Under Gov. Tim Walz, Babies Born Alive in Botched Abortions Were Left to Die. Then He Removed Reporting Requirements
As Democrats and media outlets accuse former President Donald Trump of dramatizing the Democratic abortion agenda, data from the Minnesota Department of Health shows that at least eight babies who survived abortions in the state were left to die.
Under a 2015 Minnesota law, the state formerly was required to report whether abortions resulted in the live birth of a baby, what actions were taken to preserve the life of that baby, and whether the baby survived.
Those reporting requirements exposed that between Jan. 1, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2021, physicians performed five abortions that resulted in a baby’s live birth.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
No measures were taken to help the first baby, who reportedly had “fetal anomalies” that resulted “in death shortly after delivery.” Two of the babies were given “comfort care measures” as they died. No measures were taken to “preserve life” of the last two babies, who were previable.
Previous data from the Minnesota Department of Health reveals that physicians have been leaving babies to die after failed abortions for years. In 2020, no babies were reported born alive through botched abortions, according to the Minnesota Department of Health.
But between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2019, three abortions resulted in born-alive babies who were then allowed to die. The first baby reportedly had “fetal anomalies” but also had “residual cardiac activity” for two minutes, yet no efforts were taken to preserve that baby’s life, and “the infant did not survive.”
The second baby died while “comfort care measures” were provided. The third baby was previable and did not receive any attempts to preserve his or her life.
It does not appear that any of the babies born alive in botched abortions survived.
Due to efforts by the state’s Democratic governor, who served from 2019 until the present, Minnesota will no longer even keep track of born-alive babies.
Tim Walz, the new Democratic vice presidential nominee, repealed the bipartisan measure in May 2023, stripping the state’s requirement that measure be taken to preserve the baby’s “life and health” and merely replacing it with a nebulous requirement for “care.”
Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has refused to specify any limitations on abortion or protections for unborn babies that she would support, indicating that her campaign does not, in fact, support any restrictions on abortion.
When Trump has pointed out that some states leave babies to die after birth, stating, “Hard to believe, they have some states passing legislation where you can execute the baby after birth,” outlets like CNN rate such claims as “false,” writing: “No state has passed or is passing a law that allows the execution of a baby after it is born.”
The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Post-birth abortion is real and Harris-Walz support it,” tweeted The Heritage Foundation’s Roger Severino. “At least 5 babies were born alive after botched abortions and left to die under Walz’s watch. Two of these struggling babies were given ‘comfort care’ instead of medical care allegedly in violation of state law.”
“How did Walz respond?” he continued. “By repealing the very law exposing and outlawing this horror and replacing it with abortion-on-demand on the front end, and infanticide on the back end.”
In January 2023, Walz signed a broad abortion law that included no limitations on how late during pregnancy a mother may end the life of her unborn baby.
“To Minnesotans, know that your access to reproductive health, and your right to make your own health care decisions, are preserved and protected,” Walz said then of the Protect Reproductive Options Act. “And because of this law, that won’t change with the political winds and the makeup of the Supreme Court.”
The legislation reads: “Every individual has a fundamental right to make autonomous decisions about the individual’s own reproductive health, including the fundamental right to use or refuse reproductive health care.”
“Reproductive health care” is a euphemism for abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment