Washington D.C., Feb 5, 2021 / 08:05 am (CNA).- On Thursday evening, the Senate rejected a measure requiring care for babies who survive abortion attempts.
As part of consideration of a budget resolution on Thursday, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) tried to insert an amendment based on his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The legislation requires that babies born alive during botched abortions receive the same standard of care that other newborns of the same gestational age would.
Sasse’s amendment failed to receive the necessary 60 votes to be included in the budget resolution, receiving only 52 votes in favor and 48 votes against.
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Bob Casey (D-Penn.) were the only two Democrats who joined Senate Republicans in supporting Sasse’s amendment.
Pro-life groups stated their disapproval with the amendment’s failure to pass.
“Appalled that this didn’t pass,” Democrats for Life of America tweeted. “There’s nothing Democratic about denying medical care to newborn survivors of abortion.”
“Thank you @SenSasse for introducing the amendment tonight that simply requires EQUAL medical care for infants, whether they’re born in the L&D ward of a hospital, or ‘accidentally’ in an abortion facility,” Susan B. Anthony List stated.
“Protecting newborns ought to be the easiest thing in the world,” Sasse stated after the vote. “Every baby deserves care. This isn’t about abortion, it’s about human rights.”
Senate Pro-Life Caucus chair Steve Daines (R-Mont.) tweeted that denying care to abortion survivors “isn’t healthcare, this is infanticide. It’s chilling.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) tweeted, “We must restore a culture of life to our legislature.”
“Born-alive” legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate in recent years, but has never been enacted. The House passed a version of the legislation in 2018.
When Republicans were in the minority in the House in the 116th Congress, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise led a discharge petition to bring Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-Mo.) Born-alive bill to the House Floor for consideration. The petition fell 13 signatures short of the 218 signatures necessary to do so.
Sasse introduced the Senate version of the bill; his legislation required that, once infants surviving abortions received necessary care, that they be transported and admitted to a hospital. That bill failed in a 2019 roll call vote, 53-44.
Not all states publicize data on abortions, but the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute has reported that there have been instances of babies surviving botched abortion attempts.
In Florida alone in 2019, the state reported two survivors of abortion attempts; between the years 2013 and 2019, 23 babies in Florida were reported to have been born alive during abortions.
The Senate on Thursday night considered a variety of other amendments to a budget resolution, the first legislative step in passing another coronavirus relief package.
Other proposed amendments included attempts to prohibit increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and to stop COVID relief from going to prison inmates.
President Trump in September issued an executive order requiring medical care for babies surviving failed abortion attempts. He directed the Health Secretary to ensure that federally-funded health care programs and activities were “aware” of the order to provide the care and transfer the babies to hospitals, and to investigate complaints of violations.
[…]
By 
Well, that’s a big fat lie.
Thankfully he addresses one subject at a time! One cause of divisive results! Typically journalists love to water down the affected subjects by drawing attention to other events!
Snort. Consider the source.
A source of scandal??? The Latin Mass? REALLY?? Can this guy exaggerate even more?? The opinions from the nest of vipers which is Germany hold no water for many in any case. .
Okay, Boomer.
Can you explain your cryptic comment? To whom is it addressed?
As I understand it, the phrase is a way to avoid substantial discussion by dismissing the opinions of any persons born from 1946 to 1964 (so, some 71 million people in the United States) as valueless because of when they were born.
Kasper has dedicated his life to fostering division by undermining and contradicting Church teaching on the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, the Real Presence etc. and by deliberately undermining Pope’s St John Paul Ii and Benedict XVI as a member of the Sankt Gallen mafia. Pot, meet kettle.
From Cardinal Kasper: “As far as I know, none of the bishops wants any schismatic act and there is a slowly growing number in the bishops’ conference who are resistant.”
About the German Synodal Way(ward) we have only “worries” and wishful thinking from Kasper. Perhaps the possibly shifting results of Kasper’s nose count of German bishops can be made as public as could be the also undocumented results of the Vatican survey regarding the Latin Mass?
The “slowly growing number” of resistant bishops rests on an originally small handful. I recall a reported 13 out of 69 bishops against the directions taken early by the synodal way. The schismatic and invalid blessing of homosexual unions is already a well-known “schismatic act”. From Rome, case-specific corrections would be most welcome, as such an approach could have been made against only those alleged traditionalist enclaves who reportedly reject the Second Vatican Council. Unlike the theology of Aquinas, for example, a similar precision in policy making is too-often vastly undervalued (but how to do this without being duped into creating photo-op martyrs and seemingly triggering the full-blown schism?)
As for the German Catholic laity: “The Catholic weekly newspaper Die Tagespost reported Sept. 17 [2020] that 53 percent of German Catholics said they were not interested in the Synodal Path” (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europe/2020/09/cologne-cardinal-warns-german-churchs-synodal-path-could-cause-schism/).
On the other hand, also in 2020, “conservative clerics were repeatedly outvoted by 80% to 90% when they tried to change the [unstructured membership] rules governing the [eventually “binding” synodal] talks” (https://www.ncronline.org/news/world/reformers-ideas-gain-momentum-german-synodal-way).
Apart from any future results, is the synodal-path process itself, in Germania, already schismatic?
This is the clerical equivalent of “You are a racist because you don’t agree with me.” EVERY single person who attends a Latin Mass rejcts Vatican II??? What world are these people living in? And he is a cardinal? So much for mercy and dialogue.