CNN has altered its report on a bill that would require medical professionals to provide medical care to a baby that survived an abortion attempt.
CNN’s original report suggested a baby born after a botched abortion was somehow different than all other babies. The report was about Sen. Ben Sasse’s (R-NE) bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, and described the bill as requiring “abortion providers to work to ‘preserve the life and health’ of a fetus that was born following an attempted abortion as they would for a newborn baby, or face up to five years in prison.”
It was the latest example in a long line of left-leaning media outlets attempting to soften abortion for their audiences, The Daily Wire reported.
On Wednesday, CNN updated the article by removing the ridiculous phrasing, though in a “clarification” note at the bottom of the article the outlet says it merely updated the story “to more precisely reflect the language used in Sasse’s bill” and to add “additional developments Tuesday.”
Gone is the language suggesting abortion survivors are not babies. It has been replaced with a quote from Sasse’s actual bill:
The second bill to be considered Tuesday is the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, pertains to cases in which “an abortion results in the live birth of an infant.” It would require abortion providers to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” Opponents have argued that such measures restrict abortion access by threatening health care providers.
Yes, threatening health care providers to provide health care – something abortion supporters don’t want, apparently.
The article still paints Sasse’s bill as an “abortion restriction” bill even though it says nothing about a woman’s ability to get an abortion. The bill only states that if a baby survives an abortion, it receives medical care rather than be left to die. Democrats and their media supporters, however, have been increasingly in favor of infanticide in recent years.
Democrats, except for Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Doug Jones of Alabama, continue to vote against Sasse’s bill. Last year, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA) made comments on a radio program suggesting that a baby could be killed after it was born if the mother so wanted (emphasis added):
This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.
Sasse’s bill has been routinely misinterpreted by Democrats and their media supporters. Earlier this month, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) suggested the bill was unnecessary because infanticide is already illegal.
“Infanticide is indeed illegal in the U.S., and yet in half of the states, there is no criminalization of walking away from the baby and allowing it to die by exposure,” Sasse responded. “There’s an active-passive distinction and a state-federal distinction which are both pretty fundamental.”