Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
Voting judges out of office based on the abortion issue is a matter of controversy. There should be no controversy, however, on voting against presidential ...
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
Similar bill passed in 2002 - Obama voted against:
H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
When the baby is born after a botched abortion, the mom should have NO say in what happens to the baby. The legislation only wanted to extend legal protections to the baby.
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
Sally is not big on facts. She’s big on biased clickbait.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
Similar bill passed in 2002 - Obama voted against:
H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
Yes, that was point 3. This current (2020) bill was unnecessary because it added unnecessary regulations and burden, when the infants in question were already protected.
The author of that opinion piece is a pro-Trump nutjob.
Many senators voted against the bill in question for several reasons:
1) Health care providers on site should have final say in what’s best for the infant and mother. Not some religious zealots in Washington.
2) The bill requires immediate transport to a hospital. This may not be in the best interest of the infant, if better care can be provided at the current location.
3) The law has always protected newborn infants from intentional harm and medical negligence. A point reiterated in the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002.
Donald Bohlken, being a disingenuous piece of excrement, failed to mention any of these points in his tirade that reads like a four year old throwing a tantrum.
When the baby is born after a botched abortion, the mom should have NO say in what happens to the baby. The legislation only wanted to extend legal protections to the baby.
The infants were already protected. Thus, it was conservative showboating to add more regulations and burden with zero benefit.
The mom shouldn’t have a say, but some bozo in Washington should?
Does that apply to all policies - education, vaccination, etc…? Or do you only think the federal government should get final say in this case?
Similar bill passed in 2002 - Obama voted against:
H.R.2175 - Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
Yes, that was point 3. This current (2020) bill was unnecessary because it added unnecessary regulations and burden, when the infants in question were already protected.
So the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2022 protected infants born alive with legal protections?
When the baby is born after a botched abortion, the mom should have NO say in what happens to the baby. The legislation only wanted to extend legal protections to the baby.
The infants were already protected. Thus, it was conservative showboating to add more regulations and burden with zero benefit.
The mom shouldn’t have a say, but some bozo in Washington should?
Does that apply to all policies - education, vaccination, etc…? Or do you only think the federal government should get final say in this case?
Why should the mom have any say? She aborted the baby and it is no longer in the womb. That ship has sailed. The mom shoulld have NO say in what happens to the baby now.
Yes, that was point 3. This current (2020) bill was unnecessary because it added unnecessary regulations and burden, when the infants in question were already protected.
So the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2022 protected infants born alive with legal protections?
The infants were already protected. Thus, it was conservative showboating to add more regulations and burden with zero benefit.
The mom shouldn’t have a say, but some bozo in Washington should?
Does that apply to all policies - education, vaccination, etc…? Or do you only think the federal government should get final say in this case?
Why should the mom have any say? She aborted the baby and it is no longer in the womb. That ship has sailed. The mom shoulld have NO say in what happens to the baby now.
You mean the health care professionals should make the decision?
"I'll tell you the funniest thing. I'll go backstage before a Miss Teen USA show, and everyone's getting dressed and ready and everything and no men are anywhere. And I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it. You know, I'm inspecting. The girls (14-16) are standing there with no clothes on. And you see these incredible looking women (teens), and so, I sort of get away with things like that" - Trump
But maybe if your maturity is at below the level of the teenagers you’re looking at, it’s ok ??
And then imagine that one day you’re the POTUS. And that’s STILL not NEARLY enough to fill the bottomless pit of your insecurity ??
Kamala Harris and Gov. Walz are IN FAVOR OF INFANTICIDE.
How can any of you Libs support these sickos?!?
They have both voted to deny care, i.e., kill, babies who survive botched abortions Dont you LIBS ever talk about how bad Trump is. Harris and Walz okay killing babies. Just sick.
