Montana Rejected A Ballot Proposition Requiring "Live-born Baby" Medical Care

Montana Rejected A Ballot Proposition Requiring “Live-born Baby” Medical Care

Voters in Montana decided against passing the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have mandated that emergency medical care be provided to infants who had survived abortions or who were born prematurely.

The pro-life measure in Montana would not have prevented residents from obtaining abortions, but it would have mandated that “medical care be provided to infants born alive” if an abortion attempt failed, a caesarean section was performed, or natural or induced labour occurred.

The proposal was defeated by a margin of around 20,000 votes, with 52.6% of voters opposing its passage and 47.4% voting in favour of its approval at the time. The Associated Press announced the results of the race.

“A health care provider who performs an abortion must take all of the medically acceptable and reasonable steps necessary to protect the life and health of a viable born-alive newborn. Suppose a live birth of a viable infant occurs as a result of an abortion procedure that was conducted in a hospital. In that case, the health care practitioner is obligated to offer prompt medical care to the newborn “the proposition stated on the ballot.

Montana Rejected A Ballot Proposition Requiring Live-born Baby Medical Care
Montana Rejected A Ballot Proposition Requiring Live-born Baby Medical Care

You Can Also Go For:

The pro-life legislation would have acknowledged that a baby who was born alive following an abortion attempt is a legal person and would have provided the baby with the right to receive medical care after they were born. According to what was said in the document, “If an abortion results in the live birth of a newborn, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of this state.”

According to Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, “As with other ballot initiatives across the country, pro-abortion groups substantially outspent pro-life forces to deliver dishonest propaganda to confuse the voters.” Dannenfelser made this statement in an interview with Fox News Digital.

You Can Also Go For:

“In Montana, pro-choice forces aired advertisements on television that portrayed the initiative as “an extreme, harmful government intrusion into medical care.” However, all that the initiative would do is ensure that an infant who survived an abortion receives the same level of medical attention as an infant who was born at a later stage in the pregnancy.

If the people of Montana knew the whole story about what the initiative would accomplish, it would have won with a resounding majority vote. To provide voters with accurate information, our side needs to do a better job of raising the funds necessary to go head-to-head with the abortion business, which is well-funded “Dannenfelser stated.

Let me know if you have any feedback on our content. If that’s the case, we’d love to hear your insights in the space provided below. Remember to save Journalistpr.com in your bookmarks if you want to read more of these updates.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *