The evil and sickness of the Democrats is hard to even grasp. They are hate filled baby murderers. Unreal, just unreal. You Dems here how can you support this?

Quote:Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don't try saving the life of infants born alive during abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing "infanticide" to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics -- seven votes short of the 60 needed.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that "any health care practitioner present" at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

Keep reading here....

Mathew 25:45

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

How could anybody with a soul oppose this legislation?

(02-25-2019 10:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Mathew 25:45

‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

How could anybody with a soul oppose this legislation?

Government is their god and abortion is their holy sacrament.

Leftist murdering future leftists.

This is one of the many ways that liberal postmodernism breaks down.

"No capital punishment!"
"Why not?"
"Because life has value! And abortions on demand!"
"Why?"
"Because life doesn't have, like, a ton of value. Choices do."

This is just pure evil. Are any board libs not going to denounce this evil?

Quote:Democratic presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts voted against the bill. Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also voted against the measure. Democratic Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth described the bill as an obvious effort “to bully doctors out of giving reproductive care,” and voted against it.

So now we have supporters of murdering babies running for President.

They sure do like murdering babies

Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

Let me guess, despite the obvious tone of this entire post, you aren't saying you are against the bill at all and if anyone disagrees you want them to point out where you said otherwise, and you actually find infanticide to be horrifying.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

How about a simple yes or no - do you support this or not?

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

Oh here comes baby-killing Tom with his "it won't happen THAT often" defense. He uses that at least once per thread when it comes to killing kids.

Disgusting.

(02-26-2019 09:55 AM)BuffaloTN Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

How about a simple yes or no - do you support this or not?

He's fishing for someone to criticize him or suggest he is against the bill. Thus he carefully worded it to argue otherwise once they do.

Disgusting. And now somebody explain how the "my body, my choice" argument holds water for something that's no longer in your body.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

Seems that you are correct, the wording of this law would in fact cover situations like a baby surviving an abortion.

If there is already a law covering such things, then passing another would amount to a political stunt.

You know, very similar to "passing more gun laws" after a tragedy when laws on the books already cover those situations.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology concluded that about 1 in 30 abortions after 16 weeks’ gestation result in a born-alive infant.

https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/do...07.01279.x

I seem to remember someone yesterday saying something about worthless trolls. Perhaps that someone should look in the mirror.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

The difference is the penalties.

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

Tom.....just.....couldnt....do......it

bu yea, team over country.

(02-26-2019 10:08 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-26-2019 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't you guys for limited government?

There's already a law that covers these situations, H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Additionally, does anyone have statistics on how many babies survive abortions? I don't think I've seen any actual statistics on that.

Seems that you are correct, the wording of this law would in fact cover situations like a baby surviving an abortion.

If there is already a law covering such things, then passing another would amount to a political stunt.

You know, very similar to "passing more gun laws" after a tragedy when laws on the books already cover those situations.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, but I'm not for more gun laws just for the sake of more gun laws either.

(02-26-2019 10:03 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Disgusting. And now somebody explain how the "my body, my choice" argument holds water for something that's no longer in your body.

So other than penalties, how does this current law proposal change anything as to a baby that's born alive? The current law I cited already provides for constitutional protections for the baby.

There's a reason why most in the medical community are against this...and it's likely because it allows government to get in the way between a patient and a doctor. Something I thought most here were against.