The failure of this bill to pass reflects the fecklessness of H.R. 2175 when it states it "Acknowledges human rights of any child born in the United States", precisely because, as it now stands, pro abortionist can never reconcile 'the right to a dead baby' vs 'the human rights of any/all babies born alive'

HR 2175 simply stated that babies are considered to be humans that have standing under the law (human rights), and that if the decision is made to not resuscitate, that decision can't be made based on the child not being considered a human with human rights. However, as we've witnessed and more will come out this year, a baby born alive may have rights, but no one is really required to protect those rights under HR 2175.

2000 Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer

the Farmer Court repudiated New Jersey’s classification of the prohibited procedure as being a ‘‘partial birth,’’ and concluded that a child’s status under the law, regardless of the child’s location, is dependent upon whether the mother intends to abort the child or to give birth. Thus, the Farmer Court stated that, in contrast to an infant whose mother intends to give birth, an infant who is killed during a partial-birth abortion is not entitled to the protections of the law because ‘‘[a] woman seeking an abortion is plainly not seeking to give birth.’’

The logical implications of Carhart and Farmer are both obvious and disturbing. Under the logic of these decisions, once a child is marked for abortion, it is wholly irrelevant whether that child emerges from the womb as a live baby. That child may still be treated as though he or she did not exist, and would not have any rights under the law—no right to receive medical care, to be sustained in life, or to receive any care at all. And if a child who survives an abortion and is born alive would have no claim to the protections of the law, there would, then, be no basis upon which the government may prohibit an abortionist from completely delivering an infant before killing it or allowing it to die. The ‘‘right to abortion,’’ under this logic, means nothing less than the right to a dead baby, no matter where the killing takes place.

…

H.R. 2175 draws a bright line between the right to abortion— which the Supreme Court has now said includes the right to kill partially-born children—and infanticide, or the killing or criminal neglect of completely born children. The bill clarifies that a bornalive infant’s legal status under Federal law does not depend upon the infant’s gestational age or whether the infant’s birth occurred as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. If, for example, an infant is born alive at a Federal hospital as a result of a failed abortion attempt, this bill makes clear that the attending physicians and other medical professionals should treat the infant just as they would treat a similarly-situated infant who was born as a result of natural labor.

H.R. 2175 thus affirms, as Professor Hadley Arkes stated in testimony received by the Subcommittee on the Constitution, that every child who is born alive ‘‘has an intrinsic dignity, which must in turn be the source of rights of an intrinsic dignity, which cannot depend then on the interests or convenience of anyone else.’’55 The bill makes clear that a child’s legal status does not depend upon whether anyone happens to want him or her.

But that dignity afforded via HR 2175 has not translated to the reality of how babies born alive are treated or viewed by abortion supporters.

What has been happening in abortion clinics are vile repudiations of HR 2175, and I've yet to hear ANY abortion supporter publically use any language remotely acknowledging even the spirit of HR 2175, much less action. The new law provided a basis of accountability where there has been none. It protects whistleblowers, by requiring they report what's happening. Otherwise they'd be under the pressure from their employers to act contrary to what the law requires to afford human rights to babies born alive.

An individual who violates the provisions of this bill is subject to a criminal fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

That is, for not protecting the human rights of born alive babies and sending them to the hospital. Clinics are now financially vested in selling babies' body parts. They are in no way interested in being accountable for sending their source of income to some hospital instead.

An individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder.

That is covered under HR 2175, but who could ever be charged for it because the private and unaccountable clinics where abortion is provided, do not send live babies to hospitals. Far and few in between are those kids who managed to get out alive AFTER surviving the abortion.