Senate Democrats once again voted against providing legal protections for babies who survive abortion, citing their commitment to protect ‘access’ to abortion.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) -- Democratic senators once again voted against protecting babies who survive abortion from infanticide.
The Senate voted 52 to 47 on Wednesday to advance Senate Bill 6, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. However, 60 votes were needed to end cloture and advance the bill for a final vote. Democrats regularly oppose efforts to protect babies from infanticide, and it is arguably the official position of the party that there should be no sanctions for killing living human beings who survive abortions.
The bill would strengthen a measure passed in 2002 by providing for imprisonment of abortionists who fail to provide care to a baby who survives an abortion.
Every Republican voted for the bill, except Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), who did not vote due to a family matter. A spokesperson told The Hill that he supported the bill. All 47 Democrats voted against the bill, with some explicitly saying they believed the bill would threaten a woman's ability to kill her baby through abortion.
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, the law would mandate that abortion-surviving newborns be shown the “same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence” as would be given following an intended birth, and then be “immediately transported and admitted to a hospital."
Violating physicians would face up to five years in prison, and those who go beyond willful negligence and commit an “overt act” to kill the newborn would be punished under the existing federal murder statute.
Prior to the vote, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune called on Democrats to support the bill and also criticized the "supposed right to kill unborn babies."
"This shouldn't be a controversial bill," Sen. Thune said. "We should all be able to agree that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be protected." He said he expected Senate Democrats would oppose the bill.
"Why are they going to vote like that?" he asked. He said, "most Democrats" would oppose infanticide, though the "moral line... appears to be slipping.""What it all boils down to is this: Democrats will oppose legislation to provide appropriate medical care to newborn children who survive abortions because they are afraid," Thune continued.
He said that recognizing the "humanity" of a baby who survives an abortion will "inadvertently" lead Democrats to recognize "the humanity of the unborn child," calling them "afraid" to do so.
"Once you recognize the humanity of the newly born baby, it gets a little harder that that child wasn't human just a few minutes ago simply because he or she wasn't yet born," Thune said.
He added, "there's nothing more important to Democrats than abortion."
Democrats indeed did cite abortion in their defense of why they voted against protecting born, breathing human beings from infanticide.
Sen. Durbin of Illinois claimed that the bill could "make it harder for women to access" abortion.
Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also cited Roe v. Wade in his opposition.
"I’ve always stood on the side of Roe and a woman’s right to make her own health care choices," Fetterman wrote on X (formerly Twitter), euphemistically referring to the murder of children. "It’s absurd to mandate criminalization because of those choices.""Any bill that does so, including the Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act, is a NO from me," he added.
The Democratic Party's official position, as detailed by its leaders, is that abortion should be available through all nine months of pregnancy with virtually no restrictions. Democratic governors, in addition to Democratic senators, have voiced their opposition to strong legal protections for babies who survive abortion.
Failed 2024 Democratic Party vice presidential nominee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, for example, signed legislation in Minnesota to lower the care requirement for babies who survive abortions.
Former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam also detailed his views on what the law should say and what current law is, based on his experience as a doctor.
"So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen: The infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable," Northam said in January 2019, responding to an extreme bill in Virginia to legalize abortions through the moment of birth.
He then said, "the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desire," implying that the baby would not be resuscitated if the family wanted the baby to die.
"[A]nd then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," he said.
