10th anniversary of signing of Born Alive Infants Protection Act
August 5 marks the 10th anniversary of President George W. Bush’s signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Professor Hadley Arkes (third from left in photo) testified with me in Congress about BAIPA and penned melancholy thoughts, with which I agree, to mark the occasion at The Catholic Thing:
For the sake of averting the resistance, first of President Clinton and later of a Democratic Senate, the managers of the bill removed the penalties for failing to provide care to a newborn who had survived an abortion. As the line went, the bill was mainly for “teaching.”
Nevertheless, we had now a statute. And for that reason alone, any clinic or hospital that houses a “live-birth abortion” could lose its tax exemption, because this procedure is clearly “not in accord with public policy.”
More than that, the same hospital or clinic could lose federal funds, and virtually all hospitals depend in some way on federal funds. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act a hospital is obliged to provide emergency care to any person arriving at the hospital in need of care….
The anniversary coming up is a melancholy marker. For this simplest of all Acts may be the most potent lever that could be used now by the federal government to push hospitals and clinics out of the business of abortion, and yet the Bush Administration made only a half-hearted attempt to enforce it.
Adding the penalties to the Act could provide, for Mitt Romney, the tool that George Bush left unused: a bill that is disarming in its moderation, even while it puts the issue of abortion before the public in a stark way.
And at the same time it brings home news that people may still find jolting: that the only national Democrat who opposed bills to protect children who survived abortions is the man who now sits in the White House.
It is so odd that the current president Hadley referred to celebrates his birthday this weekend.
To date there has not been one federal prosecution under BAIPA, even though I know law enforcement is aware of such instances.
In hospitals and abortion clinics across the country babies are still surviving their abortions and either being shelved to die or killed outright, probably today more than 10 years ago.
And it is so odd
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Should infants unexpectedly born alive be allowed to go home with the mothers who aborted them?
Or should they AUTOMATICALLY be placed for adoption?
For all the problems associated with adoption, it seems to me that maternal rights were forfeited by the abortion.
I more or less agree with you Denise, I think the presumption should be an infant born alive after an (attempted or actual) abortion is automatically a ward of the state. Since I know many abortions are cohersed, however, and many mothers may not be fully informed as to what they actually just did, I think the mother should legally retain parental rights while the situation is evaluated. Only after a careful look at the specific and individual situation should that presumption that the state take custody for the child’s safety be made a permanent, rights-severing, adoption situation. After all there have been instances where mothers have sought hospital assistance after leaving a clinic mid-abortion in hopes of saving the baby after they changed their minds after the abortion began.
Jespren says:
August 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I more or less agree with you Denise, I think the presumption should be an infant born alive after an (attempted or actual) abortion is automatically a ward of the state. Since I know many abortions are cohersed, however, and many mothers may not be fully informed as to what they actually just did, I think the mother should legally retain parental rights while the situation is evaluated. Only after a careful look at the specific and individual situation should that presumption that the state take custody for the child’s safety be made a permanent, rights-severing, adoption situation. After all there have been instances where mothers have sought hospital assistance after leaving a clinic mid-abortion in hopes of saving the baby after they changed their minds after the abortion began.
(Denise) I would agree to having the situation examined before a final decision is rendered. There could be extenuating factors.
However, I think it is absolutely bizarre that a girl or woman would come in expecting to abort a pregnancy and go home with a live — often damaged through her action of aborting — baby.
“Should infants unexpectedly born alive be allowed to go home with the mothers who aborted them.”
In the very unlikely event of this happening, the child would remain in the custody of the mother until she wishes to relinquish custody. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Thus, if the state attempted to take custody, a judge would not have any basis upon which to terminate parental rights, given that abortion is probably not included in state statutes on neglect and abuse which are the only reasons for the state to intervene. When I worked child protective services, the state did take custody, after birth, of a child born to a cocaine addicted mother. But she also had a track record of abusing her other children. Interesting question, though.
The abortion obsessed Barack Obama fought to defeat this legislation as a state Senator in Illinois. He has since doubled down in his support of all things abortion.
cc says:
When I worked child protective services…
Lucky for those kids that they were already born.
” He has since doubled down in his support of all things abortion.”
And if we had a GOP “pro-life” president, he would be doubling down in support of all things anti-choice. Obama is pro-choice – as are roughly half of Americans. And in 2016 we just might get our first woman president, Hilary Clinton, and she’s as pro-choice as Obama. Wouldn’t get any better than that!
Jerry says:
August 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm
The abortion obsessed Barack Obama fought to defeat this legislation as a state Senator in Illinois. He has since doubled down in his support of all things abortion.
(Denise) Do you believe babies who unexpectedly survive abortions should be automatically placed for adoption?
Or at least that their custody should be taken from the biological mother except in cases of extenuating circumstances such as if she shows she was pressured into the abortion by another person?
Who would have thought we’d be arguing about this, like we were some primitive tribe that would put a baby on an ice floe.
Who would have thought we’d have as president the part-time lawmaker who only felt the need to be “present” to rabidly defend this barbarism.
Thank God this site is fighting back against these barbarians.
“Who would have thought we’d have as president the part-time lawmaker who only felt the need to be “present” to rabidly defend this barbarism.”
“Barbarism” that was already banned by the identical federal version of the same statute in question. Barack Obama didn’t vote for a redundant piece of symbolic legislation in the Illinois Senate. How horrible of him.
Joan
“How horrible of him.”
How true, how frivolous of us all to expect him to go the extra mile to make sure infants were safe. What were we thinking ,the time of a politician is far too busy to waste worrying about the most vulnerable of American citizens. Instead, we need to support those: who can vote, preferably have if not a complete narcissitic bent at least lean in that direction, and those who say a lot without having said anything.
myrtle says:
August 4, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Joan
“How horrible of him.”
How true, how frivolous of us all to expect him to go the extra mile to make sure infants were safe. What were we thinking ,the time of a politician is far too busy to waste worrying about the most vulnerable of American citizens. Instead, we need to support those: who can vote, preferably have if not a complete narcissitic bent at least lean in that direction, and those who say a lot without having said anything.
(Denise) An infant unexpectedly survives an abortion. Under current law, the mother who aborted may take the baby home. Do you believe that is right?
Or should such babies automatically be placed for adoption?
Does aborting forfeit the maternal rights of the girl or woman who aborted?
“Stanek’s claims about abandoned fetuses not substantiated by state investigation. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Stanek was presented as a former nurse who claimed that babies that were born despite attempted abortions were abandoned without treatment in the Illinois hospital where she worked, including in a soiled utility room. However, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that the alleged conduct, if proved, would have constituted “violations of existing law” but that it could not substantiate the allegations.”
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/17/just-ignore-facts-maam-jill-stanek-write-ultraright-outlets
In other words, Ms. Stanek’s credibility is questionable.
In the very unlikely event of this happening, the child would remain in the custody of the mother until she wishes to relinquish custody. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Thus, if the state attempted to take custody, a judge would not have any basis upon which to terminate parental rights, given that abortion is probably not included in state statutes on neglect and abuse which are the only reasons for the state to intervene. When I worked child protective services, the state did take custody, after birth, of a child born to a cocaine addicted mother. But she also had a track record of abusing her other children. Interesting question, though.
I like how the ex-Child Protective Services worker responds to a mother causing serious bodily harm/injury/eventual post-birth premature death of her child with shrug and “Meh. It’s legal.”
Chilling, really. If I didn’t know people like phillymiss, I’d just want to vomit at the thought of all those foxes guarding the hen houses full of children.
But hey, since it’s currently legal, and obviously has resulted in harm to children, perhaps this would be a great idea for a child to be removed from the custody of a mother who had attempted to abort that child so that an attorney could represent that child in a case against the mother. For great justice.
(Denise) An infant unexpectedly survives an abortion. Under current law, the mother who aborted may take the baby home. Do you believe that is right?
Or should such babies automatically be placed for adoption?
Does aborting forfeit the maternal rights of the girl or woman who aborted?
At the very least some type of eveluation should be done to determine the safety of sending the baby home wiith its mom and a grace period that the hospital would provide care for the infant until it is determined if it is safe for the child to go home. Hopefully in the process both the state and the mom would see that babies have value. I think by increasing the level of accountability that hospitals can be held to you decrease the profitability of abortions and by interfering with their profit margin if you can’t change their heart sense you at least get them to thinking that abortion is something they might not be interested in after all. When the mother is aborting for reasons other than health the hospital is complicit with her in bringing harm to her baby so if the baby does survive the hospital should also be held liable for any damage that is a result of their actions against the unborn baby and of course the goverment should be held liable too if they are successful in their attempts to make hospitals perform abortions. I would think though that there is already some type of law that can hold hospitals, states and governments accountable when individuals survive an abortion attempt, because abortion is legal the issue would probably have to be addressed in civil court because although aborton may be legal it is not legal to cause someone bodily harm which of course is what abortion does.
cc: “However, the Illinois Department of Public Health reportedly said that the alleged conduct, if proved, would have constituted “violations of existing law” but that it could not substantiate the allegations.”
Unable to substantiate a violation of existing law? Oh, that never happens …. You mean no one’s bragging about putting babies in closets, imagine that.
Although I believe the aborting mother should lose her right to custody, it might be a good idea to have her (if possible) hold the baby and cuddle it for awhile right after it comes into this world. I believe that everyone suffers a trauma when expelled from the wet, watery safety of the womb. It is possible that a baby needs to be held by the individual with the exact chemical make-up in which it grew as an embryo and fetus to heal the primal wound of the birth.
However, I still stand by my original premise: the abortion forfeits maternal rights.
How about that be looked into on a case by case basis, Denise?? Babies born alive after abortion attempts FIRST have to be cared for by medical personnel. Those that attempt to kill them via abortion would have to then try to save them. How does that work??
I know two women who aborted and whose babies were born alive. They were HORRIFIED to see how beautifully formed and fully alive their children were!! They simply had no idea and of course experienced profound grief and loss and regret beyond imagining at what they had done. If they had only been told the truth!!
“clumps of cells, blobs of tissue, uterine contents, products of conception.”
Tell women that for 40 years and they will believe it.
Please don’t bother with the argument that all women OF COURSE know exactly what they are doing in an abortion, that they know fetal development, that they have informed consent………..beyond tired of it. Honestly.
40 years of MY BODY, MY CHOICE has taken its toll in the deaths of millions of human beings. Deception is the name of the game.
Carla says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:30 am
Please don’t bother with the argument that all women OF COURSE know exactly what they are doing in an abortion………..beyond tired of it. Honestly.
(Denise) I have never made this argument Carla. Never.
How about we stop aborting babies??
That would clear quite a few things up.
Carla says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:33 am
How about we stop aborting babies??
That would clear quite a few things up.
(Denise) How about we stop unplanned pregnancies?
Carla says:
August 5, 2012 at 9:33 am
How about we stop aborting babies??
That would clear quite a few things up.
(Denise) This is not the best of all possible worlds. Abortion has been going on for quite some time — unfortunately.
The custody of infants who survive abortion is something that I strongly believe should be addressed.
“How about we stop aborting babies??”
We can’t do that, that would be far too logical.
JDC says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:32 am
“How about we stop aborting babies??”
We can’t do that, that would be far too logical.
(Denise) Don’t you believe it likely abortion will recede after all pregnancies are planned?
Carla
It’s going to be a good day when mothers who were lied to, about the humanity of their unborn, have their day in court.
myrtle says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:45 am
CarlaIt’s going to be a good day when mothers who were lied to, about the humanity of their unborn, have their day in court.
(Denise) Do you believe unplanned pregnancies will someday be a thing of the past?
cc says:
In other words, Ms. Stanek’s credibility is questionable.
Right. And announcing, ladies and gentleman, the new keeper of credibility here is none other than our troll, cc, who believes it a fine thing to kill unborn babies.
I don’t buy the argument well stealing has always happened, murder has always happened, rape has always happened as a reason to NOT make something ILLEGAL.
Illicit sex outside of marriage is the sin. A child that results from that is not a sin. We help women carry their babies to term and offer them better than abortion.
CC.
I think you are a troll for PP. I think you get paid to come here and try rile folks up. And I question your credibility.
Denise,
I didn’t say that you said that all women KNOW exactly what they are doing before they abort.
It is just where these conversations always seem to go…….
Carla says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Denise,
I didn’t say that you said that all women KNOW exactly what they are doing before they abort.
It is just where these conversations always seem to go…….
(Denise) Carla, the Forced Information that I’ve proposed is based on the possibility that at least SOME girls and women DON’T know exactly what they are doing when they abort. Make it mandatory for a girl or woman to view a photograph of an embryo or fetus at her stage of pregnancy (or to listen to a detailed description of same if the girl or woman is blind) and see what happens. I think you will find that Forced Information motivates some to carry to term.
@ Carla: In the novel “Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen,” heroine Sasha has an illegal abortion. She expects the unborn to “look like a fish with gills and a tail” but when it comes out she screams, “It’s a baby!” Later, she states, “The first baby I brought into this world I deposited like a piece of sh** into the toilet.”
Also, you said “how about we stop aborting babies?” I was pointed out that since abortion occurs, it is legitimate to discuss whether or not girls and women who abort and whose babies unexpectedly survive are entitled to custody. I believe that — barring extenuating circumstances — the baby should be taken away.
“I think you are a troll for PP. I think you get paid to come here and try rile folks up. And I question your credibility.”
They’re paying me too. Disrupting the extremely-important conversations that happen here (such as whether condoms are super duper evil or merely somewhat evil, or whether abortion is more like slavery or the Holocaust) is a key element of Planned Parenthood’s long-term organizational goals.
Carla says:
August 5, 2012 at 2:37 pm
I don’t buy the argument well stealing has always happened, murder has always happened, rape has always happened as a reason to NOT make something ILLEGAL.
Illicit sex outside of marriage is the sin. A child that results from that is not a sin. We help women carry their babies to term and offer them better than abortion.
(Denise) I don’t see being unmarried as a reason for abortion because it is easily solved: get married.
Whining about an iPhone app and trying to get a broke college student banned from Youtube were important enough priorities for Planned Parenthood. I absolutely think they pay people to troll on their behalf.
Not CC though.
Denise Noe
No,I don’t think unplanned pregnancies will ever be a thing of the past and I don’t think unplanned prenancies should be a reason to justify abortion. What do you think?
typo-pregnancies
Denise Noe
I failed to read all of your posts so hadn’t read your response to Carla’s question on the 11:03 a.m. post. Are you saying that an unplanned pregnancy justifies abortion?My mom had me when she was 43; I had a family member inform me that I of course was an accident I carried a spirit of rejection for years I’m 48 and though the words she spoke over my life no longer have the power to hurt me I think anytime the assumption is made that unplanned is the same as unwanted a logical fallacy is committed. What do you think?
myrtle says:
August 5, 2012 at 7:17 pm
typo-pregnancies
Denise NoeI failed to read all of your posts so hadn’t read your response to Carla’s question on the 11:03 a.m. post. Are you saying that an unplanned pregnancy justifies abortion?My mom had me when she was 43; I had a family member inform me that I of course was an accident I carried a spirit of rejection for years I’m 48 and though the words she spoke over my life no longer have the power to hurt me I think anytime the assumption is made that unplanned is the same as unwanted a logical fallacy is committed. What do you think?
(Denise) It just so happens that I am thoroughly repulsed by abortion. As I’ve said before, during my high school years I spent all my free time holed up in my room in order to avoid pregnancy. This was partly because I was so repulsed by abortion. I was terrified that being around boys or men might lead to a pregnancy and then the horror of abortion. I did not wish to be a mother and was also horrified by the idea of having a baby and NOT being that baby’s mother. Adoption was a sub-set of the larger problem of teen or unwed pregnancies in my thinking.
At 18 and in college, I had a boyfriend and started dating. But I engaged in no activity that could lead to pregnancy.
It doesn’t necessarily matter if something “justifies” abortion or not. An abortion of an unplanned pregnancy may be INEVITABLE (regardless of whether justified or not) because the female who is pregnant is absolutely resistant to carrying to term and giving birth. My friend, writer Eleanor Cooney has said that “nothing” would have stopped her from aborting even though it was illegal. This was because her reaction to the pregnancy itself, that is the conditions of pregnancy — the enlargement of the belly and the prospect of childbirth — was “no way. No way in hell.” I’ve asked her about adoption and she said that was “quite irrelevant” because she just “wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” In fact, it was just as irrelevant as the fact that abortion was illegal.
I have to wonder: what COULD have prevented that abortion? Illegality couldn’t. But it is a fact that a girl or woman CAN’T have an abortion IF SHE IS NOT PREGNANT. It follows that preventing pregnancies that will be rejected by the female who is pregnant rather than carried to term will prevent abortions.
I believe that when all pregnancies are greeted with joy by the woman who is pregnant, abortion will largely recede. It will be a very welcome development.
joan,
Yeah. You couldn’t stay away if you tried.
Who comes to a blog they hate with folks they think are beyond stupid day after day after day???
Denise.
I don’t have much patience for your posts sometimes.
It is not called Forced Information.
It is called Informed Consent and is given in every possible medical situation. Except abortion.
Goodnight.
Someone mentioned that post abortive women might have their day in court.
I relish the thought. :)
“Whining about an iPhone app and trying to get a broke college student banned from Youtube were important enough priorities for Planned Parenthood.”
Taxpayer dollars at work. :)
Back on track peeps.
http://www.bornalivetruth.org/index.php