The House of Representatives recently passed a bill aimed at ensuring the care of babies born alive after failed abortion attempts, a move celebrated by many as a significant step in protecting vulnerable lives.
The legislation, known as the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, was passed by a 217–204 vote, with Republicans strongly advocating for its necessity.
They emphasized that the focus of the bill is not on abortion itself but on safeguarding the lives of infants who survive the procedure.
Republican Representative Gregory Murphy, a physician from North Carolina, passionately defended the bill during the heated debate. He expressed disbelief that there could be any opposition to providing medical care to a newborn, stating, “As a physician, it is beyond my comprehension that anyone would not intervene to save an innocent and defenseless human life.” He emphasized the moral imperative to provide care, asserting that “neglect is harm. Neglect is immoral.”
The bill mandates that medical professionals present at the birth of a newborn abortion survivor must offer the same level of care as they would for any other premature infant of a similar gestational age. Additionally, it requires that these infants be transferred to a hospital for further treatment. \
The legislation also imposes reporting requirements for any violations, with penalties including fines and up to five years in prison, while protecting the child’s mother from prosecution.
Despite the House’s approval, Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that it addresses a non-existent problem. Democrat Representative Kelly Morrison, an obstetrician from Minnesota, argued against the measure, stating, “Doctors are already both honored and obligated to provide appropriate care for their patients. It is illegal to kill a newborn infant in all 50 states.”
In Minnesota, from 2019 to 2021, there were at least eight reported cases of newborn abortion survivors dying after birth, according to the Minnesota Department of Health. In five of these cases, no efforts were made to save the infants, while the remaining three received “comfort care.”
Democrats also raised concerns about potential government interference in reproductive health decisions and the impact on grieving parents. Representative Sara Jacobs from California highlighted that late-term abortions are rare and usually occur due to severe fetal abnormalities or health risks to the mother. She argued that families facing such tragic news should not have government obstacles placed in their path to care.
The bill’s journey in Congress hit a roadblock when it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate. The procedural vote required a 60-vote majority to advance but failed 52-47. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expressed disappointment but was not surprised by the outcome. He remarked, “We should all be able to agree that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion must be protected.”
Thune suggested that the opposition stems from a reluctance to recognize the humanity of a living baby, which could lead to broader implications regarding the unborn. He pointed out that acknowledging the humanity of newborns surviving abortions might force Democrats to confront the humanity of the unborn.
In recent years, Republicans have made several attempts to pass similar legislation, only to be consistently blocked by Democrats. The bill’s passage coincided with the 52nd annual National March for Life, where thousands of pro-life supporters were expected to gather in Washington.
Vice President JD Vance was slated to speak at the event, with President Donald Trump addressing the march through a video message.
The ongoing debate around this bill underscores the deep divide on the issue of abortion and the care of newborns who survive the procedure.
For proponents, it represents a moral obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us, while opponents view it as an unnecessary and potentially intrusive measure.