There’s no question that he opposed this bill.

Why would do you want to grant recognition and immediate protection as a human being to a child born ONLY if he is the result of an abortion? Why not grant that same protection to ALL children born alive?

Since 1975, doctors have to give the same protection to children born alive as the result of an abortion as to children born alive not the result of an abortion. This law would NOT have changed that.

Keeping alive babies that are living after these abortions IS expensive, and so who would foot the bill

Parents are legally responsible for the health care costs of their minor children. Insurance companies have a contract with their policyowners, and depending on the insurance contract, may or may not be liable.

At one time, it was common for health insurance policies only start covering kids when they reach a certain age, such as 10 days or 30 days, and if the kids have pre-existing conditions at that point, sorry, out of luck. With the exception of medigap policies and Medicare Part D policies, health insurance contracts are all custom contracts of insurance, unlike life or homeowner contracts, which are pretty much the same from company to company.

“Wrongful life” lawsuits have generally only been able to recover the excess out-of-pocket costs of raising a disabled kid compared to the costs of raising a non-disabled kid.

Keeping alive babies that are living after these abortions IS expensive, and so who would foot the bill, the insurance companies, or the abortionist? Secondly, abortionists may come under fire for just how many of these babies are actually viable, and …