If the federal government will be expanding medical coverage for the 0-1 age bracket, is there perhaps concern left for Americans in the 1-64 age group? Is there an argument why the government is responsible for the medical needs a newborn but not a child of five?
I cosponsored the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. The bill ensures that any baby born alive after an abortion receives the same level of care as other newborns. #StandforLifepic.twitter.com/y9Uz5KvIjV
-
-
-
My question has to do with the logic behind qualifying life saving service to newborns yet being opposed to the same intent with other age groups. I'd argue we should be just as concerned for vulnerable children as we are vulnerable newborns.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you Mr Armstrong!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thank you sir!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How dare you, a man, order a woman what to do?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also how about free healthcare for all?Everyone else has the right to life as well. That's what Repubs get wrong. Libs are right about that, but they support abortion. Like its OK if the woman is in severe danger. But even then the first goal is to help both the mother and baby.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.