JD #Vance falsely claims during the VP #debate that Minnesota’s abortion law, signed by Tim #Walz in 2023, allows doctors to deny lifesaving care to infants.
» Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC
» Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews
NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows.
Connect with NBC News Online!
NBC News App: https://apps.nbcnews.com/mobile
Breaking News Alerts: https://link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/breaking-news-signup?cid=sm_npd_nn_yt_bn-clip_190621
Visit NBCNews.Com: http://nbcnews.to/ReadNBC
Find NBC News on Facebook: http://nbcnews.to/LikeNBC
Follow NBC News on Twitter: http://nbcnews.to/FollowNBC
Follow NBC News on Instagram: http://nbcnews.to/InstaNBC
And not to mention Tim couldn’t even answer what the law was about and where he was wrong and how he said it so I’m guessing he was right on what he said 10 didn’t say he was wrong he just couldn’t answer why he was wrong
Good try. Your wrong white REICHER
Or google the law and find out for yourself…vance is lying
That’s not false?
How much were you paid to say that
It is false you are in denial
@@jamesricker3997Probably gets his information from truth social
@@jacobgonzalez2002 read the bill… word for word then come back to me. It’s in ink, it’s on paper… you can’t just lie and say it doesn’t exist.
@@jacobgonzalez2002YOU ARE LYING. It’s not in the bill! Stop lying
Vance is right 👍👍
Nope read the law during the break. Walz was right
Nope
@@DebraCoughlin-s6l Walz literally signed a bill into law which ended reporting requirements for doctors when a baby survives abortion and is allowed to die from neglect. OBVIOUSLY post birth abortion is illegal. HOWEVER, allowing someone to die from neglect is legal now.
Reality disagrees with your fantasy
So when a baby is growing with missing organs or other serious birth defects and will only live for a few minutes after being born, should the parents who wanted to have that child get to hold that baby for its short life or should it be ripped away to give medical care that wont change anything? This only makes the family that wont be going home with a baby have to go home with more medical debt and make a traumatic experience worse. Late term abortions are done for the health of the mother of because the pregnancy is non viable. Why do you think infant mortality is up 11% in Texas…
.
Minessota law doesn’t allow infanticide and it doesn’t give doctors the choice to provide life saving care to infants and Vance is asking what’s the law just like his bird brain followers here as if the law is just one sentence…laughable!
You have link to that Minnesota law??
@@lydialuker4238 i will paste it here
Actually it’s true. If the aborted baby survives the abortion then they can deny it medical treatment. What part of that confuses you? That is indeed infanticide no matter how you want to say it. That is absolutely what abortion does; it ends a child’s life. And if it survives the abortion attempt it can be left to die. What would you call it?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2023/cite/145.4131 this is where they have to report at what month the abortion took place and late term is included in the list… I have to keep digging to find exact… I did see there was a report in 2021 5 babies were left to die, none were because the life of the mother was in danger and in 2022 they stopped reporting..
@@lydialuker4238
No link but you can Google it.
The law (Brackets shows what the old law said, new law follows) reads:
Sec. 56. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 145.423, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Recognition; medical care. (A born alive) An *infant* (as a result of an abortion) *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 (preserve the life and health of the born alive infant) *care for the infant* who is born alive.
JD is right. Another fun fact, apparently botched abort***s create life 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Haha even the fact check points out that an infant can “Survive” an abortion😂😂😂😂 do they hear what they are saying. ITS ALIVE
No one is disputing that.
You do know premature babies can still pass away, right? Naturally. Which is what happens when a nonviable baby is born. And not all babies are live births to begin with.
It’s almost like this issue is complicated and shouldn’t be decided by government, but by doctors, ya know
Call some abortion clinics in those states. They do abortions clean up to birth and they will tell you that on the phone!!! Disgusting
Vance was 100% correct. If the baby comes out, it is allowed to die from neglect.
No, it’s not. Hospitals are required to give life saving care.
You really should give up defending the white REICH
False.
The law (Brackets shows what the old law said, new law follows) reads:
Sec. 56. Minnesota Statutes 2022, section 145.423, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Recognition; medical care. (A born alive) An *infant* (as a result of an abortion) *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 (preserve the life and health of the born alive infant) *care for the infant* who is born alive.
So why change the language? To deal more humanely with terminal or fatal defects. It removes the ‘abortion’ part because it’s irrelevant, the law applies to all infants born, no matter the circumstances. And it removes the insistence on the preservation of life over all other considerations, which may not be the kindest choice for terminal infants who have not developed in the womb in a way that is compatible with life, despite radical and invasive medical treatments and surgeries.
Previously, doctors would have been required to prolong life, regardless of the futility of the procedures, the pain and suffering they inflicted on the infant, the wishes of the parents. The new language lets those decisions be made with compassion by the parents and doctors, rather than forcing the torture of an infant before death.
“to care for the infant” *in no way* implies ‘neglect until death is inevitable’. That’s not what the law permits. That is a crime. You can allow death to occur naturally without neglect.
@@MyDisavowdo you really understand this law thoroughly? It was changed from “care to preserve life” to “reasonable care”. This is where the argument is. What is the definition of “reasonable care”? “Reasonable” is subjective per the physician as they are not legally bound to save a baby from a botched abortion. This is what Vance was referring to. If you’re speaking in term of technicality of the law, he’s right.
@@DuongLe-do3en
First, it doesn’t matter if there was a botched abortion that ‘the baby survived’ or if the baby was born prematurely or the baby was induced. So ‘abortion’ being taken out of the language means that this applies to all infants, no matter what the circumstances.
Second, the law states that every living infant is a human and is accorded *immediate protection under the law* – so if you can’t do it to your neighbour, you can’t do it to a baby. That means that, yes, a doctor *is legally required to save a baby’s life, if that is possible* and if this is not done, the doctor will be arrested for child neglect, endangerment or some level of murder.
Thirdly, you haven’t read the law carefully. The original law said *”All reasonable measures* consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel *to preserve the life* and health of the born alive infant.”
The new law says *”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.”
“Reasonable measures” hasn’t changed. So it has nothing to do with any meaningful objection to the amended law. The change is between “preserve the life of” and “care for” – with some people saying “you cannot provide care unless you are preserving life”. Well, hospice carers and end-of-life nurses would beg to differ. A baby born with, for example, an incomplete brain and skull (anencephaly) is a terminal patient when born. They live minutes or hours. Inflicting painful medical procedures to ‘preserve the life’ of the infant *is not care,* it is torture. The change to the words in the law allows for that nuance to be respected by doctors and devastated parents.
Anyone who claims that a law instructing medical personnel to ‘care for the infant’ is legally permitting the neglect, abandonment or manslaughter of an infant … 🤦♂️
@@MyDisavowgood interpretation of this law! Based on this, Republican approach to this matter is smart as they defer the decision back to States, as each state has a different take on abortion. Good to know though
When is men’s bodies gonna be on the table for discussing?
Everyone defending changed his stanceìa wannabe white REICH stormtrooper
JD Vance believes his supporters are idiots
Search “dr rao siddu second trimester evacuation procedure” to see what an abortion looks like
That isn’t false!! Read it!!
Can someone name this specific law
Vance asked “what was i wrong about?” Walz can’t answer. Why? Because Vance was right.
False statements on both sides but still a decent debate.