Leftists slammed Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard for the bill she proposed protecting abortion survivors pushing pro-lifers to defend her, reports say.
Gabbard actually proposed a bill entitled H.R. 823 meant to protect babies who survived abortion by receiving ample care instead of being left to die. The bill is designed to amend the United States Code Title 18 and is already referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The Christian Headlines reported that she received harsh criticism for the legislation. One of these critics is The Guardian writer Jill Nicole Filipovic.
"Tulsi Gabbard also introduced a redundant bill that claims to protect infants in the infinitesimally rare cases they are born after attempted abortions (infants are already legally protected) but in fact just criminalizes doctors, vilifies women, and fear-mongers about abortion," said Filipovic in her Twitter account last December 11, 2020.
Author of "The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit Of Happiness", Filipovic actually tweeted several more times on Gabbard on that said day.
"There is already a 'born alive infant protection act' on the books. It is also pretty ridiculous, because it applies to a highly unlikely scenario, and because infanticide is already illegal. The only point of these bills is to suggest late abortions are common and horrify people," Filipovic added.
"Gabbard's bill, like the one it virtually replicates, levels criminal penalties on doctors--helping to pave the way for criminalizing abortion generally. It's dangerous, misogynist, and wholly unnecessary, and yet she's choosing to do it," she raised.
Democrats for Life, a major pro-life organization, rose to Gabbard's defense and came out with a petition that urges other Democrats to support her bill, the Christian Headlines reported.
"It is critical to give federal protection to fully developed, born babies who survive an abortion attempt," stressed Democrats for Life in their statement.
The organization explained that "there are at least 300 documented instances of babies surviving abortion," which is actually "a low estimate, given reporting is not mandatory."
"Often, these babies are left by an abortionist to die, rather than being provided the necessary oxygen, fluids, and surgery they may need to survive," the petition added. "We need strong laws to be able to prosecute abortionists who violate their duty of care."
"Contrary to what Planned Parenthood thinks, protecting born children should be the very least we can agree on," Democrats for life said, enticing unity with fellow Democrats.
The organization also hit on two "extremists" among legislators: Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam and New York's Andrew Mark Cuomo.
"Extreme pro-abortion advocates such as Governor Ralph Northam and Governor Andrew Cuomo would rather deny protections to survivors of abortion," they said.
Democrats for Life launched a campaign in its Twitter account asking fellow-Democrats to signup and "stand for Tulsi" through an online form that they can fill up in a website that posts collected responses. The campaign targets 3,000 Democrats to side with Gabbard for her bill.
"BREAKING: Democrat @TulsiGabbard introduces bill to end the US's status as one of only seven countries to permit unrestricted abortion after 20 weeks. Add your name to say you stand with Tulsi," Democrats for Life said in their post with a link to the said form.
Evangelist Frank Graham also rose to defend Gabbard, saying via a tweet that the left attacked her for something "any sane person" wouldn't be against.
Democratic Congresswoman @TulsiGabbard is getting attacked by the left for being bold enough to do the right thing. She introduced a bill to protect babies who survive abortions & are born alive. How could any sane person be against that? https://t.co/OqsT66QKQr
"” Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) December 12, 2020
The Christian Headlines said that the Born-alive infants Protection Act was signed by former President George Bush in 2002 after it was passed by Congress. The said Act does not mention "abortion" in it and does not demand penalties be imposed on doctors for breaking the law. Its vague language has made pro-lifers agree that another bill was necessary.
