Listen to “Sasse Explains Why Dems Refuse to Ban Infanticide” on Spreaker.
Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse vows to press forward on a federal ban on infanticide, says opposition is rooted in the big dollars of the abortion industry, and believes many critics are convincing themselves that active killing of newborns is wrong but passively killing them is not.
Last week, the U.S. Senate failed to pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act by unanimous consent. Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray objected, saying the bill is unnecessary because infanticide is already illegal. Later she suggested there was more to the bill than requiring care for a baby born alive after an abortion.
Sasse authored an op-ed in USA Today on Tuesday, imploring readers not to think of infanticide as a partisan issue.
“Every single public servant should be able to say it’s wrong to leave newborn babies to die. Sadly, that’s not happening,” he wrote.
In a Tuesday interview with Radio America, Sen. Sasse says he is genuinely surprised that there is any opposition to his Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.
“If there’s anything the U.S. Senate ought to be able to get done 100-0, it’s something like this, stating the basic truth that babies that are born alive deserve a fighting chance at life,” said Sasse.
Sasse has been pushing he bill for two-and-a-half years but says there is much greater urgency after the New York law that repealed requirements for medical personnel to take all possible steps to care for babies that survive abortions.
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam was under fire on this issue before his yearbook scandal pushed the infanticide issue off the front pages. In a live interview, Northam said babies that survive abortions should be resuscitated if that’s what the family wants and then kept comfortable while a discussion ensues – presumably about whether to continue to provide care for the newborn infant.
The Virginia abortion bill was defeated but Sasse finds Northam’s comments telling in how opponents are parsing the issue.
“I think they would draw a distinction between active and passive. They say, ‘Well, if these babies survive an abortion, no one is proactively taking a pillow and putting it over the baby’s face and smothering them to death. Since we have laws against murder already, that is infanticide. And the passive tolerance of these babies being killed, that’s a different thing and we don’t need any protections for that.'”
“That logic breaks down entirely when you consider the fact that a 12-month-old baby would also die if you left her out in the elements to die by exposure. By the way, in human history, lots of cultures have done abhorrent things like that.
“The Aztecs and the Greeks both practiced infanticide. If they thought a baby was undesirable, if she had birth defects, they would leave them out in the cold to die. So their argument here is that passive killing is not really that big of a problem. Only active killing needs to be prohibited. That’s total nonsense,” said Sasse.
Sasse says the refusal of many Democrats to stand up for babies even after they are born is more understandable when you follow the money.
“A lot of these folks are motivated by the zealotry of an abortion industry that makes lots and lots and lots of money off the status quo,” said Sasse.
Sasse says he will keep pushing his legislation in the Senate, although it could take months or even years to get a floor vote. But he wants ever member of the Senate and the Democratically-controlled House to be on the record about where they stand on infanticide.
“Love is bigger than politics and everybody with a heart should believe that we should be able to have consensus around a common sense, pro-compassion, pro-science fact that a baby that’s born alive deserves a fighting chance,” said Sasse.
“We have a moral obligation to provide the same sort of care for those babies that would be provided to any other baby at that stage of gestation.”
Listen to the full podcast to hear Sasse explain why the celebration of late term abortion legislation in New York was a perversion of a unifying symbol and offer his full analysis of Gov. Northam.
