9/26/00 11:05 a.m.
Staying Alive
The House votes for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act 2000 today.

By Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate

he Born-Alive Infants Protection Act 2000, which passed the House Judiciary Committee 22 to 1 on July 26, is scheduled to go to the House floor for a vote today. Sponsored by Republican Charles Canady of Florida, the bill would provide federal protection to living, fully born babies who survive abortions.

The legislation reaffirms and codifies in federal statute that "infants who are born alive are persons entitled to the protection of the law, and that live birth occurs whenever an infant, at any stage of development, is expelled from the mother's body and displays any of several specific signs of life — breathing, a heartbeat, or definite movement of voluntary muscles."

Given the contentious history of abortion in our country — and the ferociousness of pro-abortion groups, like NARAL, which support live-birth abortions — it is no surprise that the definition of what it means to be a "child born alive" must be drawn more clearly at the federal level. Years after Roe v. Wade established the right to an abortion, Stenberg v. Carhart extended the right to abort to include the killing of "partially born" children. And because Planned Parenthood v. Casey adhered to the idea that the government's interest in protecting the unborn child is related to "viability," some have wrongly concluded that infants who have been born alive are not persons if they are not yet "viable," or were intended to be aborted.

Despite what Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun himself pointed out in Roe — that a baby, once born, is indeed a person protected by the Constitution — babies who have been fully born and are breathing on their own continue to be aborted. Critics say this comes far closer to simple infanticide than any medical procedure.

On July 20, 2000, Allison Baker, a registered nurse working at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, presented testimony on three particular cases of "therapeutic abortions" (induced-labor abortions or live-birth abortions) to the House Subcommittee on the Constitution during a hearing on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act 2000:

The first occurred on a day shift. I happened to walk into a 'soiled utility room' and saw, lying on the metal counter, a fetus, naked, exposed and breathing, moving its arms and legs. The fetus was visibly alive, and was gasping for breath. I left to find the nurse who was caring for the patient and fetus. When I asked her about the fetus, she said that she was so busy with the mother that she didn't have time to wrap and place the fetus in the warmer, and she asked if I would do that for her. Later I found out that the fetus was 22 weeks old, and had undergone a therapeutic abortion because it had been diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. I did wrap the fetus and place him in a warmer and for two and a half hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then finally expired.

It is not implausible, given the precedents set by Roe, Carhart, and Casey, that live-born babies will not be protected by the Constitution in the future. The history of abortion in the United States shows just how slippery the slope really was: First it was about establishing a right to an abortion. Then it was about establishing the right to abortion of a partially delivered baby. Next it may be about establishing the right to deliver a baby whole before having it killed.

With the future balance of the courts at stake in this election, this may be the last chance for Congress to establish the once common sense idea that, whole, live babies are human beings.