This week, Wyoming has passed its own born-alive bill, which forces abortionists to provide life-saving care to living, breathing babies born after a failed abortion.
The text of the bill, also known as Senate File 34, states: “The commonly accepted means of care that would be rendered to any other infant born alive shall be employed in the treatment of any viable infant aborted alive. Any physician performing an abortion shall take medically appropriate and reasonable steps to preserve the life and health of an infant born alive.”
“It is my hope that we can all agree that once a child is born alive, all rights apply equally under the law,” Wyoming Sen. Cheri Steinmetz, the bill’s primary sponsor, said. “We have seen evidence this last year in Wyoming that we will go to extreme measures to save just one human life. This has been exemplified in measures taken to fight COVID-19.”
Opponents of the bill, like Senate Minority Floor Leader Chris Rothfuss, argued, “I see it as a bill that either does nothing or potentially does something bad with regard to the viability aspect. Either it does nothing or does something that would perpetuate a circumstance that would be painful to the family.”
He uses the example of forcing medical professionals to intervene and keep the child alive only through the use of life support machines.
“We’re getting to the point where our doctors can do extraordinary things, but sometimes those extraordinary things lead to more pain,” he said.
But is that necessarily true?
As a country, we don’t know how many babies are born alive after failed abortions or how many of those babies could have survived and gone on to lead relatively normal lives if they received medical support. According to one small report, about 40 babies between 2016-2018/9 were alive after an abortionist attempted to end their lives in three states, Minnesota, Florida and Arizona.
For most of the cases, there were no details provided so it’s unknown if any of those babies could have been saved. But is that a reason to deny them life-saving care, like abortion supporters are arguing? The answer is no.
The gestational age of a preborn baby has a big impact on the abortion process. The earlier a woman is in her pregnancy—death is essentially assured as a surgical abortion involves either suction or dismemberment. It’s a gruesome procedure. And if the child is born alive, most likely he or she is too young to survive. Babies have a better chance of survival if the woman chooses to use the abortion pill, which is not always effective and there is an abortion pill reversal protocol available that can save the preborn child’s life.
However, late-second and third trimester abortions have a higher probability of failure and it’s more likely that a viable child could be born alive. In these late term procedures, the abortionist’s first step is to attempt to kill the child by injecting him or her with a poison known as digoxin and then wait or induce labor. It doesn’t always work, and this sometimes is only found out after the woman gives birth to a child who is still alive. Disturbingly, due to the inconsistent nature of the process, some women give birth to their child on a toilet in a hotel or their own home.
If that happens, the child is essentially given comfort care and left to die, evoking macabre imagery of ancient Rome where undesired children were left exposed to wildlife and the elements.
This law in Wyoming would force abortionists to save the lives of these babies, something that doesn’t come naturally.
That’s why every born-alive bill is essential.
At the federal level, a discharge petition aimed at forcing a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act remains active on the House floor. At this time, only five additional votes are needed.
Photo from Shutterstock