2020 Democrats voted against an anti-infanticide bill because the press will let them get away with it – Washington Examiner

In a sane world, a presidential candidate voting against an anti-infanticide bill would be a campaign-ending decision. But we don’t live in a sane world, so 2020 Democratic hopefuls have nothing to fear.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was first introduced in 2017 by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., failed in the U.S. Senate this week, defeated with 53 votes in favor to 44 against. It needed 60 votes to pass. Only three Democrats voted for the bill: Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Doug Jones, D-Ala.

All of the senators who have announced they’re running for the Democratic nomination in 2020, including Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, N.Y., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., voted “nay.”

Given that the now-failed bill was fairly straightforward, stipulating only that doctors “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of” children who survive attempted abortions, voting “no” should court the sort of press that forces a would-be a presidential candidate to drop out of the race.

Luckily for the lawmakers who voted against the bill, however, they almost certainly won’t have to worry about any major negative news coverage. National newsrooms are already out in force, running defense for Democrats by portraying Sasses’ bill as extreme, as “anti-abortion,” and as an obvious bit of political gamesmanship.

Politico reported, for example, that, “The Senate rejected a bill making it a felony for a doctor to harm or neglect an infant who survives an ‘attempted abortion,’ part of a Republican effort to squeeze Democrats ahead of the 2020 campaign.”

Again, Sasse first introduced the bill in 2017. He re-upped his legislation in January, shortly before New York passed a law allowing for pregnancies to be terminated right up to the moment of birth. He also re-introduced his proposal shortly before a Democratic Virginia House Delegate unveiled legislation allowing for abortions to be performed even when the mother is dilating. Maybe, just maybe, Sasse’s bill is actually about ensuring that children who survive abortions are provided necessary medical care, and not so much about putting a “squeeze” on 2020 presidential candidates.

Elsewhere, newsrooms pushed the narrative that the Nebraska senator’s bill was “anti-abortion.”

“Democrats block Senate GOP anti-abortion effort,” read the Associated Press’ headline. Cleveland.com reported in a headline of its own that, “Anti-abortion measure dies in U.S. Senate.”

Then there were the individual reporters, including Roll Call’s Sandhya Raman, who referred to the legislation as “anti-abortion” as votes were being cast in the Senate. Politico’s capitol bureau chief John Bresnahan also tweeted Monday after the bill failed that, “2 dozen House Rs are marching over to Senate for ‘Born Alive Survivors Protection Act’ vote, an anti-abortion bill.” And so on.

Notice what’s happening. By claiming the bill is “anti-abortion,” newsrooms are providing cover to the Democrats who opposed it. It’s not that Democrats are pro-infanticide, you see. It’s that they’re pro-choice! But what neither the newsrooms nor the Democrats have explained is how Sassse’s bill is “anti-abortion.” Remember, the proposal provides only for the following [ via National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis]:

It’s normal for the press to describe pro-life bills as “anti-abortion” and pro-choice bills as “pro-abortion” to avoid the ideologically loaded language of activists. But the provisions of Sasse’s proposal are neither “anti-abortion,” nor do they limit a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy via abortion.

It’d be nice, then, if the reporters who have portrayed this legislation as “anti-abortion” explain what they mean by that. It’d be even nicer if the Democrats who voted against the bill explain why they did that. But the lawmakers who opposed Sasse’s proposal won’t be asked to explain their votes because reporters won’t ask.

Democrats likely won’t even be asked to explain why they’re offering contradictory reasons for opposing the bill. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, claimed the Sasse proposal reduces “access to safe abortion care” and that it “would threaten the health of women.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said elsewhere that the bill “is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health.”

But then there’s Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who claimed he voted against the bill because it is redundant, arguing that infanticide is already illegal. This is the exact same line used by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., on Feb. 5 when she quashed Sasse’s attempt to have his bill passed by unanimous consent.

But which is it? Is the bill redundant, or will it reduce women’s access to abortive services? If Sasse’s bill is redundant, as Kaine and Murray claim, does that mean there are currently laws on the books that “attack” women’s health, as Hirono and Shaheen allege of Sasse’s bill?

Perhaps Democrats should have gotten their stories straight prior to voting.

In a sane world, a tough news media would ask any of these senators, not just the presidential candidates, to explain their opposition to the bill. Newsrooms would at least ask these senators to explain their party’s contradictory reasons for voting “no.”

But, we don’t live in a sane world. We live in one where an anti-infanticide law can fail in the Senate, and newsrooms will run defense for those who voted against it.