Opinion: Children in cages? Bad. Infants dying in linen closets? Whatever.

by Peter Heck · Feb 28th, 2020 3:40 pm

Last Updated Feb 28th, 2020 at 4:09 pm

I legitimately don't understand it. I'm not saying that in a rhetorical sense; I'm being serious. I do not comprehend the logic or reasoning behind what 41 Democrats just did in the U.S. Senate. Their colleague, Senator Ben Sasse, sponsored a notably simple bill that would make it a federal law that physicians must provide medical care to newborn infants who survive abortion procedures.

And 41 Democrats said no (the three currently running for president – Sanders, Klobuchar, Warren – voted with those 41 to kill the same bill last year.)

Someone help me grasp what I'm missing. Someone explain to me how this isn't the most inhumane, irrational antipathy towards basic human compassion imaginable. There's nothing hidden in this legislation, after all. For those who were perhaps skeptical about that point, Sasse admitted as much on the floor:

"I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that's already been born, that's outside the womb gasping for air. That's the only thing that today's vote is actually about. We're talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access ... There's nothing in the bill that's about abortion. Nothing. It's about infanticide. That's the actual legislation."

You can see that for yourself in the actual text of the bill right here.

I've tried to come up with reasons why any even remotely civilized person would oppose this law, and I have failed. Consider the options:

"The bill isn't necessary."

In actuality, this couldn't be further from the truth. In recent years, we've discovered over 270 cases of children being born after botched abortion attempts. We know about those cases not because Planned Parenthood and their fellow abortion mills have been honest. We know because they have survived into adulthood and now bravely tell their story. It's chilling to think the number of these helpless infants that haven't been so fortunate.

Registered nurses in hospital labor departments like Jill Stanek have been blowing the whistle on this despicable practice for years:

"In the event that an aborted baby was born alive, she or he received 'comfort care,' defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until she died. Parents held the baby if they wished. If the parents did not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cared for the baby until she died. If staff did not have the time or desire to hold the baby, she was taken to Christ Hospital's Comfort Room, which was complete with a First Foto machine if parents wanted professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die."

Soiled utility rooms. This is why current homicide laws are insufficient. They won't address or hold accountable the mere abandonment of these suffering infants. And before you suggest that Stanek is fabricating these accounts, keep in mind that Planned Parenthood's own lobbyist admitted that deciding what to do with a living baby, outside the womb, following an attempted abortion, should be up to the woman and the abortionist:

And who could forget Virginia's black-faced, scandal-plagued disgrace of a governor, Ralph Northam who actually defended this evil practice in a radio interview?

"This is about creating a stepping stone to ending abortion."

Again, read the text of the bill. There's nothing in this legislation that limits current abortion access. It addresses and seeks to regulate what happens after the abortion. The bill does not address beings biologically labeled as fetuses. It addresses infants. Infants enduring immense pain and suffering.

But let's just suppose for a moment that this argument was true. Let's say creating a stepping stone to overturning Roe were the real motivation here. Would that make it any more acceptable, moral, or reasonable, to deny infant humans – that no one disputes are living humans like you and I – basic human care? Of course not.

The only way this bill could become a pretext for ending legal abortion is if the general public were persuaded that if we legally protect a living baby one second after she's born, we should legally protect a living baby one second before she's born. But has this not already been a long-standing argument pro-life activists have used for decades? Have we not been attempting to persuade rational minds that since we protect living humans outside the womb, so why would we not do the same on for those inside the womb?

There is simply no justifiable reason a humane person opposes this bill. The depressing reality is that the very people screaming about the inhumanity of locking immigrant children in cages, vote against requiring basic medical care for suffering, abandoned babies in linen closets, because politics. God forgive us.

If you like this content, sign up for the M-W-F PETER HECK UPDATE newsletter. Or if you want to HEAR IT daily, subscribe to the HECK PODCAST today.


Comments

You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.