. 

[B-Man]

 

Abortion Bias Seeps Into News

FTA:

 

A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.

Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play:

* The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

* Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

* Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

* Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

* Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

* Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines. The time constraints and ratings chase intrinsic to most television news programs often lead to the kind of superficiality and sensationalism that result in bias. In addition, says Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the "insular culture that produces network newscasts" create an "implicit bias (that) is more pervasive . . . than in the print media."

But throughout the media, print and broadcast alike, coverage of abortion tends to be presented--perhaps subconsciously--from the abortion-rights perspective. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Webster case a year ago Tuesday that states could have more latitude in regulating abortion, for example, ABC News termed the decision "a major setback for abortion rights."

Couldn't it also have been called "a major victory for abortion opponents"?

Yes.

But most reporters don't identify with abortion opponents.

 

 

 

MUCH MORE at the link: https://www.latimes.com/food/la-me-shaw01jul01-story.html

[TakeYouToTasker]