Colorado Democrats vote down bill requiring doctors to help babies born-alive after abortion
House Bill 1068 would have required physicians to "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence" in the case of a live birth during an abortion. A violation would have carried a civil fine of $100,000 plus constitute a class 3 felony that could come to bear as "unprofessional conduct" on a medical' license.
Rep. Chris Kennedy, D-Lakewood, who chairs the committee, said no one wants to see a child killed or neglected, but he spoke to the effect of making a medical decision a crime.
"I do believe the effect of this bill to create a new felony for this kind of action would have the effect of limiting access to abortion in this state," he said. "I think that is a legitimate concern and a real problem."...
Jim Lincoln wrote: This is already taken care of on the federal level --and little doubt on state level as well. I see the article has been recently updatedâť—
Anna North wrote: --- â€śThe bill maligns and vilifies providers and patients to push a false narrative about abortion later in pregnancy,â€ť Dr. Kristyn Brandi, a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Vox in an email last year.excerpt from, 'Republicans are bringing back a bill to protect â€śabortion survivorsâ€ť' --- "Gilding the lily"?
I assume by "false narrative..." that it means the one they don't want to think about, the fact that the unborn, or late term, or newborn, are all humans made in God's image, and that killing them is murder. But it would make sense for a group calling themselves "Doctors for Reproductive Health" that they see destruction of life as health. Death culture at its finest perversity.
This is already taken care of on the federal level --and little doubt on state level as well. I see the article has been recently updatedâť—
Anna North wrote: .... But reproductive rights and physician groups say the bill could criminalize doctors and is unnecessary â€” not only because a live birth after an abortion attempt is an extremely unlikely scenario but also because laws already exist to protect an infant in this instance anyway. â€śThe bill maligns and vilifies providers and patients to push a false narrative about abortion later in pregnancy,â€ť Dr. Kristyn Brandi, a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Health, told Vox in an email last year.
By holding a hearing on the bill, Sasse is focusing attention on an aspect of the abortion debate that some see as a wedge issue for voters: abortions very late in pregnancy....
excerpt from, 'Republicans are bringing back a bill to protect â€śabortion survivorsâ€ť'
Nor can you "keep a boy on the farm once he's seen Par-ee," DF. It is essentially a Pandora's box...once opened, it's open.
The problem is that state Democrats want to keep state and local law enforcement out of abortion clinics. While there is a federal law against allowing a live child to die, it is not the highest priority for federal law enforcement which is focused on terrorism, drug smuggling, human trafficking, etc.
This story serves as a reminder that abortion is seen by many, esp. Dems, to be a Human Right (for the mother, that is, not the child). Where does this idea come from? The Sexual Revolution of the 1970s, and the resulting 'freedom' of women to have relations with anyone they want to, outside the bonds of matrimony. It is like saying, 'you can't put the horse back into the barn once it's gone to Paris'