Michigan Christians for Life

---

Born Alive Infants Protection Act

---

HOUSE PASSES BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT

Source:   Associated Press, Cybercast News Service; September 26, 2000

House Approves Born Alive Infants Protection Act

Washington -- The House voted Tuesday to ensure that an unborn child born
after a botched abortion would be treated as a person under the law and
allowed to live rather than be killed in a post-abortion act of
infanticde.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed 380-15, would protect any
infant that "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical
cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" after birth, "regardless
of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or
induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."

Supporters said the pro-life bill was needed because of several recent
Supreme Court decisions stated that the government's interest in
protecting the unborn child is related to ``viability,'' or the point at
which the child can survive independently of the mother.

The pro-life bill is intended to clarify misconceptions that may arise
because of the court's ruling, said pro-life Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL),
the measure's sponsor. ``As members of this House, we should do everything
we can to protect the most innocent and helpless members of the human
family.''

"It is crucial that we reaffirm the fundamental legal principle that a
child born alive is a person entitled to the full protection of the
law," said Canady. This bill appropriately provides basic legal protection
to the smallest, most defenseless members of the human family."

Some abortion advocates, including NARAL, erroneously said the measure was
unneeded because children born alive are protected under existing
laws. Some accused pro-life advocates of trying to score political points.

``The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote
against it. . . so they could say we support infanticide,'' complained
pro-abortion Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).

Pro-abortion groups said the legislation was another effort to chip away
at the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing unlimited abortion.

The Senate has not taken up the bill and is unlikely to do so in the few
remaining days of this session. In that event, the measure would die,
although the next Congress could come up with its own legislation.

The virtue of the pro-life bill, said Hadley Arkes, a professor of
jurisprudence at Amherst University in Massachusetts and a prominent
pro-life writer, is that it helps to stop what he sees as a "terrible
drift toward making the right to abortion the right to a dead child." The
bill passed the House Judiciary Committee in July by a 22-1 vote.

According to Arkes, by the logic of the decisions on partial birth
abortion, there is no way to distinguish legally between the procedure and
actual infanticide, which he feels opens the way to allowing the
destruction of infants who survive abortion procedures.

"This establishes a bright line of legal protection," Arkes said.

The need to reestablish that bright line, says Arkes, follows the writings
of Peter Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton University, whose 1994
book, Should the Baby Live?, argued that "a period of 28 days after birth
might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to
live as others."

Members voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act included
pro-abortion Reps. Julia Carson, D-Ind., Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., Carolyn
Maloney, D-N.Y., John Dingell, D-Mich., Jesse Jackson, D-Ill., Cynthia
McKinney, D-Ga., Chaka Fattah, D-Penn., Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., Nydia
Velazquez, D-N.Y., Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Maxine
Waters, D-Calif., Charles Gonzalez, D-Texas, Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. and Mel
Watt, D-N.C.

Three members voted present - pro-abortion Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y.,
Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill. and Louise McIntosh Slaughter, D-N.Y.
 

From Illinois Pro Family Net:

HR-4292 passed the House on 9-26-00 on a vote of 379-15, well over the
two-thirds needed. The bill was called up suddenly, catching its opponents
off guard;  earlier in the day, it had appeared it would not be considered
until tomorrow.

Debate was fascinating, as pro-abortion lawmakers divided on tactics.  Some
boldly attempted to defend a vote against stopping what most acknowledge is
infanticide; others called on abortion backers not to let the bill's
supporters "lead [them] into an election-year trap" and actually urged
their pro-abortion brothers & sisters to vote "yes."

On the pro-life side, it was all substance, with dramatic quotations from
the heartrendering testimonies offered by Christ Hospital nurse, Jill Stanek and her
former colleague Allison Baker, who is now employed in another state, beyond the
disciplinary arm of the Christ Hospital administrators.

America -- those who watch C-SPAN anyway -- learned about the shocking
practice at a south suburban Chicago hospital which bears the Name of our
Savior, where so-called "doctors" induce early labor and let the abortion
survivor die without aid.

C-SPAN viewers who called in mostly favored the bill; a few hardbitten
abortion advocates called to whine.  [This may not look like a particularly
objective report, but, for one thing, we don't promise to be; and for
another, it's the way it was!]

Bottom line: Praise the Lord.

AND PASS THE SENATE
Next stop: US Senate.  It's unclear whether Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott
is inclined to consider this bill during the 10 or so remaining days in this year's
session.

But that's where we come in.

Please call Senator Lott's Majority Leader office at 202/224-3135 as soon as
possible.  Ask him to call HR-4292 for a Senate vote.  Ask him to support the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and to facilitate its passage.

Pray as if it's up to God; work as if it's up to us!

Thank you, and God bless you!

Just when we thought that the Supreme Court had lost its mind with their decision in Stenberg v Carhart , which ruled in favor of partial birth abortions, something more sinister comes to the forefront.  This procedure kills developing babies OUTSIDE of the womb.  It allows a defenseless little one no medical attention upon birth therefore causing a sometimes slow and agonizing death.

On July 20th, 2000, a subcommittee on the Constitution convened to hear testimony concerning H.R. 4292, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000.    On July 27, 2000, it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 22 to 1.  H.R. 4292 will now be presented in September, to the full house, for a vote.

Statement from Rep. Canady on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act

Washington (July 20, 2000)-- This morning the Subcommittee on the Constitution convenes to hear testimony concerning H.R. 4292, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000.

It has long been accepted as a legal principle that infants who are born alive are persons entitled to the protection of the law, and that a live birth occurs whenever an infant, at any stage of development, is expelled from the mother's body and displays any of several specific signs of life breathing, a heartbeat, or definite movements of voluntary muscles. Many states have statutes that explicitly enshrine this principle as a matter of state law, and federal courts have recognized the principle in interpreting federal criminal laws. Recent changes in the legal and cultural landscape appear, however, to have brought this well-settled principle into question.

Just weeks ago, for example, in Stenberg v. Carhart, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning partial-birth abortion, a procedure in which an abortionist delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside of the mother, punctures the back of the child's skull with scissors, and sucks the child's brains out before completing the delivery. What was described in Roe v. Wade as a right to abort "unborn children" has now been extended by the Court to include the violent destruction of partially-born children just inches from birth.

The logical implications of the Stenberg Court's holding are both obvious and disturbing. Consider what the Stenberg decision means for a child who survives a botched abortion and is born alive. If the right to abortion entails the right to kill without regard to whether the child remains in the mother's womb, it would seem to follow that infants who are marked for abortion but somehow survive have no legal right to appropriate medical care, or any care at all.

And if a child born alive after a botched abortion does not receive the protection of the law, what is to prevent an abortionist from simply delivering a child and then killing it?

It has been successfully argued before the Supreme Court that killing a partially-born child is at least in some cases necessary to protect the health of the mother. An equally plausible argument might be made that in some cases preservation of the mother's health requires that the child be fully delivered before it is killed. If partial-birth abortion is protected by the Constitution, why not "post-birth abortion?"

The principle that born-alive infants are entitled to the protection of the law is also being questioned at one of America's most prestigious universities. Princeton University Bioethicist Peter Singer argues that parents should have the option to kill disabled or unhealthy newborn babies for a certain period after birth. According to Professor Singer, "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."

The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by events that happened last year in Cincinnati, Ohio, after a young woman learned she was pregnant and sought the assistance of the abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell, inventor of one variation of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Dr. Haskell performed the first step of the partial-birth abortion procedure dilating the woman's cervix and she was to return the next day. That evening the woman began experiencing severe abdominal pains and reported to the emergency room. While she was being examined she gave birth to a baby girl. The attending physician placed the baby in a specimen dish like any other substance that is removed from the body to be taken to the lab by a medical technician. When the technician, Shelly Lowe, saw the baby girl in the dish she was stunned when she saw the girl gasping for air.

The doctors examined the baby and concluded it was unlikely she would survive. By some estimates the baby was born at 22 weeks, although some members of the hospital staff believed she was older. Ms. Lowe then held the baby, whom she named "Baby Hope," until the child died, wrapping her in a blanket and singing to her as she stroked her cheeks. Surprisingly, Baby Hope lived for three hours, without the benefit of an incubator or other intensive care, and breathing room air, but her condition was not reassessed by the physicians. And although it is impossible to determine at this point whether a reassessment would have made any difference in Baby Hope's ultimate survival, the lack of any such reassessment, coupled with the attending physician's initial placement of then-breathing Baby Hope in a specimen dish, at least raises serious questions as to whether a similarly-situated infant who was wanted by her mother would have received the same treatment. We will also hear testimony today regarding disturbing events at a hospital in Illinois.

H.R. 4292, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000, was designed to repudiate the pernicious and destructive ideas that have brought the live-birth principle into question, and to firmly establish that, for purposes of federal law, an infant who is completely expelled or extracted from his or her mother and who is alive is, indeed, a person under the law regardless of whether or not his or her lung development is believed to be, or is in fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival, and regardless of whether the baby survived an abortion. The bill would not require medical personnel to provide medical treatment that is not currently mandated under the applicable standard of care. Instead, the bill would only insure that all born-alive infants regardless of their age and regardless of the circumstances of their birth are treated the same for purposes of federal law.

Testimony of Abortion Survivor Gianna Jessen on HR 4292

Note:  Gianna is a survivor of an abortion.  God is using her testimony to show the world what many are doing to His gift of Life.

Washington -- My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.

When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. "They" said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster mother, I was walking at age 31/2 with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into my wonderful family. Today I am left only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.

I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything.

When the freedoms of one group of helpless citizens are infringed upon, such as the unborn, the newborn, the disabled and so called "imperfect," what we do not realize is that our freedoms as a NATION and Individuals are in great peril.

I come today in favor of this Bill, in favor of the Protection of Life. I come to speak on behalf of the infants who have died and for those appointed to death. Learned Hand, a well respected American Jurist (within our own century) said: " The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near 2000 years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there is a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest."

Where is the soul of America?! Members of this committee: where is YOUR heart? How can you deal with the issues of a nation without examining her soul? A murderous spirit will stop at nothing until it has devoured a nation. Psalm 53:1-3 says: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'; they are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one."

Adolph Hitler once said: "The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words." Today's slogans are: "a woman's right to choose" and "freedom of choice," etcetera.

There was once a man speaking from hell (recorded in Luke 16) who said "I am tormented in this flame." Hell is real. So is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention the name Jesus Christ? It is because He is REAL! He is able to give grace for repentance and forgiveness to you and to America. We are under the judgment of God - but we can be saved through Christ. Romans 5:8-10 "But God demonstrates his own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Much more then, having now been justified by His Blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.  For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

On June 28, five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the so-called
"right to abortion" to encompass even partial-birth abortion, using an
analysis that also casts in doubt the legal "personhood" of even some
babies who have achieved live birth. In order to challenge and repudiate
this ominous trend in the law, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)
urges you to support the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (HR 4292) when
it reaches the House floor.

Babies whose lungs are insufficiently developed to permit sustained
survival are often spontaneously delivered alive, and they may live for
hours or days. Others are born alive following deliveries induced for
medical reasons or following attempted abortions. Enactment of HR 4292 is
necessary to ensure that all infants who are born alive are treated as
legal persons for the purposes of federal law.

HR 4292 is proposed to codify (for federal law purposes only) the
traditional definition of "born alive" that is already found in the laws
of most states:  complete expulsion from the mother, accompanied by
heartbeat, respiration, and/or voluntary movements. The bill would also
codify the traditional principle that the legal term "person" and
equivalent terms "shall include every infant member of the species homo
sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."

Congressman Charles Canady noted when he introduced the bill on April 13,
"Recent changes in the legal and cultural landscape appear to have brought
this well-settled principle into question." Since he made the statement,
the Supreme Court has expanded the so-called "right to abortion" created
in Roe v. Wade to cover partial-birth abortion, in which a baby is only
inches from complete live birth when she is killed (Stenberg v. Carhart,
June 28).

Moreover, on July 26 a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit ruled in
Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer that the abortion
method banned by New Jersey could not possibly be a "partial birth"
because "[a] woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give
birth." By this logic, even a living survivor of an abortion could be
killed with impunity, since not true "birth" can result if an abortion is
intended.

It is noteworthy that the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action
League (NARAL), in a July 20 statement attacking HR 4292, said the bill
would "effectively grant legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus -- in
direct conflict with Roe [v. Wade]." In reality, of course, Roe v. Wade
dealt only with the constitutional status of the "unborn fetus." There is
nothing in Roe to support the claim that infants who are born alive may be
considered anything less than legal persons, regardless of their stage of
lung development (i.e., "viability"). But apparently NARAL believes that a
baby who is entirely outside the mother and breathing can still be
considered a "fetus" and a non-person, if someone deems that infant to be
"non-viable."

Enactment of HR 4292 would be a repudiation of this pernicious trend of
extending the "right to abortion" outside the womb. In a September 13
"Dear Colleague" letter, Mr. Canady and Mr. Hyde announced that they will
add to the bill a Manager's Amendment containing a number of congressional
findings that cite Carhart, Farmer and other specific evidence of the need
for this legislation. NRLC strongly endorses the Manager's Amendment.

Contrary to some misunderstandings or misrepresentations, HR 4292 does
noting to change the standard of care for medical treatment of premature
infants. Physicians in most states have long operated under definitions of
"born alive" or "live birth" that are identical or nearly identical to
those contained in HR 4292. In a given case, two neonatologists may
disagree as to whether a given medical treatment will be efficacious or
futile, but both surely agree that they are discussing the prognosis of a
human being who has legal rights -- and if, as they argue regarding the
case, a madman enters the room and kills the baby with a hammer, both
doctors will recognize that they have witnessed a homicide.

Please support HR 4292 in order to reaffirm the legal personhood of
live-born infants before their protections in law are further eroded by
those who wish to expand the right to kill even beyond the line of full
birth.

Sincerely,
Doug Johnson, Legislative Director
National Right to Life