How Can It Be Right to Kill 20-Week-Old Babies in the Womb?

It is almost unimaginable that 46 senators would vote against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduces the Senate version of the 'Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act' during a news conference with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (L) and leaders from other pro-life groups in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill October 5, 2017 in Washington, DC.

By Michael Brown Published on January 30, 2018

It’s almost unimaginable that 46 senators would vote against the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. But that’s just what happened yesterday, with two Republicans joining 42 Democrats to cast their truly vile vote.

We’re talking about outlawing abortions for babies 20 weeks old or more. Even then there are exceptions for abortions deemed necessary “to save the life of the pregnant woman, or … when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.”

How could 46 senators (including all but five Democrats — three who voted for and two who didn’t vote at all) vote against this humane act?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

Abortion is evil enough even in the early stages of a pregnancy. But aborting a baby 20-weeks or older is an act of savagery. To vote against passing the Pain-Capable bill is an act of moral perversion.

Party of Death

For some years now, the Democratic Party has distinguished itself as the party of death. Its abortion plank gets more and more radical with each election. As pro-life leader Marjorie Dannenfelser pointed out in Time magazine in 2016, the Democrat position has been on a steep and steady decline for the last two decades.

In 1996, “the DNC adopted a platform that characterized abortion as a ‘difficult issue’ and because of that, ‘we respect the individual conscience of each American.’ It called for making abortion ‘less necessary’ and ‘more rare.’”

LifeSiteNews noted the contrast in 2016.

The Democratic Party’s 2016 platform pledges to “stand up” for Planned Parenthood, fund abortion nationwide and around the world, vows to “overturn” state and federal restrictions on abortion, proposes cracking down on pro-life sidewalk counselors, and affirms abortion as “core” to people’s “health and well-being.”

In keeping with this platform of death, 42 out of 47 Democrats voted against the Pain-Capable bill, to their lasting shame and reproach. (That shame and reproach is shared by the two Republicans who joined them.)

But another thing makes this whole story all the more ironic. The one leading the way in slamming the Senate is none other than Donald Trump. He has become the staunchest, most outspoken pro-life president in our history. Three years ago, who would have believed this?

This was the statement he issued on the official White House site:

Recently, when I addressed the 45th annual March for Life, I called on the Senate to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, important legislation that would protect our most vulnerable. It is disappointing that despite support from a bipartisan majority of U.S. Senators, this bill was blocked from further consideration. Scientific studies have demonstrated that babies in the womb feel pain at twenty weeks. The vote by the Senate rejects scientific fact and puts the United States out of the mainstream in the family of nations, in which only 7 out of 198 nations, including China and North Korea, allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves. I urge the Senate to reconsider its decision and pass legislation that will celebrate, cherish, and protect life.

Kudos to you, Mr. President.

Premature Babies Surviving

In 2015, Newsweek reported on a major study published by the New England Journal of Medicine. The study indicated that “premature babies born at 22 weeks are more likely to survive outside the womb than previously thought.”

Last November, CNN ran a story about the daughter of Courtney Stensrud and her husband. She was born at just 21 weeks and four days, but was three-years-old at the time of the article. She is described as “fun-loving” and “spunky” and even attending pre-school.

In the words of her mom,

If you didn’t know that she was so preemie, you would think she’s a normal 3-year-old. In her school, she is keeping up with all the other 3-year-olds. She loves playing with other kids. She loves everything I think a normal 3-year-old likes. She loves her baby dolls, she loves books, and she loves make-believe. She loves anything and everything her (older) brother is doing.

Her survival and health are truly miraculous, but they also stand as a reminder of just how developed a 21-week-old baby is in the womb.

Take a moment and look at the picture of this precious little girl at three-weeks old, wearing her parents’ wedding rings on her tiny arm. Then think of the 46 senators who voted to continue killing babies like this in the womb. What possible justification could they have for their vote?

After 45 years of pushing back against Roe v. Wade with a committed pro-life movement in America, we are one of just seven countries that allows abortions for babies of this age. How can that be?

The painful answer is that most Americans are still asleep in the light. Still failing to take seriously the horror of abortion. Still looking to far too few to change our culture and our laws.

May God have mercy on America, and may He help us to repent before it’s too late.

 

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that three Republicans voted against the bill along with 43 Democrats, and that there are 46 Democrats in the Senate. Two Republicans joined 42 Democrats and two independents in voting against the bill. There are currently 47 Democrats in the Senate.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • “Vile vote” is the perfect characterization. I say primary the three Republicans that voted for it.

    • Dant e

      I would add heinous and abominable

  • Alex Smith

    Unconscionable. After my wife and I watched some of yesterday’s archived floor proceedings on this issue, we compared the historic arguments both for and against slavery in both the United States and England with the arguments given both for and against this bill yesterday.

    It was truly shocking to see how very clearly the social, economic, moral, scientific and cultural reasons pro-choice senators were using to oppose this bill yesterday matched hand in glove with the social, economic, moral, scientific, and cultural reasons anti-abolitionists used to support slavery centuries ago. On the flip side, the arguments used yesterday by pro-life senators mirrored in many ways the arguments used by the abolitionists in their time. It’s one thing to hear the two despicable institutions loosely compared, but the similarities came alive in new ways when we sat down and compared the two side-by-side.

    Our exercise served us with a reminder that there is truly nothing new under the sun–issues take on new forms with the same values, thoughts, and arguments behind them. I’m thankful for a constitution that recognizes this reality. The truth on any matter is self-evident, with the natural order there to serve as its proof. As falsehoods can appear to have a stronghold in the here and now, they will eventually crumble–it is only a function of how virtuous we choose to be and how long we choose to suppress the truth.

    We must be patient and persistent in pressing this issue. I am confident that we will live to see legalized abortion continue to diminish. I pray we will live to see it completely abolished.

    • Paul

      Interesting remarks. In both instances there is a degree of dehumanizing the victims in the justification of the violence. Worse yet the institution of abortion has been used to victimize the same people group as slavery and beyond.

      • Alex Smith

        Great observation. The facade of legitimacy for the pro-choice and pro-slavery arguments are due, in large part, to their steadfast commitment to use euphemisms to present their case, as well as the fact that much of what they espouse true–if the unborn is not a person. On my count, not a single dissenting senator even attempted to defend the notion that the unborn is not a person yesterday.

        As long as our elected pro-choice advocates maintain their position, their commitment to avoiding the personhood issue will only continue to push them more toward the extreme end of the spectrum. Once the roof finally comes off (or some other incentive too tempting to deny comes along), they will have no choice but to change their view. This kind of thinking is completely instep with the disgraceful human rights legacy of the American Democratic Party.

        When we finally decide to end this despicable institution, I can only help but wonder how the Left will try and take credit…

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    What motivation other than blind political partisanship could motivate almost every democratic senator to go thumbs down on this bill. These senators would have fit in well w/the ancient roman senate that would give the same thumbs down for a defenseless captured runaway slave girl.
    Though this vote represents the epitome of political bias gone wild , there is much more than mere politics going on here. We who know the Author of life are neither ignorant nor impervious to the reality of evil. Evil transcends bad as readily as grace transcends good.
    Good & bad being relative concepts in relative contexts. Evil is not “relative”. Grace is much more than good. Grace is absolute. Evil is definitive. Definitive of that categorically vile personality unseen behind the thoughts of those who can so blatantly disregard the “sanctity of life “& replace it w/a bankrupt political ideology.
    Life is precious. Politics not so much ….

  • Paul

    Did I miss it or was abortion missing in the SOTU?

    • Concerned Christian

      ironic isn’t it.

    • Hannah

      So was climate change, but then again, the President was hitting on things that had headlined throughout last year. He’s championed religious freedom and encouraged cleaner energy, both of which fly in the face of their opposing sides. He didn’t talk about every single topic, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a stance on it.

      • Paul

        Yes, I agree he can have a position on a topic that he didn’t mention, but I view that forum as one where a POTUS discusses topics that are important to him.

  • Bonnie Cripe

    It would seem to me that this type of abortion is tantamount to the torture from centuries past when people were put on stretchers that pulled them limb from limb. I wonder if theses senators ever thought about this?

  • with two Republicans joining 42 Democrats to cast their truly vile vote.

    Vile to support abortion? No, what’s vile is the focus on abortion when the focus should be on reducing unwanted pregnancies. America before Roe v. Wade had more abortions per capita than we do now (admittedly, statistics are suspect because it was largely illegal). Or, look at countries today where abortion is illegal–the rates are higher than we have in the US today.

    Want to reduce abortions by 90%? Then do what the countries that have low rates of abortions do: provide comprehensive sex ed in schools plus easy access to contraception. If you say that that’s not where you want to go, then expect your audience to reject your claim that abortion is that big a deal.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      No, what vile is voting to support the systematic murder of the most helpless, innocent of human life so they can be butchered and sold off for parts. And it’s just as vile to compare not supporting that with not having a greater focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies.

      “If you say that that’s not where you want to go, then expect your audience to reject your claim that abortion is that big a deal.”

      I’ve VERY tempted to use a few adjectives to describe that. Instead I’ll just say consider the source and I’m QUITE confident that our audience won’t be rejecting our claim that abortion is a big deal because of someone who has such a skewed POV regarding the murder of babies.

      Besides, providing comprehensive sex ed in schools plus easy access to contraception has proven over and over again in this country alone that it does NOT reduce unwanted pregnancies. In fact, it has created more right along with the relaxed and even non-existent sexual mores of years gone by.

      Wanna REALLY reduce unwanted pregnancies? Start teaching abstinence and that failure to obey God’s laws of no sex outside of marriage is a Sin and the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)

      • No, what vile is voting to support the systematic murder of the most helpless, innocent of human life so they can be butchered and sold off for parts.

        “Sell off for parts”? No, I don’t think so. Besides, giving fetus for research purposes (and getting reimbursed for costs) is hardly the purpose of abortion.

        When “human life” is just a single cell (at the far end of the 9-month gestation period), that term now encompasses very important things (you and me) and things that have no inherent value (a microscopic cell). Sure, that might become a person in 9 months, but then you’re using the Argument from Potential—it ain’t a person now . . . but it will be.

        Instead I’ll just say consider the source and I’m QUITE confident that our audience won’t be rejecting our claim that abortion is a big deal because of someone who has such a skewed POV regarding the murder of babies.

        Which does nothing to explain any error I might have made.

        Tip: if you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a baby. You can personally call it a baby and treat it like one; it’s when you demand that your moral views be imposed on the rest of society that we have a problem.

        Besides, providing comprehensive sex ed in schools plus easy access to contraception has proven over and over again in this country alone that it does NOT reduce unwanted pregnancies.

        Show me the studies, because that’s not what I’ve read.

        I presume you’ve seen the correlation between abstinence-only sex ed and high teen pregnancy rates? Let’s focus on the policies that work (and whatever it is we’re doing now doesn’t seem to be working).

        Wanna REALLY reduce unwanted pregnancies? Start teaching abstinence and that failure to obey God’s laws of no sex outside of marriage is a Sin and the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)

        You’re a funny guy! I’m pretty sure we’ve tried abstinence and God over and over in parts of the US. It’s not working.

        This is tangential, but, while you can find support and inspiration anywhere you want, including the Bible, religious arguments make no sense in support of law in a country governed by a secular constitution.

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          “No, I don’t think”

          Correct. You don’t.

          “Besides, giving fetus for research purposes (and getting reimbursed for costs) is hardly the purpose of abortion.”

          Correct again. It’s the purpose of Planned Parenthood. The abortion provider. And btw, it’s a baby.

          “When “human life” is just a single cell (at the far end of the 9-month gestation period), that term now encompasses very important things (you and me) and things that have no inherent value (a microscopic cell). Sure, that might become a person in 9 months, but then you’re using the Argument from Potential—it ain’t a person now . . . but it will be.”

          Your narcissistic psychotic self-imposed god-complex by which you exercise your faux omniscience has failed you miserably.

          It is a human being from the moment of conception.

          For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
          (Psa 139:13-14)

          ““Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”(Jer 1:5)

          “Tip: if you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a baby. You can personally call it a baby and treat it like one; it’s when you demand that your moral views be imposed on the rest of society that we have a problem.”

          Only if the “we” is defined as the spiritually-dead, totally-depraved, sons of disobedience and children of wrath who do their daddy, Satan’s bidding.

          Everybody understands as evidenced by “When is your baby due?” “Oh, you’re with child?” Do you know if your baby is a girl or boy yet?” “Oh, I’m so sorry to hear you lost your baby.” Etc Etc.

          “Show me the studies, because that’s not what I’ve read.”

          Deep reading. Try looking in places you wouldn’t normally go.

          “I presume you’ve seen the correlation between abstinence-only sex ed and high teen pregnancy rates? Let’s focus on the policies that work (and whatever it is we’re doing now doesn’t seem to be working).”

          Trust me when I say the LAST thing I’d ever do is focus on anything you recommend. Abstinence is the ONLY thing that is proven to work 100% of the time.

          “You’re a funny guy!”

          Thank you. I actually am. And thanks for the fine public demonstration that you can’t tell a serious fact from humor.

          ” I’m pretty sure we’ve tried abstinence and God over and over in parts of the US. It’s not working.”

          Wrong again. Like I said, it works 100% of the time.

          “This is tangential, but, while you can find support and inspiration anywhere you want, including the Bible, religious arguments make no sense in support of law in a country governed by a secular constitution.”

          Thank you for another fine public demonstration that you either illiterate, too stupid to understand simple English, fail to possess anything beyond 2nd Grade Reading Comprehension or just too blinded by your own evil agenda as to actually understand the Constitution for it is NOT a “secular Constitution”.

          “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

          Psssst, that’s a Founding Father. And I got PLENTY more where that came from. Or you could just look at your money, the National Anthem, Our Motto. Etc.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Two more pieces of evidence. 1) One is either a Poser or a brand new baby in Christ that is totally oblivious to what the Dems actually stand for and are doing in order to call yourself a Christian and vote for a Democrat. 2) The GOP is going in the same direction. This was evidenced during the last RNC.

Inspiration
Promise of the Priesthood, Part 3: You’re a Worship Leader
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us