Dem Rep Opposes Bill Protecting Abortion-Surviving Babies, Because it “May Kill Children”

These people don’t appreciate their own irony. I just reported the other day about Representative DeLauro who opposed a pro-life bill that would remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood. She said that forcing Planned Parenthood to raise their own money instead of relying on the taxpayers would be like telling Americans, “Forget your health; you can just die.” As if abortion hasn’t killed tens of million of people already.

New York Representative Jarrold Nadler is opposing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Trent Davis from Arizona. The bill would require that babies who survive the abortion process be treated as any other person and be given the medical treatment needed to help the baby thrive. Representative Nadler said that the bill is bad, because it “may kill children.” He stated, according to CNS News:

“It may be that the baby is too frail to transport, but along comes this bill and says, we don’t care about the real situation that doctor faces with that infant. We know how to practice medicine in every situation – we in Congress. So we’re going to say it must be brought to the hospital, even if that may kill the child.

“It’s just stupid, and that’s why this bill must be opposed – not because it changes the standard of law or has anything to do with born-alive infants, but because it mandates that a child be brought to the hospital where medical care might indicate that that child in that situation should not be brought to the hospital. It may kill children. That’s why we must oppose this bill,” Nadler said.

Abortion already “kills children.” So, I don’t understand his anger. He doesn’t care about the babies who have already been murdered over the past four decades, but all of a sudden, he’s worried that a baby who survived an abortion…might die? That’s the reason the bill was introduced, Mr. Nadler. To protect that child and to make it mandatory for doctors and other personnel to ensure that that child is taken care of as they’d take care of any other person.

If the baby is “too frail to transport,” the alternative would be to let the child die on its own. Is that what Nadler would prefer, if that’s what the doctor and mother decided was best?