Partial Birth Abortion Not Necessary To Protect A Woman’s Health & May Bring Harm.

Does the partial birth abortion ban have a health exception and is it necessary to protect a woman’s health.  Here’s what the law, which is being argued at the Supreme Court says:

"This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

That's a health exception, but not the kind that abortion advocates are talking about.  Most people probably think it refers to the physical threat that the pregnancy and the unborn pose to the mother.  But abortion advocates mean the health risk that doing the abortion itself presents to the mother, not necessarily the risk the unborn presents to the aborting mother.  I guess this is an admission that abortion may be legal, but that doesn’t mean it was safe in the 20 years before partial birth abortion became legal.

Americans United for Life’s Clark Forsythe says that “The medical record in these cases shows that no reliable medical evidence exists showing that partial-birth abortion is either safe or effective for any maternal or fetal condition.”  There have been plenty of witnesses, but none of those witnesses or the AMA or the College of Ob-Gyns have been able to point to an instance necessitating partial birth abortion. 

What’s worse is that it may present complications for the mother.  Forsythe says, “In addition, partial-birth abortion could have serious health risks for women.  No studies exist regarding the safety or effectiveness of partial-birth abortion.  There is no credible medical authority, except the personal, subjective opinions of individual doctors in this case, that partial-birth abortion is ever needed to protect the physical health of the mother.  The procedure is supported by nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinions of doctors who profit from the procedure.”

Mailee Smith an attorney with AUL, who co-authored the briefs in the Supreme Court, stated, “The medical evidence actually supports multiple possible dangers from partial-birth abortion.  These risks include heightened risk of placenta previa and pre-term birth in future pregnancies, heightened risk of maternal laceration, increased risk of infection, and heightened risk of uterine trauma”. 

Smith continued, “The medical evidence for partial-birth abortion presented to the three trial courts in this case never rose above the ‘poor’ grade in the scale utilized to measure scientific evidence.  Partial-birth abortion was performed on the personal intuition of a few abortion providers—the same ‘evidence’ used by the Court when it approved PBA in 2000.  The Court’s casual deference to the subjective whim of abortion providers allows abortion providers to thumb their nose at evidenced-based medicine.”

Partial Birth Abortion is never necessary, may actually harm a woman’s health and it does have a life of the mother exception

Infanticide Proposal Is Bigoted and Spiritually Bankrupt

As noted in the previous posting, an OB-GYN group is proposing infanticide for certain newborns whose existence would constitute a burden to their families, burdens that are probably economical and which keeps the family from getting on with things... self fulfillment and the like.  One of the other arguments is that it could avoid certain late term abortions.  I get it, birth is actually safer than abortion!  So let's birth the kid before we kill it. 

My co-host Toni Berry and I spoke with Senator Rick Santorum about his son Gabriel who died within hours or a day after birth. His wife has written a book on it, Letters to Gabriel. The Senator was a lead supporter of the partial birth abortion ban. We asked him about arguments that said we should abort children we knew would live short lives and suffer like his Gabriel. The Senator, who lost his re-election bid, asked us why it would matter how long his son lived or what condition he arrived in. He said he loves little Gabriel today and that he learned more from watching Gabriel struggle for his life than he had learned from anybody. He then asked us about his other kids. He had a 9 or 11 year old. What if he should die tomorrow? What if I knew before birth that he would die at 10, 20 or 30? What difference would that make? What difference does the length of anyone's life make? Should we kill them ahead of time?

I think there's a stark spiritual contrast between those who would throw these lives away and the senator who sees every life has precious, no matter how short, how it is delivered or how the package or contents look. That they are thinking that this would prevent some risky abortions (that procedure that is supposed to be safe now that it is legal) is reprehensible. It treats humans as things and obstacles to be overcome. I don't believe for one minute that these people care about the baby. They care about the baby's impact on them and how it will make demands on them and foul the perfect little society they are trying to make.

I'm amazed at the bigotry against these imperfect little people. We used to have lunch counter signs saying, "no coloreds allow." Now we are going to have hospital signs saying, "no burdensome imperfect people allowed." If you can't pass the perfect test (you have one of the 6,000 conditions we can test for), you can't live in our world. But since it's linked to abortion, it's going to be an acceptable bigotry.

Infanticide Proposed In UK.

The Times Online/UK reports that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology of Britain is asking other health professionals to consider “euthanasia of seriously disabled newborn babies.” It “is a reaction to the number of such children surviving because of medical advances.”

Well, well, well… is this because it would be cruel to let the babies live lives that would cause them to suffer?  That WAS the big argument-“it would be cruel to let them live.”  BUT, that’s not necessary anymore.  Euthanasia is needed because of the “unfit,” “burdensome” child’s impact on US.

The Times says, “The college is arguing that “active euthanasia” should be considered for the overall good of families, to spare parents the emotional burden and financial hardship of bringing up the sickest babies.  Hence “A very disabled child can mean a disabled family,” it says. “If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.”

Don’t’ be surprised .  It used to be that abortion advocates would say that the unborn was not human.  When they lost that argument, they’d said it wasn’t a person.  They’d also argue it was unfair to bring a child into the world under handicapped conditions-handicapped physically, economically, familial and etc… But that’s given way to the impact on the young woman.  "Women have a God given right to not have their lives messed up by anyone," even if it means killing their own offspring.  After all, their lives are much more important than some fetus.

That’s not to mock women, but a straight assessment of what abortion feminists think.  It should not surprise us that in some urban areas in the United States, after 45 million abortions and passionate advocacy for partial birth abortion, that you get more jail time for cruelty to animals than killing new born kids.  You get tears of compassion for killing your baby, but jail for killing your dog.  Go figure.

The infanticide proposal is bigoted and says only certain kinds of people are welcome.  Children are not welcome into our lives unless they meet our expectations or give us what we want.  There’s no way to contain that view to babies that require extra attention.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Is Not Vague

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.  One of the arguments is that the statute is vague and that abortionists would not be able to understand what procedure the statute prohibits and would be fearful of doing other types of abortions.  The court bought that argument when it stuck down Nebraska's partial birth abortion ban in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart.  That was and is hogwash... or something worse. 

In his dissent in Stenberg, Justice Kennedy cites the AMA: "the 'partial birth abortion' legislation is by its very name aimed exclusively [at the D & X.]  There is no other abortion procedure which could be confused with that description."  The court tossed that aside.

The Congress's law has an even clearer definition, but abortionists are still arguing they don't understand what they mean.  Justice Thomas also dissented in Stenberg.  He noted that these abortionists have literature in their offices describing the procedures in great detail.  But when they get into court, they don't know what it means.  Good for Justice Thomas for pointing this out.

Okay, here's a joke.... maybe you have to be familiar with the abortion issue.  If you go to an abortion clinic and ask them "what does 2 + 2 equal? what will they say?

"I don't know.  It's vague.  What do you mean by 2?  Is that a plus sign or a minus.  I can't tell."  You get the point.  When you don't have an argument in court, you say you can't understand the statute.  You'd think after all those years of medical training and residency that these guys would be able to understand the descriptions of the procedures they are doing.  This is a fraudulent argument.

Human Liver Constructed By Certain Stem Cells Can't Get Any Respect

UK Scientists have created a human liver out of stem cells.  Great news, right?  You heard about it didn't you?  Wrong...  Of course you didn't.  You didn't hear about it because it was created out of politically incorrect stem cells from umbilical cord blood...  You can't bash the President or create wedge issues with THOSE kind of stem cells.  You can't make it look like your opponents don't care about people because there are no moral objections.

Shame on the media for not reporting this.  Shame on the politicians for down playing these achievements.  Just this summer, the media jumped all over an unsubstantiated false embryonic stem cell advance.  We're still waiting for the retraction.  While embryonic stem cell promoters make wild promises and try to raid state treasuries, adult stem cells wrack up success after success.

What's So Shocking About Late Abortions For Depression

Bill O'Reilly seems surprised to discover that world famous Wichita abortionist George Tiller, also known as Tiller the Killer, does late term abortions for depression.  This has been known for so long that it's hard to imagine that someone doesn't know this, especially someone like Bill O'Reilly.  But then again, the propaganda machines of the abortion industry are pretty powerful. 

Several years ago Tiller told a National Abortion Federation Conference that only 8 percent of 10,000 abortions he had performed between 24 and 36 weeks were for some fetal anomaly.  Those are his words, not ours.  Martin Haskell says the same thing about partial birth abortion.  It's for convenience, not necessity, just like all abortions.  James McMahon, who ironically died of brain cancer, was one of the inventors of partial birth abortion-the procedure which kills a baby during the process of delivery by sucking its brains out.  He said the leading indicator for PBA is depression.  I doubt that is what people think when abortion advocates say that abortion is necessary or that this is part of what they think is meant by the health of the mother. 

November Elections No Reason To Despair

After last night's elections it would be tempting to quit and despair.  It was a tough night as pro-lifers lost their leadership in the House and Senate and as four initiatives across the country went down in flames. 

But there is room for hope.  Democrats won some of their races by running as pro-life.  They got the message from Democrats for Life after the 2004 election that abortion had cost them elections for years.  This year they cleared the field for some pro-life Democrats in primaries.  For whatever the reasons the Republicans lost, it wasn't pro-lifer's fault. 

The S. Dakota banning almost all abortions lost by 10 points.  But if we would have allowed for a rape and incest exception, it would probably have won by 10 points or more.  While I oppose these exceptions, I don't think people who support them to be pro-choice or pro-abortion.  After all, they are opposing 99 percent of all abortions. 

I've already heard some despair.  But this is nothing compare to the way things were 12 years ago.  Back then pro-lifers like me were afraid to admit to being pro-life to evangelical Christians.  People blamed us for Bush I losing in 1992.  Christians said we were alienating people and ad nauseum and that our work wasn't that important.   We were wrecking the church and the Christian message.... Really, that's what it was like.  I almost left my faith-and I was a pastor. 

So things aren't nearly as bad as they seem.  There are way more people who are pro-life.  We have way more evidence on what abortion does to the baby, does to women, the family and society.  More and more women are coming forward.  There's nothing our opponents can do to undo that or silence it.  In January there will be over 15,000 people marching in Nancy Pelosi's town of San Franciso saying that Abortion Hurts Women.   And then we have new forms of media, the internet, email and Catholic radio is on the rise all over America. 

So, don't be afraid.  Don't lose heart.  This is a big setback, but the cause of life and the culture of life is the greatest cause in the world and will continue to go forward.  It's going to take a while, but truth is truth and our opponents can't do anything about it.