The loophole permits an abortionist to satisfy the letter of the law by providing “comfort care.” This means that instead of placing the child in a life-saving, oxygen-rich incubator, it can simply be wrapped in a blanket and left to die.
Earlier in the week, the House Judiciary committee also advanced HB 197 “Abortion 48-hour waiting period” to be considered in the House. This bill is designed to relieve a patient from time-pressure after she has signed the informed-consent forms.
Both hearings were well-attended. Newcomers to the legislative process shared the room with veteran testifiers. Three veterans, in particular, gave testimony that should be heard by all.
In both hearings, a lobbyist from the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS) began by declaring that the Society does not take a stand on abortion, either for or against. Nevertheless, she opposed both pro-life bills on the theory that they burden doctors with unnecessary state oversight.
In the House hearing, Rep. Jennings inquired if the WMS was also opposed to all the existing laws that place requirements on doctors. The lobbyist did not deny it. The following day, Senator Bouchard asked, rhetorically, if the medical profession should be exempted from legislation altogether.
Dr. Rene Hinkle, co-founder of the Cheyenne Women’s Clinic, also spoke against HB 197. She made the stunning claim that viability, after which no child in Wyoming may be aborted, “is, right now, late 23 weeks.” Yet America only recently saw Ellie Schneider at the State of the Union Address. She survived birth at 21 weeks, 6 days. How could a doctor who sits on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine not consider Ellie “viable” at birth?
The lobbyist representing NARAL Pro-Choice also spoke at both hearings. He interpreted Wyoming’s law prohibiting abortion after “viability” to mean, that doctors “only are allowed to perform abortions up to twelve weeks of pregnancy.”
It is strange that the abortion rights lobbyist forswears abortion after 12 weeks while an officer on Wyoming’s Board of Medicine thinks that “late 23 weeks” is perfectly legal. Clearly Wyoming’s “viability” test needs definition.
Hinkle’s opposition testimony to SF 97 “Born alive infant—means of care” was the most electrifying of the week. “As a physician in this state,” she said, “we do, sometimes, induce labor on a patient whose baby is not…uh… whose baby would be non-viable outside the uterus.”
Her self-correction of the verb-tense was striking. A baby that is viable now, in the womb, would be non-viable if removed from the uterus. That is like saying: Joe is perfectly viable on the beach. But would be non-viable if he were dumped in the ocean.
Hinkle went on, “However, they [babies] do sometimes come out with breathing motions, and they do sometimes live for a few moments.” This is breath-taking! A Wyoming OBGYN testified that this is happening in Wyoming clinics.
Whatever the “breathing motions” indicate, Hinkle testified that “they do live.” This raises ghastly questions. How often is ‘sometimes’? How old might these children be? Who is present to advocate for their lives? Are all applicable laws being followed? How can we know? Does the state issue these babies birth certificates and death certificates?
These are not spontaneous miscarriages who die before delivery. These children are living in the womb, living through induced labor, and alive afterwards. The Wyoming Board of Medicine ought to be all over this. It should be able to assure every Wyoming citizen exactly what is happening in clinics across Wyoming and whether the law is being enforced.
Currently Wyoming forbids elective abortion after viability. It forbids the direct termination of the child, whether before, during or after an abortion. And, if the child is born alive, it requires that she should receive the commonly accepted means of care (W.S. 35-6-102, 103 & 104).
Last week’s testimony suggested either that laws are being skirted, or that there is a gap between what most Wyomingites believe our laws mean, and how the Board of Medicine interprets them. Two pro-choice witnesses interpreted the same law 98.8% differently. Wyomingites deserve better. They deserve laws that are objective and meaningful. And they deserve Board appointees who do not hold positions more extreme than NARAL.
Dr. Rene Hinkle has been nominated to another term on the Board of Medicine and is currently awaiting confirmation in the Senate. The senate should ask the governor for a better choice.
Also published in Wyoming Tribune Eagle, February 28, 2020
Excerpted from The Blaze February 25, 2020, news article, "Senate Democrats block bill requiring medical care for babies who survive being aborted":
ReplyDelete:
Senate Democrats voted Tuesday to block legislation that would have required medical care be provided to babies who survive being aborted, stopping the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska sponsored the bill, which needed the support of 60 senators in order to advance. Ahead of the vote, Sasse took to the Senate floor to lambaste Democrats attempting to paint his legislation as an abortion bill.
"The piece of legislation we're voting on today, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is not about abortion," Sasse said, according to National Review. "The bill we're voting on doesn't change anyone's access to abortion. It doesn't have anything to do with Roe v Wade. It is about babies that are already born."
The Nebraska Republican added, "There is nothing in the bill that's about abortion. Nothing. It's about infanticide. That's the actual legislation."
In the end, the final tally was 56-41, with every vote against coming from Democrats. Fox News noted that the only three senators who crossed party lines on the legislation were Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Doug Jones (Ala.), and Bob Casey (Pa.).
Following the bill's failure, the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh tweeted, "Democrats have blocked a bill to guarantee medical treatment for babies born alive after abortion. There is no 'clump of cells' dodge here. These hideous monsters believe that actual infants, outside of the womb, should be left to die. These people are evil to their core." [Emphasis added]
The House counterparts are just as murderously evil. Back in January, 2018, all but five House Demonicrats voted against a similar Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Details are in the Jan. 2018 National Review article, "House Democrats Oppose Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act":
ReplyDeleteThe last time a similar bill was considered in Congress — the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which President George W. Bush signed in 2002 — it passed both chambers by a voice vote. The fact that nearly every House Democrat voted against a similar bill this year (and one that contains actual enforcement mechanisms to protect these children, rather than simply define them legally as “persons”) shows how radically pro-abortion their party has become over the last 15 years. [Emphasis added]