Anti-Infanticide bill demonizes women, creates false narrative

Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse entered a bill into deliberation in late February of 2019 named the  ‘Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act’. Though shot down in the senate, the proposition has resulted in widespread media attention and harsh backlash. While defendants argue that the bill protects a living, breathing child, critics say that the bill is a desperate attempt to limit reproductive health and further demonize women seeking abortions and abortion providers.

The latter is, unfortunately, much more likely. Articles in defense of Sasse have noted that, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 364 children were ‘born alive’ following a botched abortion in the nine-year period between 2001 and 2010. In that timespan, a very modest estimate of 9.5 million abortions took place. This means that the chances of this situation occurring are roughly .005%.

However, just because live abortions occur at a remarkably low rate does not mean that they do not happen. While the percentages deem the issue statistically insignificant, the right to life is considered inalienable. Sasse proposes that doctors at abortion clinics who fail to attempt to save the life of a child who is born alive and/or transport them to the hospital face fines and prison time.

The problem is not that Sasse is wrong in theory—if babies were being aborted alive and forced to die on abortion clinic tables, he may have had a point. Instead, he gravely mischaracterized an issue that happens to be a non-issue in an attempt to pass pro-life legislation at any cost. It biologically impossible for a fetus to survive on its own outside of the womb during the first or second trimesters, meaning that Sasses’ bill targets third-trimester abortions. It is widely known, even by pro-life activists, that third trimester abortions happen at a rate of roughly 1%.

All but nine states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that restrict abortion access once a woman reaches her third trimester of pregnancy—between twenty-six and thirty-six weeks.

Additionally, there comes into question a debate about fetal viability and the definition of life. If a child is born alive during an abortion during the third trimester, there is a strong possibility that they will die within moments of exiting the womb. In the off chance that a live abortion did occur, abortion providers would be expected to use all available resources to save a child that is most likely going to die within hours, if not minutes—and if they do not, they may face time in prison. Doctors would be forced to attempt necessitation under this bill, even if it goes against the wishes of the family or would prolong the suffering of a newborn child.

This is not to say that medical providers should let a baby die if they miraculously survive and are still viable following a botched abortion. The problem is that the chances of this are literally less than one in a million, and the bill proposed by Sasse leads the public to believe that there is an epidemic of infanticide, which is simply not true. In cases where a child remains alive following a botched abortion, the guidelines at abortion clinics specifically state that protocol is to transport the baby to a hospital to receive treatment.

Not to mention, an eerily similar bill was already put into law decades ago, named the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.

The ‘anti-infanticide’ bill may have failed in the Senate, but it undoubtedly accomplished Sasses’ goal. Republicans now have fuel to add to the false narrative that Democrats are pro-infanticide baby-killers and may have instilled a sense of fear into impressionable women who are in need of abortion services. On a surface level, Sasses’ bill paints him as a pro-life figurehead. Scratch past that, and it is an obviously calculated move of political intimidation.