Born Alive Legislation

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The March for Life just occurred. I know that this is something that is near and dear to your heart – something that you are very passionate about.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. It is amazing, isn't it?, that fifty years – fifty years! – after that decision it has finally been overturned. The March for Life in Washington this year could be a real celebration rather than simply a protest. It is wonderful to think that this horrible blight upon our nation has finally been overturned.

KEVIN HARRIS: One of the things I know that really got your attention is this legislation that was passed by House Republicans requiring that doctors care for infants born alive after failed abortions. In one of the greatest ironies in my opinion this headline from National Review^[1] says “Democrats Cite Infants’ Well-Being in Arguing against ‘Born-Alive’ Abortion-Survivor Bill”. As we'll see in this article, some Democrats argue that this legislation poses a threat to the infants that the legislation seeks to protect. What are some of the details of this legislation as you ascertained?

DR. CRAIG: The so-called “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” requires that treatment be administered to babies who survive botched abortions. The baby is not, in fact, killed but is delivered alive.

Under the bill, health-care practitioners who witness a child’s birth after a failed abortion are mandated to perform life-saving “professional skill, care, and diligence” and ensure the child is transported and admitted to a hospital afterwards if the birth took place outside of one. Any medical employee of a hospital, physician’s office, or abortion clinic who has knowledge of a physician’s negligence to provide care must report the case.

So this seems to me to just be common sense. It should go without saying that of course medical care should be given instantly to a baby born alive after a failed abortion. And yet some abortion fanatics oppose this bill because, in fact, they're in favor of infanticide. Many have argued that the newly delivered infant may be allowed to simply perish on the operating table – just ignore it, let it alone, and let it die. I find this just morally unconscionable.

KEVIN HARRIS: I've read so many accounts of that – just put it on a table. I've read several accounts of nurses who cannot stand this and will literally put the child in a closet and close the door so that they can't hear the cries. I know that that's tough to hear, but that's what this legislation is seeking to address it seems. We have an article here from National Review by Caroline Downey. She says,

On the House floor, Democratic Representative Suzanne Bonamici called the “born-alive” bill “extremist, dangerous and unnecessary.” . . .

Democratic House Whip Katherine Clark said the name of the bill was “deliberately misleading and offensive to the women who face pregnancy complications and the doctors and nurses who provide their care.” The bill is also not based on “science,” she alleged.

She's playing the science card.

DR. CRAIG: Isn't that remarkable? This is not a question of science. It is a question of ethics, and this underlines like nothing else that because science is amoral it needs to be governed and controlled by ethical guidelines lest these sorts of atrocities be perpetuated. So the ethical question that this bill raises is: What possible moral justification could there be for denying medical care to a newborn baby? What moral justification could there be for denying medical care to a newborn baby? Any of our listeners who are opposed to this legislation need to answer that question. They need to tell us what moral justification exists for allowing these newborn babies to die.

KEVIN HARRIS: Here's the horrible irony that we were referring to. The article continues,

Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler of New York objected to the part of the bill that instructs doctors to bring the struggling baby to the hospital after administering care.

“The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital,” he said. . . .

Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky also argued that taking the child to the hospital after treatment could be harmful. The legislation “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital. That hospital could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby,” she said.

That was her objection.

DR. CRAIG: This is a desperate attempt to rationalize denying infant care. Remember, we're talking here about a botched abortion. So we're not talking about babies that have been born at home unexpectedly or somewhere else in a car or something. We're talking about, if not hospitals, abortion clinics, and it is not safe to leave one of these surviving infants in an abortion clinic where they've just tried to kill it. These abortion clinics are not hospitals. They're not equipped to provide infant care. That's not what they're there for. So these babies need to be immediately rescued and taken from these clinics to a hospital where it can receive proper care.

KEVIN HARRIS:

The bill passed the House Wednesday evening, with every Republican voting in favor and every Democrat voting against except for two members, one of whom voted present.

Further evidence of how deeply we are divided as a nation, at least in politics.

DR. CRAIG: Yes, it does just so clearly show the deep, deep divide that exists in the American populace and political system. You don't want to demonize your political opponents. You want to recognize that people can have a diversity of political opinions. But in a case like this where we're talking about the lives of innocent human beings, I think that the opposition to this bill is evil. It is simply morally evil to say and to do what they are suggesting.

KEVIN HARRIS: The article continues,

The GOP also proposed a resolution asking Congress to condemn recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches since the Supreme Court’s leaked decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

By the way, we still don't know who leaked that.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I heard that they have interviewed some 82 clerks and other staffers and were not able to determine who leaked this which really compromises the integrity of the Supreme Court. It raises the suspicion that the person who leaked this opinion may not be among the clerks and staffers. What if it's one of the liberal justices themselves who leaked this opinion to the public? Don't the justices themselves need to be interviewed? I wish they would ask them all to voluntarily take lie detector tests about this because if one of the justices have done this that would be, I think, an impeachable offense.

KEVIN HARRIS: Back to the article.

The text cites many incidents of violence and vandalism, including break-ins and firebombings, against pregnancy centers and churches . . . the resolution also passed the House, with all Republicans approving and all but three Democrats opposing.

It seems like we could get united on non-violence but the Democrats didn't like this one either.

DR. CRAIG: Isn't that astonishing? To not oppose violence against these pregnancy clinics and churches. What's important to understand is that these pregnancy clinics are for women who are exercising their freedom of choice that the Democrats supposedly uphold. The clientele of these clinics are expectant mothers who want to keep their child and are going to the clinic to get prenatal advice, to get supplies like diapers, formula, cribs, baby strollers, and so forth. Jan and I will sometimes work at a local pregnancy clinic here in our area. The service that they render to these women and their husbands is just heartwarming and inestimable. It seems unthinkable that someone would try to bomb or vandalize clinics that are being visited by these young expectant mothers and fathers. Again, it's unconscionable.

KEVIN HARRIS: The article ends,

Some Democratic House members invoked their religious beliefs to justify abortion, claiming that Christianity condones the procedure.

“As a pro-choice Christian who chose life, this issue is personal to me… When I read scripture, I turn to Jeremiah 1:5 which states ‘I knew you before I formed you and placed you in your mother’s womb.’ It doesn’t say the government’s womb,” Democratic Representative Hillary Scholten said before the chamber.

Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson said: “As a person of faith, I believe it should be between that woman, that family, that God, and that doctor.”

What do you think about that?

DR. CRAIG: This is biblical balderdash! Jeremiah says God has placed that baby in the mother's womb. He says nothing about the mothers having the right to kill the baby that God has placed there. That is nonsense. I'd ask Sheila Jackson, “Why do you think that the taking of an innocent human life is a purely private decision?” Intuitively, the choice to take some other person's life is not a private, personal choice of mine. There's somebody else involved. So why do you think the taking of an innocent human life is a private decision? What's your argument for that, Miss Jackson? What reason do you have to think that taking an innocent human life is a purely private decision? And now, notice, actually she says it's not entirely private. God, she says, is involved in the decision. So what I'd like to know is how does she know that God is all right with this decision to kill the baby? Where did she find that in the Bible? And if she doesn't find it in the Bible, where does she get this information? How does she know that God's all right with the decision to kill a baby in the womb? So this is just, again, excuse-making. There's nothing in Christianity that would condone the taking of the lives of pre-born infants.

KEVIN HARRIS: Final question, Bill. It seems like we're making a lot of progress in this area – in the area of raising the consciousness of people about this important issue. But it also looks like we have our work cut out for us and plenty of work yet to be done.

DR. CRAIG: Yes. I think you're right that progress is being made, and I personally think that in the last midterm elections the pro-life forces weathered the brunt of the reaction against the repeal of Roe v Wade. In time, people will get used to this new ruling being the law of the land, and it will not be the volatile flashpoint issue that it was last fall. So I think they've weathered the brunt of the counter-reaction, and now it will be a matter of ensuring on the state level that state representatives and legislators and governors will be elected who will take strong pro-life stands. So there is lots of work left for the pro-life movement to protect these innocent lives, but I am indeed very encouraged by what has happened in our country in this regard.^[2]