photo #447515

ANTI-ABORTION LEGISLATIONAs Election Day 2020 draw near, let us all be clear in our understanding (and conscience) as to who--among elected officials--is fighting for the unborn and who is not. In 2019 (let alone 2020 and other years) several hundred pieces of legislation were passed at state levels with the aim to protect and secure the rights (and therefore the lives) of the unborn. Many of these bills also aimed primarily at protecting the safety and interests of women. Some bills passed, some failed. In addition, many bills were also introduced with the goal to protect abortion access and to block any attempts to the contrary. Some of those passed, and some failed, as well. One point of interest is that when you break down the roll calls on these bills of the state legislatures, a pattern quickly emerges which leaves no doubt as to who is fighting to put a stop to abortion, and who is not only idly standing by, but is actively resisting those efforts. I decided to create some charts of what I would consider more significant bills among the many, which illustrate the roll call breakdowns. I have several I will share over the next few days.This first chart is actually an exception, as it represents a bill passed in the U.S. Senate this year, and not a state legislature last year. But it's significance cannot be overlooked. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (BAASPA) was introduced by Senate Republicans in February. It is different from the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) of 2002. The latter simply defined any infant who survived an abortion attempt as a "person" under the law. Since 2002, there have been hundreds of cases of infants born alive during an abortion attempt. Even though the BAIPA defined an infant who survived abortion as a "person," there was no requirement under law that the infant receive the appropriate medical care for a child born at the same gestational age. That means that these children were born alive, then permitted to be left to fight for their lives as they lie somewhere exposed, not receiving the medical care they need. Often they would fight for hours--sometimes an entire 24 hour period, becoming hypothermic and hypoglycemic--until they finally died. Many recall VA Gov. Ralph Northam infamously stating how if the child survived an abortion attempt, the child would be "kept comfortable" and then "resuscitated" if the mother decided to keep her child. If she decided not to keep her child, the child would be left dead, or else left to die. No state homicide laws covered the safety of that child in that situation. The reason for this is the difference in the law between "active" and "passive" killing. "Active" killing is something like what Kermit Gosnell did, where he would cut the neck and spine of the child, twist their necks, or deliver trauma to the soft spot. "Passive" killing is letting the child lie on its own to die from negligence. Under the BAIPA, passive killing was not addressed. The BAASPA would require a physician to provide the necessary medical needs of the abortion survivor--thus outlawing passive killing. And if the child was left to die, it would be counted as "murder" under the law.Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House, had blocked a vote on this bill over 80 times. The only humane thing to do when faced with a decision in circumstances like this would be to protect the safety of these children. To actively resist something so fundamental to human ethics should only be seen as barbaric. But take a look and see for yourselves. See who it is--at least in this case, being the first one I'm presenting--who is trying to protect humanity's weakest community, and who is trying to stop them...https://www.cdc.gov/.../mortality-records-mentioning...https://www.lifenews.com/.../virginia-gov-ralph-northam.../