Sen. Hassan Replies to Message on Born-Alive Bill

I heard back from Sen. Hassan in reply to my emailed request to her that she support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Her message appears to have nothing to do with the bill, which calls for care of children who survive attempted abortion. I note that she arrived at her position after, in her words, “careful consideration.”

If I hear from Sen. Shaheen, I’ll post her reply as well.

Thank you for contacting me with your support for S. 311, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I value your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to write to me about this important issue.

Late term abortions in the United States are exceedingly rare and occur in the context of complex and difficult health care decisions. I believe patients — in these situations women — must be provided the freedom, privacy, and dignity to make these decisions in consultation with their health care providers and family, in accordance with their consciences, and free from government interference. If a proposed law does not meet this standard, I will be compelled to oppose it.

Thank you again for writing to share your thoughts, and I hope that you keep in touch with me. Though we may not see eye to eye on this issue, I take your concerns seriously and hope that you know I arrived at my position after careful consideration. For more information on this and other important issues please visit my website at https://www.Hassan.Senate.Gov/.

Senators Shaheen and Hassan Vote Against Protecting Abortion Survivors

The U.S. Senate failed to advance the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act today when a cloture motion fell short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster. New Hampshire Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan voted No on the bill to prohibit a health care practitioner from “failing to exercise the proper degree of care” in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

The bill’s chief sponsor is Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). After hearing speeches from Democrat colleagues who called the bill a threat to “reproductive health care,” he said, “I know a lot of opponents of this bill sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs. We’ve heard speech after speech after speech that have nothing to do with what’s actually in this bill. I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air. That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”

Senators Hassan and Shaheen refused to support the bill to protect abortion survivors.

From Senator Hassan on Twitter (@SenatorHassan): “Tonight, I voted NO on yet another partisan attack on reproductive health care. Women, families and their doctors are capable of making these complicated medical decisions without government interference.”

From Senator Shaheen (@SenatorShaheen): “The bill forced by Senate Republicans today would significantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship & pose new obstacles to a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions about her reproductive health.”

If “reproductive health care,” “a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions,” and “complicated medical decisions” include infanticide, then the New Hampshire Senators’ tweets and votes make sense. Otherwise, I have no idea what bill they thought they were voting on.

Must-read column by David Freddoso: “A Tale of Two Massacres”

Please read and share this column by David Freddoso. When you’re done, review this news story from Florida about a Planned Parenthood employee saying that infanticide – specifically, killing a child who survives a abortion – should be a matter between a woman and her doctor. (Planned Parenthood has since issued a “clarification,” saying that “appropriate care” should be given.)

Planned Parenthood defining appropriate care: there’s food for thought. But I digress.

I am indebted to Freddoso of the Washington Examiner for his insightful column published yesterday. He succinctly summarizes the ghastly murder charges against abortionist Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. He compares those murders at the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Then he gets to a question I would like to pose to every New Hampshire legislator who has opposed increased regulation of New Hampshire abortion facilities:

“Many have asked what kind of law they could pass to prevent the next Newtown. Few are writing about how to prevent the next Kermit Gosnell. Given the frequent claim that abortion is safer for being legal, and the eagerness of the abortion rights lobby to distance itself from Gosnell, why such incredible and inflexible resistance to basic safety regulations?”

We’ve seen resistance in New Hampshire to even the slightest increased oversight of abortion facilities. We’ve seen resistance to identifying who is performing the procedures. Yet whenever there is a relevant hearing in Concord, women with soothing voices and moving anecdotes and paychecks from abortion providers assure legislators that more regulation is unnecessary.

Is there a Gosnell in New Hampshire? I hope not. I’ll venture a guess that the spokeswomen for abortion facilities hope not. We’re taking an awful lot on faith, though, especially when New Hampshire does not mandate abortion reporting. Late-term abortions? No one knows how many, or where they are done, or by whom, or how women fare afterwards, or what happens to children who survive abortions. In New Hampshire, is a woman seeking abortion entitled to a termination of pregnancy or to a dead baby?  Gosnell forces me to consider the difference.

We shudder and then become outraged, rightly so, when six-year-olds are murdered at school. We have Congressional hearings and increased activity in legislatures nationwide about preventing more such atrocities. Where’s the similar outrage over Gosnell? Where are the hearings about preventing deaths like the ones of the infants whose bodies were found at his “clinic”? Will the woman whose death has been laid at his door become the face of abortion regulation efforts?

When I hear it can’t happen here in New Hampshire, I fear the real message is I don’t want to know. Get over it. Mandatory reporting is overdue.