democrats vote to kill born alive babies. There’s a Constitutional problem with that



democrats voted to allow the murder of children. Of course, they won’t call it that.

Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina.

The bill stipulated:

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

Here’s the thing. Born alive babies have Constitutional rights. I know that’s something which makes liberals wretch but it is true. The 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“born in the United States”

“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

That makes any baby born alive – attempted abortion or not-  a citizen of the United States and has all the rights and privileges of a US citizen and afforded the above.

Withholding care to such a newborn is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the baby.  It is murder.


If it is acceptable to withhold life support to born alive babies, could life support for babies born to illegal aliens be withheld?

If a fetus is not a person, why should anyone receive pre-natal care and why should it be covered by insurance?

By liberal standards, there should no care until AFTER a baby is born and maybe not even then. Imagine having to give birth outside of a hospital and receive care for a baby only after it is born, should someone decide to let the baby live.

democrats have become the party of infanticide. It’s just another day at the office.

And they call conservatives “Nazis.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


The Tenth Amendment was quite clear; those powers of the Federal government, NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, were delegated to the States and the people.

Which STILL did not correct the absence of any Constitutionally provided mechanism to overturn duly enacted laws that conflict with the Constitution. To depend solely on the Tenth Amendment would leave legislatures the freedom to circumvent the Constitution’s protection of individuals’ liberty, even and especially after ratification of the Tenth Amendment.

The tyranny of the majority is an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above – and at the expense of – those in the minority. The weakness derives from the inability of the majority to exercise its democratic power equitably.

Though politically powerful, collectively, the majority is by definition stupid: In political contests, it is the most common denominator that prevails. Over 200 years ago, the inclusion of this flaw in our particular system of governance was recognized, and a ‘fix” was applied – the doctrine of judicial review. Ultimately, this doctrine allowed the courts to overturn laws that conflict or circumvent the protections afforded citizens by the US Constitution. Until this doctrine was established, there existed no mechanism to thwart such tyranny by the Congress and the President.

Retire05 would have you believe that the US Constitution left to the states and the people the duty to elucidate those rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and as far as that statement goes, she is right. (She evidently has no sympathy for the political plight of minorities, as she supports no means to protect their minority interests.)

While the framers took great pains to preserve numerous states’ rights (in order to assure that the interests of the original colonies were sufficiently protected to encourage every one of them to join in the fledgling union) the framers of the Constitution also appreciated that the Constitution could not adequately address all concerns that would necessarily fall to federal oversight, and so they provided the means to amend the Constitution. That process is long and difficult, and experience has shown that it does not in every case respond quickly enough to be effective. To remedy THAT weakness, the courts have stepped in and employed when necessary a “common-law” perspective to aid them when deciding cases not adequately informed by the “Constitutional Originalist’s” perspective. (The originalist approach essentially arguing that the Constitution is the ONLY authority that may guide our Laws.) SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia was an originalist when he found it convenient, and Retire05 also drinks from that well. But most Judges and most lawyers and most legislators do not, so you will find vestiges of Common Law insinuated into the written decisions of courts across the land as well as in the justifications of numerous laws enacted by our legislatures.

In the Marbury V. Madison case that Retire05 has so much disagreement with, the case before the Court raised the question of whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. As Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the John Marshall Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. Had the Court NOT so decided, Congress and state legislatures would have been able to – with the consent of the president in Congress’ case and governors in states’ cases – disembowel bit by bit every last provision of the Constitution, eventually rendering it meaningless and useless.

I don’t know where George is gleaning his “borrowed paste job[s]” but he is clearly so wrong on so many statements that there is no way I am going to spend the time to dispel all of them.

George is a Constitutional illiterate. End of story and end of discussion as it is true, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

Ramble on, George. It is what you do best.

@retire05: Remember, that whole argument arose from the contention that newborn babies, while US citizens, have not yet “earned the right” to not be murdered.

@Deplorable Me: Sorta why we need the states to pass laws against murder, the US congress just cant seem to get enough Democrats to agree. While anyone can walk into an emergency room, the lil ones cant yet walk so lets dismember them.

@kitt: Like Pelosi told Democrats not to vote for reporting illegal immigrants trying to buy weapons to ICE because it “gives power to Republicans”. They don’t care who is hurt or who dies, they only care about POWER.

@retire05: @retire05:

I don’t know where George is gleaning his “borrowed paste job[s]

Of course you don’t, because none of that was copied and pasted. That’s why I put no quotation marks around any of it. There would be NO way for you to find any of it, because I wrote it all. Just as you DIDN’T try to dispute ANY of the personal details that I shared on FA because you discovered them to be true, you can’t dispute the authenticity of my post content. You are left with nothing but the empty, unproven assertion that I am simply wrong about everything, and statistical theory suggests that is impossible.

Why not keep it simple? Why not just tell me what, in the absence of judicial review, is supposed to happen when a state writes a law that conflicts with the Constitution?

Surely the answer to that simple question is right on the tip of your tongue.


I have never had a vested interest in abortion one way or the other, so I do not advocate for it one way or the other, either. The arguments and perspectives I have stated here on FA have been offered only to provide you with a view of the issues you may not have considered. Since it has become evident that you are firmly entrenched in your positions on abortion, I have not continued to offer alternate solutions to that problem.

I think that it is ALWAYS unfortunate when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. They occur frequently because young people do not behave responsibly, sexually or otherwise. The minor financial inconvenience of unwanted pregnancies, aborted or not, pales against the unbearable expense of caring for increasing numbers of elderly people who have not independently prepared themselves financially for their end-of-life care. I have tried to move my conversation away from the abortion issue (that I am not worried about) to focus instead on the end-of-life issue that I AM worried about, but for some reason you are not interested, desiring instead to keep parroting your objection to “infanticide.” Fine. I’ll stop talking about either of those issues. But what I will NOT stop talking about is the perennial obsession here with disparaging the Supreme Court. There is never any complaint about judicial over-reach when a SCOTUS decision agreeing with the Republican agenda is promulgated. No constitutional argument about unelected justices hijacking our democracy or grabbing power from the other branches of government. It is only when SCOTUS decisions disagree with your agenda that you raise an alarm.

It is for this reason that I have concentrated on the question of the constitutionality of certain laws. I will continue to discuss this issue with you, in part because I think this is the most important issue that we face at this time, and in part because it is the area in which our differences are the most pronounced. If you have a problem with that, stop responding to my posts.

A good friend of mine had to get married as a junior in high school. Their life was tough, but he became a Dallas cop, retired from the force and the object of the unwanted pregnancy went on to become an FBI agent.

Abortion is not the only option or even the best.

@Deplorable Me:

Abortion is not the only option or even the best.

I never said that it was.

the object of the unwanted pregnancy went on to become an FBI agent.

Can I assume that this child-turned FBI agent was the product of an unPLANNED pregnancy as opposed to an unWANTED one? It makes a really big difference if the family does what is right (as this one seems to have done) as opposed to giving up and just letting an UNWANTED child grow up in an atmosphere of resentment. Any child can overcome being raised by a poor family (though perhaps the policeman wasn’t exactly poor) but few children can overcome being unwanted and unloved. That’s where sociopaths come from.

Does NOBODY here understand the problem with Constitutional Originalism that I have pointed to in my post 51?
I have asked ONE (1) question:

“If not by judicial, then HOW can a law enacted by a legislature that conflicts with the Constitution be overturned?”

That’s simple enough.

If none of you can construct a coherent answer to this question, you have no business even thinking about the Constitution OR the Supreme Court!

(To make you feel better, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia (deceased) couldn’t come up with a good answer to that question either, or at least if he did, he never shared it with me.)

@George Wells: The courts don’t undo “BAD” laws, they undo un-Constitutional laws. Congress undoes “BAD” laws.

This will come as a complete and total surprise to liberals.

@Deplorable Me:

The courts don’t undo “BAD” laws, they undo un-Constitutional laws.

OK, DM. Now walk me through this. What, exactly, GIVES the courts the rights to undo unconstitutional laws? Is that right to undo unconstitutional laws IN the Constitution? Answer: NO.
So where did the court’s right to undo unconstitutional laws come from?
The court’s RIGHT to undo unconstitutional laws came from the Doctrine of Judicial Review that came out of Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1803 decision in the Marbury V. Madison case.

YOU ARE 100% RIGHT!!!!

Now tell it to Retire05 and get that monkey off my back!

Now, just to prove that I am a gentleman, I’ll let you walk that back, and just in case you FEEL that I twisted something that you said, or that I tricked you into saying something that you didn’t mean, again, you can walk that back, and we can start all over. Because I don’t want to embarrass anybody. I just want a legitimate answer to that question about HOW unconstitutional laws get undone IF NOT BY THE COURTS, and IF by the courts, then where did the COURT’S right to do so come from IF NOT FROM MARBURY V. MADISON?
It isn’t a hard question, but Retire05 refuses to answer it, because she can’t live with a court that can undo unconstitutional laws.

@Deplorable Me:

And by the way, your answer is COMPLETELY correct.
And as it DOESN’T come as a surprise to me at all, I must not be a liberal, right?
I respectfully thank you for bothering to answer my question.

Communist Democrats believe that unborn babies are felons who violated the rights of women and deserve to die for such a rape of their bodies. This is how deviant they think. They DON”T want the next generation to be born because that generation will rise up to vote them out of power.