How is Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act different from....

[p.falk]

I've been following this kerfuffle with Cardinal Cupich and Dick Durbin.

I listened to how Durbin would not support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It sounds pretty grim and debased indeed. I then read his argument against it which stated that we already have BAIPA (Born Alive Infant Protection Act) and that introducing Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is somehow egregious and simply aimed at making it harder for women (not mothers) to seek out abortions.

Now, I'm all in favor of making that harder... but, what is the difference between Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and BAIPA?

I should check to see if Durbin ALSO voted against BAIPA..

[peregrinator]

I should check to see if Durbin ALSO voted against BAIPA..

It never came up for a vote in the Senate - it was passed by unanimous consent, meaning Durbin at least didn't object.

[p.falk]

That's good to know. Thanks.

Reading more about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act it is kind of confusing. Maybe BAIPA didn't require as rigorous care for the baby who survived it. Because the only thing I can see is that the new act is very explicit about ensuring that the child receives care equal to that of any other baby.

[Highlander]

A broader question.

Recently a young female college student had a live birth, wrapped the child, put it in a closed where it died. She is being charged with various crimes related to not caring for a live, newly born infant. However, there are proposals to allow the killing of a newly born child (and some evidence that it has happened) in a medical facility attended by various medical people.

So -- are we seeing the evolution of post birth abortion if done by medical people, but, if done by a non-medical person, then a crime? If so, and if one follows the money trail, then post birth abortion is acceptable if accompanied by medical bills.