In the latest example of pro-abortion doublespeak, U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) stated that a proposed bill requiring hospital care for babies who survive abortion is “dangerous.”

Seriously?! Mandating hospital care could be dangerous for the baby?

And should we be skeptical of Rep. Nadler’s genuine concern for this baby, since he would have fully supported the mother’s attempt to abort this same child?

To quote Nadler directly,

“The problem with this bill is that it endangers some infants by stating that that infant must immediately be brought to the hospital.” He added, “It directs and mandates certain medical care, which may not be appropriate, which maybe [sic] endanger the life of an infant in certain circumstances.”

Rep. Nadler was referring to the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 26) proposed by Rep. Ann Wagner on January 9. As posted on the Congress.gov website, “This bill establishes requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.”

So, in the event that the baby, targeted for termination in the womb, somehow survives the abortion procedure, the health care provider who is present must give that baby the exact same care that would be given “to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

And, assuming that the abortion took place in an abortion clinic rather than a hospital, that health care practitioner must “ensure the child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

That is the very least that should be done for this little survivor, and one would think that every adult with a beating heart would agree that this bill should become law.

As for how many babies actually survive abortion attempts, according to the Abortion Survivors website, “17,855 babies have survived abortion since 1973.” (Assuming that this number relies on actual reports, this might be a very low number.)

Yet not only did Rep. Nadler, together with all but two of his Democratic colleagues, vote against this bill, he actually branded it “dangerous.” Yes, said Nadler, it is not that this bill adds any protections to this infant (which Nadler has claimed have long been in place). Rather, it is that the bill “endangers” the baby by mandating that the child be brought to a hospital, since this may not be the best medical option.

Seconding this opinion was U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-Chicago) who opined that the bill “could create more harm” for the baby since it “requires immediately taking a struggling baby to a hospital.” That hospital, she explained, “could be hours away and could be detrimental to the life of that baby. This is nothing more than part of the effort to make abortion illegal nationally in this country. I object, and I urge a no vote.”

As for Nadler, he raised the same argument back in 2018 when a similar bill was proposed, claiming that,

“Despite what its supporters would have us believe, this legislation would do nothing to enhance protections, or the quality of health care, if an infant is born after an attempted abortion. What it would do, however, is directly interfere with a doctor’s medical judgement and dictate a medical standard of care that may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which could, in fact, put infants’ lives at greater risk.”

So, Nadler’s big concern as a strong pro-abortion advocate is protecting the well-being of the baby. Really?

He also claimed that,

“It has always been the law that health care providers cannot deliberately harm newborn infants, and that they must exercise reasonable care in their treatment of such infants. . . .

“In opposing this bill, I do not oppose, in any way, proper medical treatment for newborn infants, whatever the circumstances of their birth. But determining the proper treatment is for medical professionals to decide, not politicians in Congress.”

He added,

“When I supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, my reasoning, and the reasoning of my pro-choice colleagues, was simple: killing an infant who was born alive, either by an act of omission or commission, is infanticide. It was, is, and always should be, against the law, and we saw no harm in reaffirming that fact. That law passed Congress with bipartisan support precisely because it was harmless – even if it was also useless since it did not change the pre-existing law in any way. The bill specifically just reiterated existing law in florid language and did nothing to interfere with doctors’ medical judgment or cause needless harm.” 

But it is not that simple. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) stated in 2021 that,

“Current federal law does not adequately protect a born child who survives an abortion. In the 116th Congress, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 248 to 177.”

And, in a private communication, pro-life leader Rev. Patrick Mahoney noted that

“there is something called the abortion survivors network in which many children were born alive from late term abortions and doctors didn’t attempt to save their lives.”

He added that the reason the proposed bill requires that the baby be brought to the hospital is that “doctors would leave the children without any emergency medical care and they would die a ‘natural death.’”

Under the current bill, doctors would be required to provide whatever medical care was necessary to try to save the infant’s life.

As for the real possibility of infanticide being practiced, let’s remember that in 2019 Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam infamously said that in certain cases,

“If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.”

So, keep that infant comfortable while the family discusses whether to let it live or not.

No wonder the outcry was so great.

Even the left-leaning Snopes.com could only find the claim that Northam said he would “execute a baby after birth” to be “Mostly False.” That is saying a lot.

Not only so, but recent bills would allow for infanticide, such as Maryland’s Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act (House Bill 626/Senate Bill 669), which was defeated. In California, the ACLJ reported that, “On September 27, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed what amounts to a perinatal infanticide bill, AB 2223 (along with 12 other pro-abortion bills).”

So, for a number of reasons, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is genuinely needed, and it is unconscionable that anyone would vote against it, especially someone claiming to care for the wellbeing of the infant.

Even more ironic, tragically so, is the fact that Reps. Nadler and Schakowsky and their Democratic colleagues have argued passionately for a mother’s right to kill that same baby in the womb, even if it was at a viable age for birth.

It would be better if they simply stated what we all know (and what others have often stated elsewhere). Those who oppose bills like the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act do so because they believe the bill is designed to undercut a woman’s “right” to abortion, and they will protect that “right” at almost all costs.

Their expressed concern for the wellbeing of the baby who survives an abortion is beyond cynical.

It is doublespeak in the extreme, putting pro-abortion phrases like “reproductive rights” to shame.

Let us expose it loudly and clearly.

This article was originally published at AskDrBrown.org.

Some may remember the ecstatic press accounts of the first two women, Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver, to make it through the grueling Army Ranger School. Well, here’s what former Marine Jude Eden shares in an article in Crisis Magazine about their headline-grabbing accomplishments:

The females who graduated Ranger School were given additional training and recycled at least twice through each phase where men are only allowed two recycles—at most—over the whole program. The third graduate got three recycles in at least one phase of Ranger School. Their graduation was planned in advance and the Army shredded their records less than a month after. Those records are usually kept for one to two years at the least, but the Army saw fit to destroy them for these individuals. Their graduation was presented as proof that women are just as capable as men of succeeding at combat. The reality was quite different, but why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

People magazine provided some illuminating details about the extra assistance offered to these women in the furtherance of “equality” and to ensure that at least one graduated:

• Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn’t start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.

• Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.

• While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school.

• Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.

Marine Corps study on women in combat

A close look at a troubling Marine Corps’ study on the integration of women into the combat arms reveals what  common sense formerly revealed to reality-affirming people and may throw a wet army blanket on combat sex-integrationists’ celebration:

Combat Effectiveness

• Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.

• Speed: All-male squads, regardless of infantry [specialty], were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.

• Lethality: All-male…(rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system…within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

• Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females.

• All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

• All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).

Starting in the 1960’s, reality-denying sexual revolutionaries began building a wall between common sense and nonsense. On the common-sense side of the wall now live a remnant of marginalized humans who still know what women and men are and that they are different. On the nonsense side live those who can’t tell the difference. Maybe the commonsensers can crowdfund a campaign to airdrop flyers with excerpts from the Marine Corps study into the Land of Nonsense.

Timeline on combat sex-integration efforts

Last December, Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened up all combat positions to women, including Navy SEALS and Army Rangers, refusing a request from the Marines for an exemption that would allow “infantry, machine gunner, and fire support reconnaissance” positions to remain “men-only.” No vigorous congressional debate complete with research-based evidence proving that such a radical change will not compromise military effectiveness. No siree.  Just another feckless fiat from the Obama Administration.

In February, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, and Marine Corps General Robert Nelle testified before a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, stating that they believe women should be required to register with the Selective Service (SS) upon turning 18.

In April, two Republicans, U.S. Representatives Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Ryan Zinke (R-M)—whose daughter is a Navy diver—introduced the “Draft America’s Daughters” amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2017.  They introduced the amendment only to spark congressional debate—not because they support women in combat or requiring them to register for the SS.  This ill-conceived maneuver resulted in the House Armed Services’ Committee passing the amendment 32-30. If it weren’t for six Republicans (Walter Jones [R-NC], Chris Gibson [R-NY], Joe Heck [R-NV]), Sam Graves [R-MO], Martha McSally [R-AZ], and Steve Knight [R-CA]) voting with Democrats, the amendment would not have passed.

In May, the U.S. House stripped the language that would have required women to register for the SS from the defense bill.

On May 26, U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) sponsored an amendment to the NDAA, stripping it of language requiring women to register with the SS. U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Roger Wicker (R-MI) have co-sponsored the amendment, while establishment lawmakers Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), and Mitch McConnell want to force women to register with the SS.

Conclusion

Eden identifies the purpose of the SS and why the politically motivated effort to require women to register ill-serves the country:

SS registration exists in order to induct “combat replacements” in a large-scale national emergency. It is not to fill desk jobs and support roles, it is to replace infantrymen who are dying by the thousands at the sharp end of our military spear….Where adding women palpably degrades combat effectiveness and adds significantly more risk and liability, there is no decent reason to draft women. The draft, like integrating combat units, is about the needs of the military, not equal career opportunity.

In this unstable time during which threats to national security are diverse and many, Eden reminds us of the importance of an effective military—something that is ill-served by nonsensical, futile efforts to pretend that men and women are the same.

Take ACTION: U.S. Senate debate on the NDAA, including on Sen. Lee’s amendment, is taking place this week. Please click HERE to send an email or fax to both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk as well as your local U.S. Representatives to tell them not to draft our daughters.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE!
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Now that the heady rush of jubilation has faded from the election, it’s time to take stock of what we actually achieved. The numbers couldn’t be more forthright. It’s as if the American people interrupted the President to interject, “Now, let me be clear…” The 2014 election was an epic political repudiation of President Barack Obama, U.S. Senator Harry Reid, and the Progressive agenda in Washington.

It was a demonstration that all but the most white-eyed leftist loons in America are tired of Obama’s ineptitude, deliberate or otherwise. How amusing now to think about those talking heads on cable who tried to suggest that the Democrats might not lose the Senate, the day before America catapulted the Senate back to the Republicans in a resounding fashion.

But what has been achieved? What has our political support purchased? In a strange way, American voters are like folks on that Storage Wars show. Turn on any episode and you’ll see people bidding crazy amounts of money on a garage-worth of stuff they’ve only glimpsed from a distance. Could be treasure, could be rubbish. And just like those storage-capitalists, we don’t yet know what we just purchased.

In the majority of races, it would be very difficult to elucidate just what the Republican candidate ran on, since the only discernable plank in the 2014 GOP campaign strategy was “We’re not Obama”. It could be that we’ve only traded progressive Democrats for progressive Republicans. The reality is that the GOP has controlled arguably the most powerful organ in the Federal government for the past four years.

The power of the House of Representatives lies in the purse. It is through the House that all the rest of the government is funded, since all bills for raising revenue originate in the House (ala Article I, Section VII). Of course this is by design, providing one more check and balance to offset the potential overreach of a Federal leviathan. Whoever controls the House, controls the funding of the entire US Government.

And yet, this power was deliberately set aside by GOP leadership during one of the most egregious, tyrannical growths of Presidential power in American history. One could argue that there has never been a greater need for the House to check a runaway Executive branch and yet the Speaker of the House sat on his hands for four years. No, even worse, the Speaker told his enemies about his plans to sit on his hands before he did so. When U.S. House Speaker John Boehner communicated time and again that the power of the purse was off the table, he surrendered before the enemy even took the field.

Since Boehner took the Speaker’s gavel in 2010, Obama has:

• Implemented (and funded) Obamacare
• Directed his DOJ to blatantly flout federal law in cases involving DOMA
• Prevented the Congressional inquiry into the deliberate harassment of conservative organizations by the Internal Revenue Service
• Violated religious liberty of Americans via the contraception mandate
• Stonewalled Congressional investigators attempting to get to the bottom of the murder of American diplomats in Libya

And this is just the low-hanging fruit!

Obama’s abuse of presidential power has been beyond the wildest dreams of progressive radicals, yet Boehner’s House has achieved only one minor victory: Sequestration via a half-hearted government shutdown. Yet even Boehner himself admits that he had to be talked into it and was against the idea from the beginning.

New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is at least as spineless as Boehner and coupled with the fact that these two men now control the entire Federal legislative machinery yet haven’t advanced the slightest hint of a conservative agenda over the past 4 years, can Americans have any hope in the success of a newly-elected conservative majority?

It is a question which is impossible to accurately answer at this juncture. Conservative politicians are not immune to legislating much differently than they campaigned. Given the number of Establishment-endorsed GOP candidates who won, I think there will be more than a fair number of newly-minted RINOs in D.C. come next year.

It remains to be seen how much of a seat at the table Boehner and McConnell will give any true conservative who shows up. Based solely on their actions over the past 4 years, chances are that McBoehnell will work behind the scenes to erode support for any kind of conservative resistance which forms in either house.

The encouraging thing is that there are several strong conservative voices headed to Washington next year. Folks like Ben Sasse in Nebraska, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and Tom Cotton in Arkansas should revitalize the efforts of U.S. Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, men who have been holding the conservative line in the U.S. Senate. Similarly Dave Brat, Barry Loudermilk, Mia Love, John Ratcliffe, and Andy Mooney are headed to the an U.S. House in desperate need of articulate, impassioned, principled conservatives.

These Congressional rookies probably think they’ve finally emerged from the political fight of their lives, but they haven’t seen anything yet. If there’s one thing the heartless Republican establishment will attack, it’s an unapologetic conservative. They’ll keep their powder dry until they spot the opportunity to turn on a Tea Partier and then it’ll be open season. If these freshmen are smart, they’ll realize that power lies in numbers and the tighter formation they can maintain, the better.

There’s a reason why the Greek phalanx and the Roman testudo were such effective fighting formations. With any luck, organizations like the Tea Party Caucuses in both houses can form rank around these fledgling representatives until they get their sea legs and prepare to carry the fight to the enemies of Liberty, foreign or domestic.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.