This current bill, just defeated in the Senate, is a slightly expanded version of the original
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 signed by George H.W. Bush. It
passed in the Senate by unanimous consent July 18, 2002 [Have the times changed, or what?!]
Here is a portion of the National Review article from yesterday:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/born-alive-bill-fails-to-pass-senate-vote/During the floor debate over the bill this afternoon, several Democratic senators said they planned to oppose the legislation because they believe it limits women’s health-care options. “That is
the actual intent of this bill, reducing access to safe abortion care would threaten the health of women in Hawaii,” said
Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii).
But nothing in the legislation forces doctors to provide any particular treatment to infants; it merely requires that they provide medical treatment. It mandates that doctors “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
In other words, the born-alive bill would’ve done nothing more than insist that health-care providers treat children born alive after attempted abortions the same way that they’d treat any other infant.
Several Republican senators pushed back against the Democrats’ efforts to portray the bill as an attack on women’s health care. “I know a lot of opponents of this bill sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs,” Sasse said. “We’ve heard speech after speech after speech that have nothing to do with what’s actually in this bill.”
“My colleagues across the aisle are debating a bill that’s not in front of us. They are talking about health care for women, which is abortion,” said Joni Ernst (R., Iowa). “This bill does not address abortion. . . . What this bill does is address the health care of a baby that is born alive after a botched abortion. We’re not talking about abortion, folks. We’re talking about the life of a child that is born.”
“I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air,” Sasse added. “That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”
* * * * *
You can read the full text of the bill here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4712Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection ActSummary
This bill amends the federal criminal code to require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital. The term "born alive" means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut.
Also, a health care practitioner or other employee who has knowledge of a failure to comply with these requirements must immediately report such failure to an appropriate law enforcement agency.
An individual who violates the provisions of this bill is subject to a criminal fine, up to five years in prison, or both.
An individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder.
The bill bars the criminal prosecution of a mother of a child born alive for conspiracy to violate these provisions, for being an accessory after the fact, or for concealment of felony.
A woman who undergoes an abortion or attempted abortion may file a civil action for damages against an individual who violates this bill.