• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Baby Abortion Survivor Was "Swimming" In Toilet "Trying To Get Out"

Funny how that happens when the person bringing the charges is unseated right before the trial for an AG that is sympathetic to your cause isn't it?

"As Morrison interpreted the law, if a doctor said an abortion was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, that was good enough for the AG."

Read more at How Sebelius subverted the Tiller abortion trial



A lot of late term abortion advocates are way too emotionally invested in this issue, and try to use a thousand shades of grey, and projection to cloud the issue, so I am not surprised you would some inane technicality, while ignoring what happened leading to that verdict to let him off, and ignore that he was guilty of infanticide.



No, I am accusing Sebelius, and her lackey Morrison of this, Tiller is just the beneficiary.



No, you don't take it seriously because you have rationalized the murder of a defenseless child as proper...I feel sorry for you.

I already said I don't like late term abortion, but I am a pragmatic person. I realize we need somebody in society to provide them for health and safety issues pregnant women face.

If there was sufficient evidence against Tiller I wouldn't hesitate one minute for him be held accountable by the law.

With that being said, I don't trust most lifers would make a unbaised judgment on this matter for obvious reason. Lifers are screaming this man is a murderer and have been since before he was found innocent of all accusations.

The law still says a woman cannot abort that late unless for valid reasons, and you still don't're trust the women or the doctor. You never will either. Lifers will always be outside late term abortion clinics, even shouting at dying women, because you think you know she could live and she doesn't need to slaughter her.child.
 
live action uses the journalism techniques made famous by mike wallace and morley safer 50 years ago on 60 minutes

yesterday's sting video exposed emily's women's center in the bronx, which sucks out 23 week fetuses, usually tearing them into pieces in the process

if a delivery is breathing it is put in a jar with a toxic solution

if you deliver on your own outside the clinic, "flush it"

(link above)

all of which appears legal in the bronx

today live action stings surgi-clinic in washington dc, where dr santangelo is a talkative fellow

“Hopefully we’ll get this pregnancy out intact, but it doesn’t always happen that way,” abortion doctor Cesare Santangelo says on the video, to a 24-week pregnant undercover Live Action investigator. “I try and sever the umbilical cord first, and we wait for that to stop pulsing, and this way the fetus is expired first.”

When the undercover Live Action investigator presses Santangelo on what would happen if the baby was born alive, the doctor responds that there are things he can do to make sure that she does not take the child home with her.

“Technically — you know, legally we would be obligated to help it, you know, to survive. But, you know, it probably wouldn’t. It’s all in how vigorously you do things to help a fetus survive at this point,” he said on the undercover video.

“Let’s say you went into labor, the membranes ruptured, and you delivered before we got to the termination part of the procedure here, you know?” he continued. “Then we would do things — we would — we would not help it. We wouldn’t intubate. It would be, you know, uh, a person, a terminal person in the hospital, let’s say, that had cancer, you know? You wouldn’t do any extra procedures to help that person survive. Like ‘do not resuscitate’ orders. We would do the same things here.”

Video: DC abortionist says he would not assist baby born alive | The Daily Caller

live action published a statement:

“Our videos expose the truly gruesome, illegal, and inhuman practices going on inside many of America’s abortion clinics. Our investigation reveals that these inhuman practices are just another day at the office for abortionists and their staff.”

so there's wilmington, emily's in the bronx, surgi-clinic in dc, and 3801 lancaster...

that we know about

this is what bloomberg is pointing to when it ponders: "live births do, in fact, happen during late-term abortions"

it drives the beast: "sometimes these fetuses are delivered alive"

and: "worse, it hints at what we might be doing inside the womb to ensure that the other ones aren't"

so that's the big question---how many late term abortions in this country fail to kill the target and end up with a baby breathing or twitching or swimming in a toilet?

the choicers' chief concern centering around gosnell is---there are a lot more post-birth abortions going down around here than gramma ever suspected

wapo weighs in, "raising questions about what might happen to a baby as a result of an unsuccessful abortion"

In an interview with The Washington Post, Santangelo said he was trying to reassure the woman, who turned out to be an undercover operative of the group, Live Action. In reality, he said, he would call 9-1-1. But he said he stands by what he said on tape.

“What I said is, basically I wouldn’t do anything extraordinary,” he said Saturday. “We would call EMS. We would call 9-1-1. But I wouldn’t do intubation or anything. . . . You let nature take its course.”

Antiabortion group releases videos of clinic workers discussing live births - The Washington Post

wapo emphasizes that dr santangelo has done nothing criminal

wapo legitimately provides a platform for the director of emily's in the bronx to announce that her worker misspoke and live births do not occur at her clinic

(dr santangelo oughta give her a call)

live action claims illegality:

"abortion doctors are willing to kill babies in violation of the federal born-alive infants protection act of 2002, which requires them to try to save a child born during a failed abortion using the same measures used in miscarriages or preterm births at the same stage of pregnancy"

wapo looks at the movements in arkansas and north dakota to ban abortion after 12 weeks

wapo gets to the point:

More than 88 percent of the 1.2 million abortions performed each year in the United States are done in the first trimester, and most doctors will not perform them beyond 24 weeks because of moral qualms, legal concerns or lack of experience. Barely 1 percent of procedures — perhaps about 15,000 each year — are done after 21 weeks. At 37 weeks, a baby is generally considered full-term. No group has statistics on how many fetuses survive an abortion, experts said.

barely one percent of abortions are done after 21 weeks?

are dr gosnell's hundreds, even thousands of operations over the years included in that stat?

live action promises more to come---just how many clinics around america are willing to discuss what they do when botched abortions start breathing?
 
a discussion decades overdue

New undercover videos of abortion professionals explaining late-term abortions, coupled with states passing strict new abortion laws and a horror-show abortion criminal case, are keeping abortion at the top of the news — an unexpected development after the nation re-elected its most vocal pro-choice president.

On Monday, the pro-life activist group Live Action released the second in a series of undercover videos on late-term abortions.

In both of the videos, abortion professionals describe late-term abortions, including advice about what could happen in the rare event that a fetus survived the initial abortion.

“Our videos expose the truly gruesome, illegal, and inhuman practices going on inside many of America’s abortion clinics,” said Lila Rose, president of Live Action. “Dr. Kermit Gosnell is not alone.”

The new political and legal clashed over abortion come as President Obama last week became the first sitting president to address a Planned Parenthood national conference, underscoring his support for keeping abortion legal.

After thanking participants Friday for their help in passing his signature health care reform and for their services to women, Mr. Obama assured Planned Parenthood that as long as there are battles over women’s reproductive and health care rights, “you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way.”

Videos fuel surging debate on abortion - Washington Times
 
wow, i've never seen such a transformation

Washington Post: Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell? And do we want to know?

“I don’t know why you want to know all this; just do it.” – Clinic worker in the Bronx, answering questions about late-term abortion from a woman who was 23 weeks pregnant.

An antiabortion activist appears to have videotaped a counselor at a Bronx clinic laughingly advising her not to trouble herself with the particulars of the late-term abortion that the woman, who was 23 weeks pregnant, said she wanted. What if the baby were born alive at home once the process was set in motion? “If it comes out, then it comes out; flush it,’’ a counselor at the Dr. Emily Women’s Health Center answered the undercover activist on the tape. She’d been working at the clinic for nearly 11 years, she said — since she was only 16.

Since a grand jury first drew us a picture of his “house of horrors” clinic two years ago, abortion-rights activists have argued that that’s what happens when there are too few legitimate clinics, and no federal funding for abortions for poor women.

But if the overarching goal is first, last and always protecting women’s health, why didn’t the National Abortion Federation inspector who turned down Gosnell’s membership application report the unsanitary conditions and safety violations she saw there? If what she observed — a padlock on an emergency exit in a part of the clinic where women were left alone overnight, for example — was so far outside the norm, then why didn’t it inspire a single phone call to the state, according to the grand jury report? Instead, the gruesome Dr. G was only shut down after investigators were tipped off that he was over-prescribing OxyContin.

Other such criminal clinics have only made the news as local stories, while most mainstream abortion coverage details threats to abortion rights rather than to women themselves. Even when a New York woman died after a third-trimester abortion performed in Maryland in February, the coverage questioned not the care that led to her death, but the breach of privacy she suffered when antiabortion activists publicized the case.

Where’s the coverage of extreme views at the other end of the spectrum? Of, for instance, the jaw-dropping testimony of Planned Parenthood official Alisa LaPolt Snow? When asked by a Florida lawmaker what kind of medical care the organization thinks a child who somehow survives a late-term abortion should get, Snow suggested that even then, the child’s fate is a woman’s right to choose.

That’s how our president voted as an Illinois state senator, too, even after his stated concerns about the “born alive” bill were addressed. Though there is a lot of room for disagreement on when life does begin, most of us think viability is a pretty clear, bright line.

Not Planned Parenthood, though, which hasn’t disavowed anything Snow said. And not the Bronx counselor caught on tape, who warns the woman sitting in front of her that no matter what happens, she mustn’t go to the hospital, where if she were to give birth to a live child, that baby might be given medical care.

While in campaign mode, Obama purported to respect diverse views on the abortion issue. But I detected no such sensitivity in his Friday remarks at Planned Parenthood, where he spoke of “those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century. And they’ve been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

yes, a discussion decades overdue

it all turned when kirsten powers appeared in usatoday

are there more gosnells?

and do YOU want to know?

does obama?
 
wow, i've never seen such a transformation

Washington Post: Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell? And do we want to know?



yes, a discussion decades overdue

it all turned when kirsten powers appeared in usatoday

are there more gosnells?

and do YOU want to know?

does obama?

America doesn't want to know that answer...Because for the truth about what is going on in that arena would open the door for increased regulation, and we both know that is only for practices that progressive liberals hate, like capitalism.
 
You're not considered pregnant until the fertilized egg attaches to the uterine wall and the body starts producing pregnancy hormones.

Many types of birth control prevent more than jusr fertilization. Like UIDs, they also prevent implantation.

That is absolutely untrue. As soon as the sperm attaches itself to the egg and releases hormones, that is the beginning of pregnancy. Birth control prevents that from happening. IF the egg attaches itself, then you are pregnant, and the IUD CAN prevent that from occurring but pregnancies still occur once the egg has attached itself.

Types of IUDs
Hormonal IUD. The hormonal IUD, such as Mirena, releases levonorgestrel, which is a form of the hormone progestin. The hormonal IUD appears to be slightly more effective at preventing pregnancy than the copper IUD. The hormonal IUD is effective for at least 5 years.

Copper IUD. The most commonly used IUD is the copper IUD (such as Paragard). Copper wire is wound around the stem of the T-shaped IUD. The copper IUD can stay in place for at least 10 years and is a highly effective form of contraception.
How it works

Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.

Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.1


other than that, I don't understand the.debate you're having.

I think it's obvious since you just commented on the debate.
 
That is absolutely untrue. As soon as the sperm attaches itself to the egg and releases hormones, that is the beginning of pregnancy. Birth control prevents that from happening. IF the egg attaches itself, then you are pregnant, and the IUD CAN prevent that from occurring but pregnancies still occur once the egg has attached itself.

Types of IUDs
Hormonal IUD. The hormonal IUD, such as Mirena, releases levonorgestrel, which is a form of the hormone progestin. The hormonal IUD appears to be slightly more effective at preventing pregnancy than the copper IUD. The hormonal IUD is effective for at least 5 years.

Copper IUD. The most commonly used IUD is the copper IUD (such as Paragard). Copper wire is wound around the stem of the T-shaped IUD. The copper IUD can stay in place for at least 10 years and is a highly effective form of contraception.
How it works

Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.

Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.1




I think it's obvious since you just commented on the debate.

What you're saying is absolutely wrong. Where did you come up with that definition of pregnancy?

According to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus; however, state definitions of pregnancy vary widely.


Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus. The definition is critical to distinguishing between a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy and an abortifacient that terminates it. And on this point, federal policy has long been both consistent and in accord with the scientists: Drugs and devices that act before implantation prevent, rather than terminate, pregnancy.

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant


If a fertalized egg does not attach to the uterine wall, then the woman will never experience a pregnancy or any hormonal changes. The egg will just be flushed out of her body. That's also known as a chemical miscarriage or a chemical abortion.

The fact is, a fertilized egg has to attach to the uterine wall. Attaching to the woman's uterus is how it gets all it's nutrients to grow and survive. It's impossible to just float around your uterus and grow. And there is no test that can show when fertilization occurs or even happens.


A woman can only be diagnosed as pregnant after implantation.



You'll find no scientific communitity saying anything differently. This is pretty much settled.


Life begins at fertilization.

Pregnancy begins at implantation.
 
Spartans used to put all newborn babies into toilets to weed out the weak amongst them.
 
Here is another link for you ChrisL.

How does The Pill Work

The pill works to prevent pregnancy, primarily, because it suppresses a woman's body from ovulating during her monthly menstrual cycle. If the ovary does not release an egg, then there is nothing there for a sperm to fertilize. The pill (and hormonal contraception) may also make the fallopian tubes less likely to move an egg toward the uterus. As mentioned above, the progestin-only pill may prevent ovulation for some women, but it may also not be consistently prevented by using these pills. Likewise, Mirena may stop some women from ovulating, but this is not the main way that Mirena works to prevent pregnancy.

The next way that hormonal contraception and the pill work is that they help to thicken the cervical mucus (the substance at cervix/opening of the uterus). This makes the mucus sticky, so when sperm try to get through the cervix, this sticky mucus makes it much harder for them to swim through -- thus making it more difficult to reach and fertilize the egg.

The final way that the pill works to prevent pregnancy has to do with the uterine lining. Hormonal contraceptives may cause changes to the lining of the uterus. The hormones in these methods can thin out or prevent the growth of uterine tissue. This may reduce the likelihood of implantation.
How the Pill Works to Prevent Pregnancy


Hormonal birth control prevents pregnancy in more ways than one. Your uterine lining has to be thick for the fertalized egg to attach to your uterus.

Birth control makes the uterine lining thin to prevent implantation. That's why women who take birth control have lighter periods.

However, this doesn't mean that birth control only prevents implantation. It is supposed to prevent fertilization as well, but as a back up measure, it also prevents implantation and ovulation.


With that being said, I believe that progesterone only birth control does not prevent implantation. It's the birth control that contains a mixture of progesterone and estrogen hormones. Both of those hormones combine is what affect the lining of uterus naturally (before and after a menstrual cycle, and during pregnancy).
 
That is absolutely untrue. As soon as the sperm attaches itself to the egg and releases hormones, that is the beginning of pregnancy. Birth control prevents that from happening. IF the egg attaches itself, then you are pregnant, and the IUD CAN prevent that from occurring but pregnancies still occur once the egg has attached itself.

Types of IUDs
Hormonal IUD. The hormonal IUD, such as Mirena, releases levonorgestrel, which is a form of the hormone progestin. The hormonal IUD appears to be slightly more effective at preventing pregnancy than the copper IUD. The hormonal IUD is effective for at least 5 years.

Copper IUD. The most commonly used IUD is the copper IUD (such as Paragard). Copper wire is wound around the stem of the T-shaped IUD. The copper IUD can stay in place for at least 10 years and is a highly effective form of contraception.
How it works

Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).

Hormonal IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can't get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow. The hormones in this IUD also reduce menstrual bleeding and cramping.

Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.1




I think it's obvious since you just commented on the debate.

Read the sentence right after the sentence you bolded. It says right there that IUDs also affect the uterine lining, which egg not must implant to. If the egg does, not implantbut is fertilized, you'll never knew you were are mom or whatever you believe that means.
 
He was found innocent if all charges right before he was murdered. It was socially irresponsible if Bill O'Reilly to call him a murder and Tiller the Baby Killer in the face of all the violence that clinic saw, and the previous attempts made in Tiller's life.

He was known as 'Tiller The Baby Killer' long before O'Reilly got involved. He was reporting what people were saying, and why not?

And of course it didn't help his reputation any that he was a baby killer.

Many pro lifers need to learn how to tone their anger and hate down...

Many pro abortionists need to learn to defend human life more.
 
With that being said, I don't trust most lifers would make a unbaised judgment on this matter for obvious reason.

Ahhh irony.
 
What you're saying is absolutely wrong. Where did you come up with that definition of pregnancy?

According to both the scientific community and long-standing federal policy, a woman is considered pregnant only when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus; however, state definitions of pregnancy vary widely.


Pregnancy is established when a fertilized egg has been implanted in the wall of a woman's uterus. The definition is critical to distinguishing between a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy and an abortifacient that terminates it. And on this point, federal policy has long been both consistent and in accord with the scientists: Drugs and devices that act before implantation prevent, rather than terminate, pregnancy.

The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant


If a fertalized egg does not attach to the uterine wall, then the woman will never experience a pregnancy or any hormonal changes. The egg will just be flushed out of her body. That's also known as a chemical miscarriage or a chemical abortion.

The fact is, a fertilized egg has to attach to the uterine wall. Attaching to the woman's uterus is how it gets all it's nutrients to grow and survive. It's impossible to just float around your uterus and grow. And there is no test that can show when fertilization occurs or even happens.


A woman can only be diagnosed as pregnant after implantation.



You'll find no scientific communitity saying anything differently. This is pretty much settled.


Life begins at fertilization.

Pregnancy begins at implantation.

I should have said conception. Conception is when the sperm enters the egg. If you notice, the third or fourth line (which I quoted for you below) in my post says that you are only considered pregnant when the egg implants itself onto the uterine wall. So, I think you're getting mixed up too.

IF the egg attaches itself, then you are pregnant, and the IUD CAN prevent that from occurring but pregnancies still occur once the egg has attached itself.

The first line of defense against pregnancy is the spermicide action of the pills/IUD. The thinning of the uterine wall is a MUCH less effective method of preventing pregnancy. A lot of times if the BC fails to kill the sperm, the egg can manage to implant itself anyway. The combination pill is the only pill I'm aware of that does both (spermicide/thinning of uterine walls).
 
Read the sentence right after the sentence you bolded. It says right there that IUDs also affect the uterine lining, which egg not must implant to. If the egg does, not implantbut is fertilized, you'll never knew you were are mom or whatever you believe that means.

Okay, but that is only a secondary action. The first and most important part is killing the sperm. Without that important factor, I'll bet birth control would not be very effective at all; if it had to rely on thinning of the uterine walls to prevent pregnancy. That is not reliable enough to prevent a pregnancy in a lot of cases.
 
A lot of lifers.are way too emotionally invested in this issue and see it as black and white, so I am not surprised you would find some other reason to consider him a mass murderer in your eyes. But in reality, your side lacked sufficient evidence.

Is "lifer" the new leftist term for those who are against murdering newborn babies? Where is the gray area as far as murdering viable babies is concerned?

This is why I have a hard time taking the pro life.position seriously

Others take the pro death position quite seriously indeed.
 
Am I the only one who finds the claims a bit absurd and fantastic? Flushing late term babies is not going to work. Babies do not swim right after birth. Is any of the claims on that supposed news site even possible? They sound like something an idiot would make up.

the question should not even be about whether babies can or can not swim at birth as it is they were flushing them down the f"n toilet.
 
I already said I don't like late term abortion, but I am a pragmatic person. I realize we need somebody in society to provide them for health and safety issues pregnant women face.
However neither of these conditions applied to either Tiller or Gosnell.
If there was sufficient evidence against Tiller I wouldn't hesitate one minute for him be held accountable by the law.
It seems there was sufficient evidence, and was even discussed in an interview with Tiller.
With that being said, I don't trust most lifers would make a unbaised judgment on this matter for obvious reason. Lifers are screaming this man is a murderer and have been since before he was found innocent of all accusations.

Who is screaming and how can only one side be biased?
The law still says a woman cannot abort that late unless for valid reasons, and you still don't're trust the women or the doctor. You never will either. Lifers will always be outside late term abortion clinics, even shouting at dying women, because you think you know she could live and she doesn't need to slaughter her.child.

Did you see Tiller or Gosnell outline any "valid reasons"?
 
During his instructions to the jury, the judge spelled out the state's abortion law and how it defines a live baby as one that is fully expelled from the mother and showing signs of life such as breathing, heart beat or movement.

If a baby shows those signs, he told the jury: "That baby us a human being."

Gosnell's defense contends there is no evidence the babies were alive after they were aborted.

Defense lawyer Jack McMahon, in his closing argument on Monday, cited testimony by Medical Examiner Sam Gulino, who said none of the 47 babies tested randomly from the West Philadelphia clinic had been born alive.

"You may not like that evidence, but it is the evidence," McMahon said.

Assistant District Attorney Edward Cameron said in his closing argument that witnesses testified that one of the aborted babies was breathing before its neck was cut, another made a whining sound and another moved its arms and legs.

"You have three witnesses who saw a baby breathe and move, and he killed it," Cameron said.

Gosnell's attorney argued that the doctor used the drug digoxin that would have killed the fetuses, and any noise or movement would have been involuntary spasms.

Jury weighs fate of abortion doctor in murder trial | Reuters

I think this guy is cooked...
 
Ahhh irony.

Its true for both sides, and I wouldn't necessarily call you a level headed person in this debate from what I have seen.
 
Its true for both sides, and I wouldn't necessarily call you a level headed person in this debate from what I have seen.

I'm nothing but, you just don't like my conclusions and insistence on science.

Regardless, your initial statement, without your little caveat you added here, would suggest that while pro-life is untrustworthy with these decisions, pro-choice would be. And it struck me as funny.
 
Is "lifer"
the new leftist term for those who are against murdering newborn babies? Where is the gray area as far as murdering viable babies is concerned?



Others take the pro death position quite seriously indeed.

I am not pro death. I am personally against abortion.

You're attitudes on labels is really strange.
 
I am not pro death. I am personally against abortion.

You did say
This is why I have a hard time taking the pro life.position seriously
It seems to me that a pro life position should be taken very seriously. Moreso than any other position, that seems certain.
You're attitudes on labels is really strange.

I think we're both aware of how labels are used to slot people into a certain type. Your use of the word "lifer", which is usually a term for those in prison, is new to me in this context. That's why I asked. Is it a new 'buzzword', just as buzzword once was?
 
fyi, yesterday:

Despite opposition from the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the Florida state Senate today passed a bill unanimously that would provide medical care and legal protection for babies who are born alive after failed abortions.

This is the same legislation President Barack Obama refused to support during his time in the Illinois legislature and it mirrors a national law President George W. Bush signed after nurse Jill Stanek exposed how her Chicago-area hospital left babies to die in utility closets after botched abortions.

The pro-life measure, HB1129, ultimately cleared the House Criminal justice Subcommittee despite opposition from the abortion giant. The bill would require that medical care be given to newborns, likely to be premature, who survive botched abortions. The care would be given at a hospital and not at the abortion clinic.

Today, the state Senate supported the bill on a 38-0 Senate vote. The pro-life bill now heads to Gov. Rick Scott, who is expected to sign it into law.

Florida Senate Unanimously OKS Anti-Infanticide Bill Planned Parenthood Opposed | LifeNews.com

presumably, florida democrats were disgusted by planned parenthood's alisa lapolt snow's testimony that babies born alive can simply be offed if mama so chooses

planned parenthood lets babies die:

Previously a national pro-life group released footage of an undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood staff member telling a pregnant woman than babies are left to die after induced labor abortions where the baby survives the abortion procedure.

The video shows the student going to a Title X, federally funded Planned Parenthood facility located in Freehold, New Jersey. A Planned Parenthood staffer describes how an abortion would be performed on a 22 week unborn child.

In the footage, the Planned Parenthood nurse describes to the pregnant woman that the abortion would entail delivering her son alive. After the woman asks if the baby can be born alive, the nurse admits that “it does happen…but it wouldn’t be able to survive on its own, so eventually the baby does die.”

planned parenthood receives a half billion dollars of taxpayer money per year

Planned Parenthood 487M in tax money, 329,000 abortions
 
Back
Top Bottom