BAIPA - sleeper issue?

[30A Skunkape]

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

 

[rancid]

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

If this excuse to circumvent Roe vs Wade ever became law, I can see the Terry Schiavo circus now. A bunch of crazies picketing outside a NICU to keep a 400 gram baby on life support indefinitely at an obscene cost to society against the wishes of the family.

 

[6thGen]

The only thing the law does is offer the same amount of hand wringing for wanted babies as unwanted. If it is reasonable for a wanted, it should be for an unwanted.

 

[6thGen]

In 2000, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) was first introduced in Congress. This was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion. (To view the original 2000 BAIPA, click here.)

In 2002, the bill was enacted, after a "neutrality clause" was added to explicitly state that the bill expressed no judgment, in either direction, about the legal status of a human prior to live birth. (The "neutrality" clause read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section.") The bill passed without a dissenting vote in either house of Congress. (To view the final federal BAIPA as enacted, click here. To view a chronology of events pertaining to the federal BAIPA, click here.)

Meanwhile, Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, actively opposed a state version of the BAIPA during three successive regular legislative sessions. His opposition to the state legislation continued into 2003 ? even after NARAL had withdrawn its initial opposition to the federal bill, and after the final federal bill had been enacted in August 2002.

 

[Jdarg]

Thanks Scotterbug for filling me in on the "rest" of the story.

I will look forward to 6th Gen response on this.

This is an issue where you need every single bit of information on both sides to make a good decision. The actual, specific act itself, sounds abhorent to me, and should be illegal IMO, and I am on the left of this issue in general.

This "sleeper" issue will obviously play very well in conservative churches across the country, as those preaches inclined to "walk the line" of actually endorsing McCain, will certainly use it to motivate their congregations.

I love that Tom Ridge is hanging out with McCain- and is completely pro-choice.

I would certainly like to see far fewer abortions, but passing laws to get the government further involved in MEDICAL decisions is the wrong way to go.

Quit getting rid of health services, contraception, and only teaching abstinence based sex-ed if you want fewer abortions instead of messing w/ women's health!

Obviously anyone leaving a baby to die in a utility closet should be fully prosecuted (and then severely beaten and left to die in a utility closet), but that claim is so sensational and crazy that I have alot of trouble believing the nurse's claims.

People who are prochoice are NOT proabortion, even though that is the spin put on it.:roll:

If as much money and energy was put into effective sex ed, free contraception for anyone that needs it (including teens), and finally just admit that the abstinence only (and those stupid promise rings) are statistically the WORST sex ed ever - we could reduce pregnancy rate, therefore reduce the number of unwanted preganancies that end in abortion. No woman wants to have one.

He's pro-choice and presented his (IMO valid) reasoning for voting against the bills.

How does that make him further left than everybody?

It doesn't.

There is already plenty of hand wringing in the NICU regarding the resuciation of neonates at the threshold of viability. Why, oh why, oh why would anyone want to 'save' a newborn of improbable viability who has survived termination efforts in the first place? We do NOT need laws obligating physicians to practice medicine that goes above and beyond what is reasonable.

No, we don't.

If this excuse to circumvent Roe vs Wade ever became law, I can see the Terry Schiavo circus now. A bunch of crazies picketing outside a NICU to keep a 400 gram baby on life support indefinitely at an obscene cost to society against the wishes of the family.

The idea makes me shudder.

I think we as a country have more pressing issues (war, economy, education) than personal female medical decisions.

 

[6thGen]

If Obama's position is that the government need not influence its citizens' decisions when said decision does not infringe on other's rights (which it is my position that this one does), I'll back off and maybe even vote for him. Right now, that position is limited to abortion and gay marriage.

 

[scooterbug44]

How does him voting against a bill that might take medical decisions away from doctors (in the ongoing quest for anti-abortion legislation) infringe on YOUR rights?

 

[Gypsea]

I love that Tom Ridge is hanging out with McCain- and is completely pro-choice.

and probably why he will not be his VP.

 

[30A Skunkape]

6th Gen, I don't accept the premise that there was an overwhelming burden of potentially viable neonates surviving abortions. Further, I certainly doubt that the standard of care was sticking these babies in closets and waiting for them to die. That is absurd. This was obviously a feel good law.

I think it is a terrible idea to place the burden of taking care of these babies on a pediatrician. Keep in mind that elective abortions are generally NOT performed in hospitals where there is a staff pediatrician on call, thus the logistics of transporting the most fragile of infants to the nearest pediatrician are a nightmare. Once care is assumed by a pediatrician, that provider will be responsable for transport to the nearest NICU, which again, is a logistical nightmare. I see no indication in the bill that provides tort protection for physicians-so, I see a scenario where a woman presents to a clinic to abort a 25 week gestational age fetus; a 'viable' baby is delivered in the process. The neonate is transported to a pediatrician in a community hospital who does her best to keep the baby 'alive'. After a few hours, transport to a NICU is arranged. A neonatologist assumes care and after a four month taxpayer funded stay in the NICU during which time the baby is intubated and suffers severe baro-trauma to the lungs, undergoes intestinal resection for necrotizing colitis, sustains a grade IV intracranial hemorrhage, and survives two rounds of sepsis, the baby suffers a fatal septic episode. One month later, the neonatologist and pediatrician are served notice that they are being sued by the mother for failing to save the baby.

Think it can't happen? Think again-there are hundreds of John Edwards wannabes out there who would love to litigate this kind of stuff.

 

[6thGen]

How does him voting against a bill that might take medical decisions away from doctors (in the ongoing quest for anti-abortion legislation) infringe on YOUR rights?

Did I say that? I said it infringes on others' rights. The "other" is the child that is killed.