George Theberge was there when 26-year-old Alexandra Eckersley gave birth prematurely in the woods in Manchester NH in late December. The couple abandoned the child, leaving him in a tent in 15-degree weather for more than an hour. Then they misdirected first responders during those crucial minutes, leaving the newborn on the verge of death.

Earlier this week, Theberge was arrested on charges of reckless conduct and endangering the welfare of a child.

When a premature baby is struggling to survive in a New Hampshire woods, abandoned by his mother, he should be resuscitated, nourished, warmed—whatever he needs to live.

And yet, when a premature baby is struggling to survive under a fluorescent lamp in sterile conditions, abandoned by a man in latex gloves with the letters “DR” in front of his name, that baby can be left to die—no problem.

This week 210 House Democrats voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Think about that: 210 Democrats voted against providing life-saving care to a baby who survives a late-term abortion.

The Act requires that a health-care professional present following an attempted abortion exercises “the same degree of care as would reasonably be provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” The health-care professional must “ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

In other words, the abortionist must treat the unwanted baby as if she’s wanted.

In today’s twisted world, where a “Termination of Pregnancy” has become a routine medical procedure, you can imagine how hard it is to get accurate statistics on how often a born-alive scenario occurs.

Still, Congressional Democrats cited no such numbers during the debate on the House floor.

Instead they argued that bringing the struggling baby to a hospital might kill the baby. Yes, that’s right.

“The problem with this bill,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler of Manhattan, “is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois had a similar sentiment. She said the legislation “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital. That hospital could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby.”

Perhaps someone should inform the Democrat statesmen about the intended effects of abortion on the baby, or would they prefer to use the more anodyne word “fetus?”

Here’s the real reason the Democrats are up-in-arms. Leaving a baby to perish on an operating table would result, on paper, in a successful abortion. A failed abortion results in a live baby. For an abortionist, a “perfect record” is when 50% of human beings leave their clinic alive.

The only harm caused by this Act will be to the abortionist’s professional record.

Another inconvenient truth: Democrats need Big Abortion dollars, and Planned Parenthood won’t be too thrilled about having to provide actual medical care to infants.

Speaking of the abortion lobby, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who still hasn’t gotten around to removing “Speaker” from her Twitter profile, called the bill part of the Republican Party’s “extreme, anti-choice agenda.”

Today, instead of joining Democrats to condemn all political violence, @HouseGOP chose to push their extreme anti-choice agenda.

Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation or harassment.

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 11, 2023

On the 2022 midterm campaign trail, Democrats frightened swing voters and their base with this toxic rhetoric. They’d thunder that there are only two sides of the abortion coin: the reasonable versus the extreme, a variation on Bill Clinton’s disingenuous old rhetoric about keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare.”

The “reasonable” side intends to codify abortion—at any time and for any reason—in the United States Constitution. Parental consent for minors must be done away with. Abortion pills must be on-demand at your local pharmacy. Tax dollars must subsidize abortion for those who cannot afford it. Women need this, and this is the only way to do it.

Meanwhile, they’d paint the Republican platform and red state laws as wildly fringe. They sprinkle in bald-face lies about ectopic pregnancy and life-of-the-mother clauses.

What will you actually find in the RNC platform? Opposition to government-funded abortions. Opposition to dismemberment of a fully developed infant. Support for parental consent for minors.

Even our most pro-life Republicans support a “10th Amendment” take on abortion, where each state may decide where to draw the line on the right to life. As far as the abortion argument goes, the GOP’s official position is pretty wimpy.

Call me “extreme.” But I believe a baby on the verge of death deserves to be saved—whether he’s abandoned in the woods or in an operating room. The little guy is valuable regardless of his location, regardless of the treatment he needs, and regardless of the hit to someone’s professional record if he survives.

Almost every Democrat in the House voted to let that baby suffocate, starve, or bleed to death. It’s the reasonable opinion, after all.

The post Democrats Vote to Let Babies Perish on Operating Table appeared first on HCRN.

This content was originally published here.

Michael Bourdon

Michael Bourdon


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *