How Democrats get away with blocking the Infants Born Alive Protection Act

How profoundly sad. And I'm supposed to vote for these people?

This from Alexandra DeSanctis at NR Online

Earlier this week, 41 Democratic senators successfully filibustered the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require doctors to provide standard medical care to infants who survive attempted abortion procedures. Contrary to Democratic claims, the bill is neither unnecessary nor redundant. Abortion survivors are not a fiction invented by the pro-life movement. No law currently protects such infants. And the bill neither regulates nor limits abortion or women’s health-care options. All it requires is that doctors give “the same degree” of care to newborns who survive abortion that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.

In more than a dozen states, it is not currently illegal for a doctor to allow a newborn who survives an abortion to die of neglect. Had Democrats not blocked it, this bill would have changed that.

**********************

But will Americans ever find out that Democrats disagree with them? Given the way prominent media outlets have covered the born-alive bill, that seems unlikely — and that’s what Democrats are banking on.

**********************

Here are a few sample headlines:

CNN: “Two abortion restriction bills that forced tough votes for vulnerable senators fail in the Senate.” Politico: “Anti-abortion bills fail to advance in Senate vote.” CBS News: “Two bills banning most late-term abortions blocked by Senate Democrats.” Newsweek: “Mitch McConnell faces backlash over bid to force Senate votes on anti-abortion laws.”

The content of most of these articles, and similar reports at other outlets, was even more inaccurate than the headlines.

The New York Times published an article that, as Ramesh Ponnuru has observed, got key facts wrong. It also framed the entire debate in Democratic Party talking points while offering only inaccurate strawman versions of the argument in favor of the born-alive bill. The Times’ congressional editor shared this article in a tweet claiming that the Senate bills would “curb women’s rights to late-term abortions.”

******************

This type of routinely inaccurate coverage does a lot to explain why Democrats like Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) feel confident heading to the Senate floor to lie about the contents of the born-alive bill. Not to be outdone, NBC News published an op-ed by Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.) packed with demonstrably false assertions about the bill. 

It is understandable that Democrats would prefer to pretend that they were not opposing a bill that merely requires ordinary care for infants. Why would they admit the truth when every prominent outlet is ready and willing to run coverage twisting the contents of the bill and parroting abortion supporters’ own talking points?

 

Comments

[maria]

No matter how you feel on this issue, the startling amount of inaccuracies being promulgated about the bill were indeed quite disturbing. As for the Times, is anyone really surprised.