Dan Wolgamott's infanticide crisis

One of the most overlooked bills signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz, (DFL-MN), is HF91. According to the language of the Second Engrossment of the bill, HF91 is "a bill for an act relating to health; repealing certain statutes regulating abortion; repealing certain sex offenses ... etc.) What this means is that this bill fundamentally changes how the state of Minnesota deals with abortion.

Rep. Dan Wolgamott voted to remove the requirement that medical personnel; "shall" take all reasonable measures to save a baby fully outside a mother's womb. The definition of infanticide is "the act of killing an infant" or "the practice of killing newborn infants." According to the amended statute, an "infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person." On Page 15 of the bill is a section titled Concealing Birth. Originally, the bill read "Every person who shall endeavor to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Every person who, having been convicted of endeavoring to conceal the stillbirth of any issue, or the death of any issue under the age of two years, shall, subsequent to that conviction, endeavor to conceal any subsequent birth or death, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years."

Tina Liebling's amendment to HF91

Aftert Rep. Tina Liebling amended HF91, that section reads "Any person who attempts to conceal the birth of a child by any disposition of its dead body, whether when the child died before or after its birth, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. This section does not apply to the disposition of remains resulting from an abortion or miscarriage."

That's quite the exception for abortion. John Croman's article for KARE11 does a nice job of highlighting the changes to the bill's language:

Croman then includes the bill's language before it was amended:
A born alive infant as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and be accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken by responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.
That's rather specific, strong language. It instructs the "medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant." That isn't a suggestion. Included in that instruction is the word shall.

Amended Statute

An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.
Where's the command in the amended language to "preserve the life and health of the infant?" That's a rather significant modification to the statute. Check out Walter Hudson questioning Rep. Liebling on an unborn infant's civil rights:

Frankly, I think Rep. Hudson tied Rep. Liebling into nots with his precise questioning. Rep. Liebling essentially said that government is too blunt a tool to weigh in on abortion. That's odd considering Rep. Liebling, (DFL-Rochester), didn't get angry when SCOTUS ruled that there was a right to abortion but got upset when that same branch of government said that the previous court got it wrong.

Rep. Wolgamott and Rep. Liebling apparently don't think it's required to read the entire statute. You can't say in one part of the bill that "shall be fully recognized as a human person", then argue that this infant child's life is subject only to the mother who tried aborting that child? Rep. Wolgamott and Rep. Liebling what the difference is between a healthy, wanted infant and an infant whose mother wanted to abort that infant? That sounds the mother, in this specific situation only, gets to play God according to the Gospel of the DFL. Who gave them the right to determine the difference between what's life and what's infanticide?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more