by John Perazzo
The numbers are staggering.
American politics is dominated by an enduring article of faith, to which scores of millions of people dutifully pay lip service—the notion that the Democratic Party is the defender of the little man, the voiceless, the powerless; that if you truly care about what happens to the least and most vulnerable among us, you will righteously align yourself with the Democrats.
Let us put that article of faith to the test and examine, very specifically and comprehensively, how the most powerful Democratic legislators in America have chosen to treat the smallest, most voiceless, most powerless, most vulnerable creatures on the face of the Earth – unborn babies. More specifically, let us examine how those lawmakers have voted on the most significant House and Senate bills related to abortions involving babies in the late stages of gestation within their mothers’ wombs.
Public-opinion polls show that while only about 38% of Americans believe that abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances during the first trimester of a pregnancy, that number skyrockets to 65% for the second trimester and 80% for the third trimester.
Do the voting patterns of Democrat lawmakers reflect these societal mores in any way? Let us look at the data.
Democrats Oppose a Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
On February 14, 2003, Senate Republicans introduced S 3, legislation designed to prohibit the performance of the mid- and late-term abortion procedure called intact dilation and extraction, commonly known as “partial-birth abortion” (PBA).
When carrying out a PBA, the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech (feet-first) delivery position, permits its entire body to exit the birth canal except for its head, and then uses a sharp instrument to puncture the brain and kill the infant while its head is still inside the mother – thereby exploiting the legal loophole which asserts that so long as the head has not yet exited the birth canal, the baby is technically not yet “born.” This barbaric procedure was aptly described by the United States Conference of Bishops (USCB) as one that “crosses the line from abortion to infanticide.”
But Democratic Party icon Hillary Clinton offered a very different assessment when, on March 12, 2003, she went to the floor of the U.S. Senate to denounce the Republican bill as a cynical attempt to “criminalize a medical procedure” and thereby compromise the liberty of American women. By no means was Mrs. Clinton’s view an outlier among Democrats. Indeed, the very next day, only 19 of 48 Senate Democrats voted in favor of a ban on partial-birth abortions, while 29 voted against such a ban – even though the bill permitted exceptions for cases where a mother’s life or physical safety might be endangered by her pregnancy. Senate Republicans, by contrast, supported the PBA ban by a margin of 45 to 3.
When the House of Representatives voted nearly three months later on its own version of the partial-birth-abortion ban – a bill called HR 760 — just 59 House Democrats supported the ban, while 134 opposed it. House Republicans, by contrast, supported the ban by a margin of 222 to 5.
Thanks to the Republicans’ massive support for the bill in both the House and Senate, there were enough votes to pass it and have President George W. Bush sign it into law on November 5, 2003.
Democrats Support Abortions Performed on Babies Old Enough to Feel Excruciating Pain during the Procedure
On April 26, 2013, House Republicans introduced HR 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which sought to ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, the point at which many believe – though there is no firm consensus – that a fetus is first capable of feeling physical pain. The legislation allowed for exceptions in cases where a later-term abortion was deemed necessary in order to avoid physical harm or death to the mother, or where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. When the bill came up for a vote on June 18, 2013, just 6 Democrats supported it while 190 opposed it. Republicans, by contrast, supported the bill by a margin of 222 to 6.
On January 6, 2015, House Republicans introduced HR 36, a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that was nearly identical to its 2013 predecessor. When the bill was put to a vote on May 13, 2015, only 4 Democrats supported it while 180 opposed it. Republicans, by contrast, supported it by a margin of 238 to 4.
When the U.S. Senate later considered the merits of that same legislation in September 2015, its members voted on whether or not to invoke cloture – a procedure by which supporters of a bill can, with a three-fifths majority, end debate or kill a filibuster and bring the bill to a formal vote on the Senate floor. In that instance, only 3 Democrats voted in favor of cloture, while 38 voted against. Republicans, by contrast, voted in favor of cloture by a margin of 51 to 2.
On January 3, 2017, House Republicans once again introduced HR 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. When the bill came up for a vote on October 3, 2017, a mere 3 Democrats supported it while 187 opposed it. Republicans, meanwhile, supported the bill by a margin of 234 to 2.
On February 11, 2020, Senate Republicans introduced yet another Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act known as S 3275. When the bill was put to a vote on February 25, 2020, just 2 Senate Democrats voted to invoke cloture on the measure, while 41 voted against. Republicans, by contrast, voted in favor of cloture by a margin of 51 to 2.
Democrats Oppose Requiring Doctors to Care for Infants Who Survive Abortion Procedures and are Born Alive
On September 15, 2015, House Republicans introduced HR 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which stipulated that in cases where an infant somehow managed to survive an attempted abortion procedure and was “born alive” — with a beating heart, a pulsating umbilical cord, or voluntary muscle movement — medical practitioners would be required to give the baby the same degree of care as they would provide to any infant of the same gestational age who was born in a non-abortion setting. When the bill came up for a vote on September 18, 2015, just 5 Democrats supported it while 177 opposed it. Republicans, by contrast, supported the bill unanimously by a margin of 243 to 0.
On January 31, 2019, Senate Republicans introduced a nearly identical Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act known as S 311. On February 25, 2020, three Democrats sought to invoke cloture and bring the bill to a formal vote, while 40 opposed the invocation of cloture. Republicans, by contrast, voted unanimously in favor of cloture by a margin of 53 to 0.
On January 9, 2023, House Republicans introduced yet another Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act known as HR 26. When the bill was put to a vote on January 11, 2023, just 1 Democrat supported it while 210 opposed it. Republicans, for their part, supported the bill unanimously by a margin of 219 to 0. “This reasonable legislation would protect a baby born alive following an abortion,” said National Right to Life president Carol Tobias. “This bill isn’t about interfering with a so-called right to abortion. It is about stopping infanticide.”
Democrats Support the Permanent Elimination of All Restrictions on Abortion, from Conception to the Moment of Birth
On June 8, 2021, House Democrats introduced HR 3755, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021 (WHPA), which:
- called for the permanent elimination of federal, state, and local governmental restrictions on the right to abortion-on-demand
- sought to repeal more than 1,300 existing laws designed to regulate and place limits on the abortion industry
- tried to invalidate laws requiring parental consentor parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion
- dismissed the feelings of medical professionals who would have preferred – as expressions of their individual conscience and religious liberty — not to endorse or be associated with abortions in any way
- called for a ban on state restrictions against abortions that were desired because one or both biological parents did not wish to have a child of a particular race or sex
- aimed to abolish restrictions on post-viability abortions in cases where, according to the abortion provider, the continuance of the pregnancy might “pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health” – with no defined distinction between physical health on the one hand, and emotional or financial health on the other
- sought to prevent states from enacting informed-consent policies that would permit or require pregnant women to go through a 24-hour waiting or reflection period, view ultrasound images of their unborn children, listen to the sound of their infant’s heartbeat, or obtain information about adoption possibilities
When HR 3755 came up for a House vote on September 24, 2021, Democrats supported it by a margin of 218 to 1, while Republicans opposed it unanimously by a margin of 210 to 0. And when the Senate later voted on whether or not to invoke cloture on the measure in February 2022, Democrats voted 44 to 1 in favor of cloture, while Republicans voted 47 to 0 against it.
On July 7, 2022, House Democrats introduced HR 8296, the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 – virtually a carbon copy of its 2021 predecessor. When the bill came up for a House vote on July 15, 2022, Democrats supported it by a margin of 219 to 1, while Republicans opposed it unanimously by a margin of 209 to 0.
The mindset undergirding Democratic support for the WHPA was on clear display when U.S. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, during a June 25, 2023 appearance on Fox News Sunday, had the following exchange with host Shannon Bream:
BREAM: [W]hat about the states where [abortion is] actually legal up until the due date? Is that something Democrats support?
CARDIN: We support the right of women to make their own decisions. This is a personal decision made by women with the advice of their doctors and their family, and we don’t think we should try to tell women when they can make those decisions.
BREAM: Is there a cut-off for you before that point?
CARDIN: No, to me, it’s a reproductive — it’s a health-care decision. It’s up to women to make that decision.
As NationalReview.com pointed out: “The position explicitly articulated by Cardin is shared by every Democrat but one in the Senate and one in the House who back the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA).”
Democrats Support Abortions Performed Because of the Race, Color, or Sex of the Baby
On December 1, 2011, House Republicans introduced HR 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), which sought to prohibit abortions rooted in a parent’s desire not to give birth to a baby of a particular race, color, or sex. When the bill came to a vote on May 31, 2012, a mere 20 Democrats supported it while 161 opposed it – an unmistakably clear indication that they mostly embraced the basic motives underlying eugenics. Republicans, by contrast, voted in favor of PRENDA by a margin of 226 to 7.
Democrats Support Federal Taxpayer Funding for Abortions
On May 14, 2013, House Republicans introduced HR 7,
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which sought to permanently
prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortions or for
health insurance plans that included coverage for abortion-related
procedures. “The bill would make permanent the policies that currently
rely on regular re-approval, including amendments like the well-known
Hyde Amendment,” explained
the website of Republican Senator Roger Wicker, “which prohibits
funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded
through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act.”
HR 7 also allowed exceptions for cases where an abortion was deemed
necessary in order to protect the physical health of the mother, or
where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. When the bill came
up for a vote on January 28, 2014, just 6 Democrats supported it while
187 opposed it. Republicans, by contrast, supported the bill by a margin
of 222 to 1.
On January 21, 2015, House Republicans introduced a basically identical bill known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act. When the measure was put to a vote on January 26, 2015, only 3 Democrats supported it while 178 opposed it. Republicans, meanwhile, backed the bill by a margin of 239 to 1.
There are myriad examples of Democrats at the highest levels of government candidly articulating – especially in very recent years – their firm commitment to the elimination of existing restrictions on federal funding for abortions. During the 2019-20 presidential campaign season, for instance, the official Democratic Party Platform declared unambiguously: “We will repeal the Hyde Amendment.” In the same vein, then-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, who had formerly supported the Hyde Amendment for many years, announced that the amendment “can’t stay” because “times have changed.” And Kamala Harris, who would ultimately become Biden’s vice presidential running mate, likewise affirmed: “We must repeal the Hyde Amendment.”
Democrats Seek to Deny Doctors the Right to Oppose Abortion on Moral or Religious Grounds
On January 29, 2015, House Republicans introduced S 304, the Conscience Protection Act, which aimed to prevent the government from penalizing healthcare providers – i.e., physicians, nurses, hospitals, group health plans, insurance companies, etc. — that wished, for moral or ethical reasons, not to cover or participate in abortions in any way. Said the statute: “[T]he Federal Government, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance, may not penalize, retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against a health care provider on the basis that the provider does not — (1) perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion; (2) provide or sponsor abortion coverage; or (3) facilitate or make arrangements for any of the [abortion-related] activities specified in this subsection.”
When S 304 came up for a House vote on July 13, 2016, just 3 Democrats supported it while 181 opposed it. Republicans, by contrast, supported the bill by a margin of 242 to 1.
Conclusion
The Democratic Party’s stance on abortion is remarkable for its extremism, its absolutism, and its total disregard for the lives of late-term, fully formed human babies. Consider the following figures, which are based on the vote tallies cited throughout this article:
- 6% of Democrats in 2003 voted in support of a woman’s right to undergo partial-birth abortion, vs. 2.9% of Republicans.
- 2% of Democrats since 2013 have voted in favor of the right to perform abortions on babies whose nervous systems are developed enough to feel pain during the procedure, vs. 2% of Republicans.
- 98% of Democrats since 2015 have voted in favor of the right to carry out infanticide by denying medical care to babies who somehow survive abortions and are born alive, vs. 0% of Republicans.
- 4% of Democrats since 2021 have voted in favor of the WHPA’s permanent elimination of virtually all restrictions on abortion, from conception to the very moment of birth, vs. 0% of Republicans.
Moreover:
- 90% of Democrats in 2012 voted in support of a woman’s right to abort a baby because of its race, color, or sex, vs. 3% of Republicans.
- 6% of Democrats since 2013 have voted in favor of using federal taxpayer funds to pay for abortion-related services, vs. 0.4% of Republicans.
- 4% of Democrats in 2016 voted against protecting medical professionals from government-imposed punishment if they wished not to participate in any abortion-related services or referrals, vs. 0.4% of Republicans.
These Democrat positions are not those of a political party that stands up for the voiceless, the powerless, and the vulnerable. They are the positions of a party steeped in moral depravity and totalitarianism.
John Perazzo
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-democrat-lawmakers-vote-on-late-term-abortion-infanticide/
No comments:
Post a Comment