Abortion survivors slam Dems for blocking 'Born-Alive' abortion bill: 'We are not treated as human beings'
Women who survived attempted abortions blasted Senate Democrats for blocking a bill that would protect children born alive under similar circumstances.
"The fact that Democrats continue to block this and vote against it, the message is heard loud and clear by people like me," Melissa Ohden, founder of the Abortion Survivors Network, told Fox News Digital. "We are not treated as human beings. We are simply treated as pawns in their game of political chess."
Priscilla Hurley, another abortion survivor who once worked in the abortion industry, told Fox News Digital she was disappointed but not surprised that Democrats had rejected the bill.
"Under the 'Born-Alive' bill, doctors that perform these late-term abortions can't get away with it anymore if the baby is born alive," Hurley said. "They have to provide care, and the people around them have to report it if they don't. There's that accountability factor that the abortion industry in general does not have. So it's not surprising that those who are in bed with the abortion industry vote the way they do."
Senate Democrats blocked the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" from advancing in the chamber on Wednesday. The measure would require healthcare practitioners to seek to save the life of a baby born during an attempted abortion, and ensure that the infant is hospitalized.
Infants who survive attempted abortions are already afforded equal protection under a federal law passed in 2002. However, according to the pro-life Charles Lozier Institute, the federal law "contains no requirements that abortion survivors be provided with appropriate care or transferred to a hospital, and there is no enforcement mechanism if the law is violated."
Under the "Born-Alive" bill, a healthcare practitioner who fails to provide the required degree of care for a child who survives an abortion, or one who fails to report the lack of care given, is subject to criminal penalties, from a fine to up to five years in prison.
Democrats have argued that the bill is redundant, given existing laws against infanticide and murder, and could imperil the lives of women seeking late-term abortions due to medical emergencies while unfairly penalizing doctors.
The abortion survivors disagree, calling these protections a human rights issue that shouldn't be politicized.
Ohden, who survived after an attempted saline infusion abortion in 1977, has supported the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act as it has been proposed by Republicans over the past decade. The bill has repeatedly been blocked by Democrats in previous congresses.
She was disgusted by a social media post by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., this week calling the Republicans' claims about the bill "s—t that ain't true."
"Doctors are already required to provide appropriate medical care by law. Republicans are trying to get between women and their doctors," Schumer posted on X, alongside a video criticizing the bill.
Ohden found Schumer's and others' comments "disrespectful" and "dehumanizing" toward those who've survived abortions.
"It's very clear that they want us to stay silent. They want us to feel ashamed and isolated," she said.
Hurley added, "I just pray that their eyes would open to the truth."
"I don't think they really take the time, honestly, to talk to people and listen to the facts because they just are protecting the doctors. They're calling it women's healthcare, which it doesn't have anything to do with that. It has to do with human rights," she continued.
Ohden believes there is not enough awareness about the existence of abortion survivors. Her group, the Abortion Survivors Network, has over 900 members, and she personally believes the actual number of abortion survivors is much higher with the prevalence of chemical abortion today. She pointed to a recent study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found 11% of 2nd trimester abortions resulted in live births.
Both abortion survivors called the measure "commonsense legislation" that ensures babies who survive an abortion are afforded the same level of medical care as any other baby born at that gestation.
On Thursday, House Republicans passed their own version of the "Born-Alive" bill. All but one Democrat voted against it.
Bill co-sponsor Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., celebrated its passage.
"This should not be a controversial issue, but rest assured we will keep up the fight in Congress to make sure all babies, born and unborn, are treated like the miracles of life we know they are," she said in a statement.
"This isn't a partisan issue, but a moral one," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said. "With this legislation, House Republicans are standing up for our most vulnerable Americans and defending the sanctity of life. It's disgraceful that Senate Democrats voted in lockstep to block consideration of this lifesaving bill."
Sen. Schumer's office did not return a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington contributed to this report Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Ocasio-Cortez says Iran bombing grounds for Trump impeachment
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Saturday night said President Trump's decision to strike three of Iran's nuclear sites is grounds for impeachment, becoming one of the first elected Democrats to back the constitutional punishment after the attack in the Middle East. Trump announced Sunday night that the U.S. executed a 'spectacular military success' in Iran, striking three nuclear facilities — including Fordow, which is hidden deep in a mountain south of Tehran. He warned that the U.S. would order additional strikes if Iran does not come to the table to negotiate a peace agreement. While several House Democrats slammed Trump's strike as unconstitutional, Ocasio-Cortez was one of a select few to go a step further and categorize the move as impeachable. 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers,' Ocasio-Cortez wrote in a post on X. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to 'declare war,' one of the largest powers held by the Legislative Branch. In the past, however, presidents of both parties have struck adversaries militarily without approval from Congress. Ocasio-Cortez argued that by striking the Iranian nuclear facilities without authorization from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the president breached the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. It remains unclear if Democrats will pursue impeachment against Trump in the wake of the strike on the three Iranian nuclear facilities. If the party were to pursue the punishment, however, it would be doomed to fail since Democrats are in the minority in both chambers. House Democrats impeached Trump twice during his first term — once over allegations that he pressured Ukraine to investigate former President Biden, and a second time following the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The Senate acquitted him both times. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Saturday night said Trump 'failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force,' and said 'Congress must be fully and immediately briefed in a classified setting' — stopping short of mentioning the Constitution or impeachment. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), meanwhile, said Trump's decision to strike the nuclear facilities 'is unauthorized and unconstitutional.' Republicans are largely defending the strike. A White House official told The Hill that Trump gave congressional leaders 'a courtesy heads up,' and the White House has said Trump has the Constitutional authority to strike Ian as Commander-in-Chief. Additionally, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) appeared to push back on the Democratic criticism, arguing that the president respects the Constitution but needed to act in a swift fashion. Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. 'The President made the right call, and did what he needed to do,' Johnson wrote in a post on X. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act. The world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' simply could not be allowed the opportunity to obtain and use nuclear weapons.' 'The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties,' he added. At least one other House Democrat backed impeachment in the wake of the attack on Iran: Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said the strike was 'an unambiguous impeachable offense' — while nodding to the extreme unlikeliness of a Democratic minority impeaching a Republican president. 'This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense,' he wrote in a lengthy thread on X. 'I'm not saying we have the votes to impeach. I'm saying that you DO NOT do this without Congressional approval and if Johnson doesn't grow a spine and learn to be a real boy tomorrow we have a BFing problem that puts our very Republic at risk.' 'A final note of clarification. I am open to the idea that the US should attack Iran. But I am not open to the idea that Congress cedes all authority to the executive branch. No matter how many lickspittle sycophants in the GOP argue to the contrary,' he added.
