New report documents that ‘abortion’ claims actually are all about ‘infanticide’

A new report has been released that documents an argument being described by promoters of the lucrative abortion industry as being about “abortion” actually is more accurately assigned to a completely different dispute: infanticide.

“The abortion industry and its sympathizers want to make this about abortion. It’s not. It’s about infanticide,” explained Carol Tobias of National Right to Life. “It is barbaric that newborns who have the temerity to survive an abortion are considered the ‘dreaded complication’ by abortionists.’

“The baby who survives an abortion deserves the full protection of the law.”

This controversy, pushed into the headlines in previous situations such as when Gov. Ralph Northam several years back confirmed a baby would be born, made comfortable, and then the doctor and mother would decide what to do with it, has returned.

It has resurfaced just as “pro-abortion groups have promoted false narratives about babies who are born alive during abortions. Additionally, vice presidential candidate and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is under scrutiny and criticism for his actions in reversing state protections for babies born alive following abortions,” the report said.

Pending before Congress, in fact, is the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” to require when a baby is born alive following an abortion, health care workers “must exercise the same degree of professional skill and care that would be offered to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

WND reported that during a recent presidential debate, when ABC’s moderator, Linsey Davis, was helping Democrat candidate Kamala Harris argue with GOP candidate President Donald Trump, Davis claimed, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”

But that’s not exactly correct. A published report at Live Action News noted, “Colorado, Michigan, and California have all recently enacted laws that include the term ‘pregnancy outcomes.’ These states have moved to make abortion a ‘right’ and allow women to make choices about abortion based on undefined ‘pregnancy outcomes.’ The vague term could encompass situations like birth, miscarriage, abortion, and even death after birth.”

The report confirmed, “Since these ‘outcomes’ are not defined, a post-birth death that is caused deliberately or even by negligence is not excluded.”

The new report from National Right to Life cited a Philadelphia Inquirer report that confirmed: “In legalizing abortion in 1973, the Supreme Court said it was reserving the right to protect the life of a viable fetus – that is, one with the potential to survive outside the womb. But the court never directly acknowledged the chance of an aborted fetus being born alive. And it therefore never gave a clear guideline for dealing with what Dr. Thomas Kerenyi, a leading New York expert on abortions, has called ‘the dreaded complication.'”

There are estimates that hundreds of children survive abortion each year.

The report explained, “In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down Nebraska’s law banning partial-birth abortions, the Court extended Roe beyond the unborn child and to the child who was partially born and moments from birth. According to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee report (107-186) issued on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in 2001, ‘The Carhart Court considered the location of an infant’s body at the moment of death during a partial-birth abortion–delivered partly outside the body of the mother–to be of no legal significance in ruling on the constitutionality of the Nebraska law. Instead, implicit in the Carhart decision was the pernicious notion that a partially-born infant’s entitlement to the protections of the law is dependent upon whether or not the partially-born child’s mother wants him or her. In response, Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. While the legislation recognizes that a baby born alive following an abortion is legally a human being, the law does not impose penalties on medical practitioners who violate the law.”

The report notes, “While federal law does recognize that a baby born alive following an abortion is a person under the law, there are no requirements to provide care for the baby following a failed abortion. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require that the live baby born after an abortion be treated as a patient and given the same care that would be given to an infant of the same gestational age who was born not following an abortion. This legislation would also allow a mother to sue the abortionist if he or she fails to provide care for the newborn and harm results from a violation of the law. The mother is not penalized for any reason.”

Cited in the report is the case of Kermit Gosnell, who ran an abortion business and, when eventually investigated, was confirmed to have “routinely delivered live babies and then ended their lives by severing their spinal cords with scissors.”

He was convicted on three counts of murder and remains imprisoned.

Further, in 2019, in the Virginia General Assembly, Delegate Kathy Tran sponsored House Bill 2491, a bill that would loosen Virginia’s abortion laws and allow abortion for any reason until birth.

Majority Leader Todd Gilbert questioned her, and she openly admitted her bill would allow abortion even when the mother is showing imminent signs of giving birth.

Appropriately, in light of the approaching presidential election, the organization released details about Kamala Harris’ perspectives on abortion.

She wants to use tax dollars to kill unborn children, to eliminate all state protections for the unborn and install “unlimited abortion until birth” in federal law. She also endorsed suspending safeguards that had been established for the use of chemicals to cause abortion, has overseen millions of federal dollars going to abortion industry members, has promised, if president, to demand on judicial nominees endorse unlimited abortion, and more.

Her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, aligns with virtually the same agenda.

In his state, he’s already worked to call abortion a “fundamental right” which means that that state’s protections for abortion patients all were struck down.