President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

Late Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an executive order doing something Democrats in Congress refused more than 80 times to do: provide medical care for babies who survive abortions.

The president had indicated earlier in the week that he would issue the order and, on Friday night, he made it official.

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under federal law,” the order reads.

With Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats rejecting the Born Alive bill over 80 times, allowing abortionists to essentially get away with infanticide, President Trump announced an executive order today that would require medical care be given to infants who are born alive after failed abortion attempts.

Law are already in place to protect babies who survive abortions are born prematurely but the laws are not being followed and not being aggressively enforced. The order would provide additional information and educate hospitals about the laws so they are followed properly.

“Despite these laws,” the order says, “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially life-saving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.”

The Executive Order responds to concerns that hospitals have refused to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to vulnerable newborns, including those who are premature, born with disabilities, or born in medical distress.  The Executive Order explains that hospitals may issue these refusals “because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

“HHS’s mission is to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, and that means all Americans—including infants born prematurely and infants with disabilities,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “The President’s Executive Order is another step by the most pro-life President in American history and ensures that we provide the same protections for innocent infants who are born premature or with disabilities that we provide for every other American.”

For instance, in May 2020, HHS determined that an Ohio hospital had failed in 2017 to ensure medical screening examinations required by EMTALA were performed for twins born prematurely (at 22 weeks gestation) who were not sent to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit and died within several hours after delivery

The Executive Order clarifies that all individuals, including these vulnerable babies, are protected under the law.  Examples of federal protections include:

The Executive Order places a number of requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

  • The Secretary must ensure that all federal funding recipients understand their obligations under federal law.  In particular:
    • They have an “obligation to provide an appropriate medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or transfer, when extremely premature infants are born alive or infants are born with disabilities.”
    • They “may not unlawfully discourage parents from seeking medical treatment for their infant child solely because of their infant child’s disability.”
    • They must “allow the infant patients to be transferred to a more suitable facility if appropriate treatment is not possible at the initial location.”
  • The Secretary shall investigate complaints of violations of federal laws that occurred respecting infants in need of stabilizing treatment whose parents sought medical care for them.  The Secretary shall take appropriate enforcement action against violations of federal law.
  • The Secretary shall “clarify, in an easily understandable format, the process by which parents and hospital staff may submit such complaints for investigation under applicable Federal laws.”
  • The Secretary shall prioritize grant funding to:
    • “Research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants …who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.”
    • “Programs and activities …that provide training to medical personnel regarding the provision of life-saving medical treatment” for these infants.

The Secretary is directed to issue regulations or guidance, as necessary, to implement this order.

Earlier in the week, President Trump signaled he would hand down the pro-life order.

“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” the president said today at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Leading pro-life groups told LifeNews.com they were delighted by the news.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) celebrated President Trump’s announcement of a new Executive Order, saying “Prematurely-born infants are some of our most vulnerable patients. As a professional medical association dedicated to caring for both patients in question during a pregnancy — the woman and her unborn child — AAPLOG applauds this commonsense order.”

Dr. Donna Harrison, MD, AAPLOG’s Executive Director, said: “AAPLOG has advocated for our most vulnerable patients since we were founded decades ago. We released a Committee Opinion on Fetal Viability during the previous Administration, and we are pleased with this morning’s announcement by the President to ensure at-risk patients receive a consistent standard of care. This is a major victory for patients and providers.”

And Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life, told LifeNews that this order adds to the long list of pro-life accomplishments during the Trump administration.

“President Trump once again has stepped up for life. His actions today provide necessary legal protections for some of the most vulnerable in society: survivors of failed abortions. These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion – an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While any abortion is one too many, the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable. These protections are a strong step in the right direction and the Senate should move quickly to codify the President’s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” she said.

“President Trump’s executive order protects the youngest of patients and ensures that their right to life is defended to the greatest extent of the law,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

“We thank President Trump for his dedication to the right to life and for working to protect all innocent human life,” said Tobias. “He is a champion for the most vulnerable among us and committed to guarding the right to life of all babies—born and unborn.”

The new order comes as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Joe Biden has never denounced the rejection of the anti-infanticide bill and his running mate Kamala Harris voted to block it in the Senate.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   10:20AM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-babies-who-survive-abortions/

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

President Donald Trump today nominated federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court justice and that nomination has the strong support of pro-life groups.

“President Trump has chosen an absolute all-star in Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as our nation’s newest Supreme Court justice,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant jurist in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, and President Trump could not have made a stronger selection to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. We have full confidence that the pro-life Senate majority will move swiftly to confirm her before the election.”

“An accomplished woman of bold conviction, Amy Barrett withstood outrageous personal attacks on her Catholic faith from pro-abortion senators with grace and integrity during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Judge Barrett has shown courage, wisdom, and brilliance during her tenure on the 7th Circuit. Her experience and expertise make her extremely qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court,” Dannenfelser continued.

During her acceptance speech, Judge Barret talked about the correct approach a judge must take: “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

That resonated with pro-life advocates like Carol Tobias, the president of National Right to Life.

“We commend President Trump for his nomination of an impressively well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court,” said Tobias. “Judge Barrett has demonstrated a commitment to defending the text and history of the Constitution and the principles of judicial restraint.”

She told LifeNews.com that President Trump’s nominee stands in stark contrast with the judicial-legislative activists who would be nominated by Joe Biden. Joe Biden has promised to impose a litmus test of his nominees.

Tobias said she expected a fierce confirmation battle over abortion during Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

“Make no mistake—this confirmation battle will be over abortion because the Democratic Party and pro-abortion Democratic senators will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified, if the nominee has not pledged in advance to uphold and maintain abortion on demand,” she explained.

“Democrats are prepared to engage in a scorched earth campaign in an effort to block an eminently qualified nominee,” said Tobias. “Shame on them. Shame on Democratic leaders in the Senate for their negative propaganda and for dragging candidates through the mud just so they can curry favor with pro-abortion groups.”

Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believes life begins at conception and has noted how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision. Barrett criticized the ruling for “ignit[ing] a national controversy” through judicial fiat.

Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit. She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”

Barrett, a mother of seven, was a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” judge.

When it comes to abortion cases, Barrett has been on the pro-life side. She voted in 2016 to allow a hearing on a pro-life law from the state of Indiana that requires abortion centers to offer a proper burial or cremation for babies they kill in abortions. And in 2019, she voted to allow a hearing on another Indiana pro-life law allowing parents to be notified when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her make a better decision for her and her baby.

Barrett has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 after being confirmed by a vote of 55-43. A summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School, she joined the school’s faculty after serving as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barrett and her husband Jesse have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. The Barretts live in South Bend, Indiana.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   6:02PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/pro-life-groups-support-scotus-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-shes-an-absolute-all-star/

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

The Supreme Court says pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. Her death will undoubtedly set off a massive campaign to determine her replacement and President Donald Trump may fight aggressively to appoint her successor — whether he is re-elected in November or if pro-abortion Joe Biden wins.

Should President Trump be able to name a replacement, the new SCOTUS justice will likely be someone who upholds the rule of law and isn’t willing to go along with left-wing judicial activism. That would make it much easier to uphold pro-life legislation saving babies from abortion — and could realistically make it possible to envision the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its allowance for abortion on demand.

Just 9 days ago President Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees from which he would nominate any future judges on the nation’s highest court if he is re-elected to a second term. The list includes the kind of conservative jurists pro-life groups support because they have a history of upholding pro-life legislation or following the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench.

Ginsburg, an idol of abortion activists, has has ruled against rights and protections for unborn babies. She also has made some discriminatory statements that are reflective of the old eugenics thinking rooted in abortion activism.

In 2019, for example, when she accepted the Berggruen Prize, she brought up poor women as a reason for her support of abortion:

Ginsburg noted that poor women are the only people being affected by lack of access to abortion.

“One of the things that happened after Roe v. Wade is that women wanted to be able to control their own destiny. They won, so they retreated. And the other side geared up, and we have the situation that we have today,” Ginsburg said. “[People should] care about it the way they did when many women didn’t have access, didn’t have the right to choose. It is so obvious that the only people restricted are poor women. One day, I think people will wake up to that reality.”

Though abortion activists portray such talk as sympathetic, their solution is not to help struggling women out of poverty but to abort their unborn babies.

In 2009, Ginsburg caused a stir when she made comments about Roe v. Wade that also hinted at eugenics.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg told the New York Times.

Then, in 2014, she told Elle magazine something similar, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

Ginsburg consistently rules against all abortion regulations and restrictions that reach the high court.

In 2016, she was one of the five justices who sided with abortion activists in the decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations that protected women’s health and safety. Ginsburg and four other justices ruled that these safety regulations were an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

She also sided with the Obama administration in trying to force nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.

After a majority of the high court justices sided with Hobby Lobby in a similar case, Ginsburg accused them of being sexist. In an interview with pro-abortion media icon Katie Couric, Ginsburg lashed out at her colleagues and claimed they have a “blind spot” towards women because they decided that Hobby Lobby should not be forced to pay for drugs that may cause abortions for their employees.

Last year, Ginsburg criticized fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for referring to women who have abortions as “mothers.”

And in October, former President Bill Clinton admitted that abortion was a major factor in his decision to nominate Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

This is a lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/18/pro-abortion-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/

Director of Genetics at Pope’s Hospital explains why it’s unethical to alter DNA

[youtube]https://youtu.be/0-cypJIZGgo[/youtube]

 

The scientific community was shocked when Chinese scientist, He JianKui, reported that he had altered the DNA of two twin babies to prevent them from carrying the AIDS virus.

Most scientists have labeled this experiment ‘excessive’ and it has triggered a great ethical debate. Bruno Dallapiccola is a geneticist and since 2010 he has been the scientific director of the Bambino Gesù hospital, known as the Pope’s hospital. He explains that this will have consequences.

PROF. BRUNO DALLAPICCOLA 
Scientific Director, Bambino Gesù Hospital 
“On a scientific level, we are accustomed to the fact that when there is a barrier and that barrier is crossed, the line is pushed further away. Now there is great uncertainty because, unfortunately, what governs our discipline is economic interest and it is likely that these interests will lead to more experiments of this type.”

The technique used to do this experiment with embryos is called CRISPR. This cuts out part of the DNA, and is reinserted again when it is genetically modified.

The professor explains that the efficacy is not definitive and that it could cause unknown side-effects over time. 

PROF. BRUNO DALLAPICCOLA 
Scientific Director, Bambino Gesù Hospital 
“The problem with these scissors is that they cut DNA from tens or hundreds of different parts of the genome. Each cut made in the genome can cause mutations or alterations in the DNA structure or function. Embryos have become a ‘something’ and not a ‘someone.’ The latter is the way we believe they should be considered.”

World legislation, even in China, prohibits the genetic alteration of an embryo. This is because it impedes the natural development of the genome, which should remain unaltered.

Bruno Dallapiccola explains that the ambition to discover the most advanced techniques causes scientific researchers to lose their humility.

PROF. BRUNO DALLAPICCOLA 
Scientific Director, Bambino Gesù Hospital 
“From a practical point of view, it is a fantasy to think that if I modify a part of the genome, I will create the perfect individual or a person free of problems. Unfortunately, today, research lacks humility. There is a term that is used a lot in genetics and it is ‘playing God,’ We researchers must realize that we are not God and come back to down to earth.”

Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as the perfect human being. The point is that these great scientific breakthroughs that currently frighten and create debates could become normal in a matter of years. The questions are: What are the ethical limits? What does this mean for the human species?

Ref: https://www.romereports.com/en/2018/12/05/director-of-genetics-at-popes-hospital-explains-why-its-unethical-to-alter-dna/

Dozens of Irish Doctors Storm Out of Meeting After They’re Told They Must Participate in Abortions

 INTERNATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   DEC 3, 2018   |   11:02AM    DUBLIN, IRELAND

Dozens of Irish doctors walked out of an emergency meeting about abortion Sunday after they said their concerns about conscience protections are being ignored.

About 300 doctors attended the meeting by the Irish College of General Practitioners EGM in Dublin to discuss the government’s plans to legalize abortions starting Jan. 1, 2019, NewsTalk reports.

Dozens walked out after complaining that leaders have been ramming through the pro-abortion legislation without consulting the medical community or giving it ample time to prepare. Many doctors also fear being forced to help abort unborn babies against their consciences.

Read the full LifeNews article here

Pro-Life Advocates Celebrate Defeat of Argentina Bill Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

 INTERNATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER   AUG 9, 2018   |   9:48AM    BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA

Pro-life advocates across the world are celebrating a major victory for unborn babies after Argentina defeated a bill Wednesday that would have legalized abortion on demand.

 

The Senate rejected the bill in a 38-31 vote Wednesday evening after the lower house of parliament passed it earlier this year. The bill would have legalized abortions for any reason up to 14 weeks and up to birth in limited circumstances, including rape.

EuroNews reports pro-lifers celebrated with fireworks and shouts of joy outside parliament in Buenos Aires after the vote. Many pro-lifers wore or waved baby blue bandannas, a symbol of the fight for unborn babies’ rights in the country, according to CBC.

Read the full LifeNews article here

The violated conscience of pharmacists

[youtube]zVLTbyrNifA[/youtube]

 
Activate the subtitles by clicking on the parameters gear wheel at the bottom right of the video
 

French pharmacist Bruno Pichon was condemned in 2016 to a temporary prohibition to exercise his activity because he refused to sell an IUD, due to its potentially abortive effect.[1] He then had to quit the profession. With the help of the ECLJ, Bruno Pichon has just filed an application at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to have his freedom of conscience respected (article 9).

Pharmacists are at the front line regarding the delivering of abortive products, and maybe tomorrow that of euthanasic products. Yet their right to conscientious objection is not explicitly recognised in French law, contrary to the other health professionals. This injustice has an impact on the everyday life of numerous pharmacists, who refuse to act against their moral conscience.

The ECLJ investigated to determine the extent of the phenomenon of “pharmacist objectors” in France and realised that Bruno Pichon is far from being an isolated case. Our video “The violated conscience of French pharmacists” presents eight testimonies of pharmacists having also suffered of the violation of their freedom of conscience.

By the “constant fidelity to their conscience maintained in uprightness and truth”, these pharmacists sometimes had to demonstrate “heroism”.[2]

Élodie thus explained: “the morning-after pill prevents the implantation and I cannot prevent this little being to live (…) in conscience, I can’t.” Just like her, her university friends who did not want to sell the morning-after pill or IUDs realised that “in practice, it is not possible”. They had to abandon the exercise of their profession or were fired.

In order to rectify this situation, 85% of pharmacists expressed their wish that a clause of conscience be added to their code of ethics.[3] The socialist government had firmly opposed this, for fear of the “right” to abortion and contraception to be questioned. Josiane, a pharmacist, considers that it amounts to scornfully saying: “you’re there just to sell boxes, just shut up and do what you’re told to.”

In our investigation, Bruno Pichon explains his request action at the ECHR: “I mainly think about the young colleagues who are obliged to quit this job that they chose, about all those who work, and would like to work in accordance with their convictions, all those people who are refused this right.” The Court will decide in the forthcoming months whether it accepts to judge this case. If so, its ruling will only take place in a few years: the ECLJ’s fight for freedom of conscience is thus long-winded.

The ECHR may in fine prove Bruno Pichon right and condemn France, in accordance with its case-law. The Court indeed asserted in 2011 that it is up to the States to “ensure (…) an effective exercise of the freedom of conscience of health professionals”.[4] Resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe confirmed the “right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care”.[5]

Read Grégor Puppinck’s study on: Conscientious Objection and Human Rights (CNRS, 2016).

Protecting freedom of conscience of health professionals, particularly pharmacists, implies to guarantee their right not to take part in an act which might harm a human life. For the ECLJ, such a conscience clause is also indispensable to the coherence of liberal societies. Indeed, the counterpart to the freedom given to individuals regarding such practices morally debated must be the right not to be forced to contribute to these practices.

Read the article of Grégor Puppinck (Le Figaro, translation): What place for freedom of conscience in liberal societies ?

The European Centre for Law and Justice is an international, Non-Governmental Organization created in 1998 and dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights in Europe and worldwide. To learn more click here

 

 

Ambassador Nikki Haley Defends Decision to Leave Pro-Abortion UN Human Rights Council

 INTERNATIONAL   RACHEL DEL GUIDICE   JUL 18, 2018   |  6:37PM WASHINGTON, DC

The United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council has nothing to do with its commitment to human rights, Ambassador Nikki Haley said Wednesday in a fiery speech at The Heritage Foundation.

 

“No one should make the mistake of equating membership in the Human Rights Council with support for human rights. To this day, the United States does more for human rights, both inside the U.N., and around the world, [than] any other country. And we will continue to do that,” said Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in prepared remarks.

“We just won’t do it inside a council that consistently fails the cause of human rights.”

Read the full LifeNews article here