Democratic Party Policy Regarding New-borns

The House recently passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which requires that babies who survive an abortion attempt are to be cared for as though they’d been born more normally. The Act opens with these two paragraphs:

Sec. 2. Findings

Congress finds as follows:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

President Barack Obama has said he’ll veto this bill that protects babies newly born under a procedure that was intended to have a different outcome. His…rationale…is this:

HR 3504 [Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act] would impose new legal requirements related to the provision of abortion services in certain circumstances, which would likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care.

If the President were presented with HR 3134 [Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015] or HR 3504, he would veto them.

This is nonsense. The Born-Alive bill has nothing to do with abortion, per se, only with its aftermath. The abortion ended with the removal of the baby from the mother’s womb. The task now is to care for a newly born baby. That this particular baby was born via a procedure that is not one of the more normal birthing procedures is wholly irrelevant to that.

Of course, Obama knows that. His decision—in advance of seeing the bill actually passed—to veto a bill that explicitly protects the life of a newly born infant, and the silence of his fellow Democrats on his veto threat, says volumes about the Democratic Party’s policy toward new-born babies.

Candidate For…

…Panderer-in-Chief.

Hillary Clinton, Democratic Presidential candidate has decided she opposes the Keystone XL pipeline—because it’s a distraction. With her view of the pipeline on the table, the distraction of it kept her from talking about her climate warming…stuff.

Of course, she could have settled the distraction by supporting the pipeline, too: the question’s unsettled state was the distraction. Thus, her opposition is just naked pandering to the leftist climatistas; it has no other purpose at all.

Hillary Clinton—Special Interest-in-Chief wannabe.

Let’s Increase Taxes

…and the costs all of us must bear from that. But the real story is this…proposal…Hillary Clinton has dreamed up for her Presidential campaign.

The centerpiece idea would require drug makers to devote a sufficient portion of revenue to research and development. Those that don’t would risk losing federal support, such as research grants or an R&D tax credit.

Never mind that drug companies already spend 15%-20% on R&D. This fine businesswoman, who’s never run a company in her life and who was dead broke when she left the White House, says that’s not enough. Never mind, too, that she has studiously avoided saying how much is enough.

This is just another Democrat who hasn’t met a tax she didn’t like. This is just another Democrat who thinks Big Government knows more about running a business than the businessmen, who have to operate in a competitive environment or fail.

Assad Must Go

Or so said President Barack Obama:

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.

Now, with 200,000 of those Syrian people dead, the guy who sits in the Secretary of State’s chair, John Kerry, says, “Well, whenever.”

We’re not being doctrinaire about the specific date or time. We’re open.

And

He said Mr Assad doesn’t have to leave “on day one or month one or whatever.”

Yeah, whenever’s good. Because Bashar al Assad the reformer can be trusted to step down at the appointed time. Absolutely.

Further Obama administration retreat.