A few inches.
That's the difference between life's most amazing event, birth;
and partial-birth abortion, where the "doctor" (if one
who destroys life can be called a doctor) delivers a baby except
for the head, kills it by puncturing the base of its skull, and
finishes delivering the now-dead baby.
Congress passed a ban on partial-birth abortion, and following
an amendment to endorse Roe vs. Wade, the president is certain
to sign it. The ink will not be dry before abortion rights groups
take the ban to court.
It is impossible to understate the horrific nature of this procedure.
Dr. Martin Haskell, who helped publicize the procedure, admitted,
"The majority of fetuses aborted this way are alive until
the end of the procedure." It is medically confirmed that
these unborn babies feel pain. At the moment of the baby's death,
the only thing designating this as "abortion" and not
infanticide is the location of the head.
The procedure is neither exceedingly rare nor performed only on
deformed or handicapped babies. Many abortion practitioners admit
80 percent of partial-birth abortions are elective. Also, while
most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this
manner, women have had partial-birth abortions as late as the
ninth month.
Some of these children were "viable" when their skulls
were punctured, and could have lived full lives. Can you draw
a distinction between a 24-week-old, carefully cared for preemie,
and a 24-week-old, "unwanted" child who is almost completely
born before his or her life is ended?
Abortion advocates sidestep the gruesomeness of partial-birth
abortion by arguing ideologically; they refuse to address the
specific procedure and instead use misnomers like "anti-choice,"
slogans like "Every child a wanted child," and warn
bans will result in dangerous coat hanger abortions.
These tactics are diversionary. Children should be wanted - but
killing is no way to protect them. Coat hanger abortions would
not abound - for decades prior to legalization, almost all abortions
were done by physicians in offices, not in back alleys.
Abortion rights groups claim the ban is unconstitutional because
it is too broad and wouldn't allow partial-birth abortion to protect
the mother's health.
First, the ban does allow for a partial-birth abortion to save
the life of the mother.
Second, the language is not broad; it applies only to partial-birth
abortions. This specificity is why it is important to use the
term "partial-birth;" which, though much-maligned by
abortion rights groups, is an accurate reflection of this procedure
and legally recognized by Congress.
Third, is protection of "health" sufficient justification
to allow this brutal procedure? Absolutely not - let's assume
for a minute that it is. Should the mother have a partial-birth
abortion to protect her health? Dr. Warren Hern, a leading authority
on late-term abortion, admits this procedure is never necessary
to preserve health. Another abortion authority, Dr. Pamela Smith,
stated before the U.S. Senate, "There are absolutely no obstetrical
situations … which require a partially delivered human fetus
to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother."
Possible health "benefits" from partial-birth abortion
include infertility; uterine perforation; breast, cervical, ovarian,
and liver cancer; cervical lacerations; pelvic inflammatory disease;
endometritis and death. With later pregnancies, risks increase
significantly for placenta previa, hard labor, complications,
handicapped newborns, and eptopic pregnancies.
I've been accused of using emotionally charged language to argue
against this horrific procedure. I stand guilty as charged - it's
an immoral, inhumane practice, and I cannot be complacent while
the slaughter of innocent babies continues. Babies, women and
our society need this ban.
In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an attempt by
Nebraska to ban partial-birth abortions. Justice Antonin Scalia
summed up this procedure aptly when he stated, "The method
of killing a human child - one cannot even accurately say an entirely
unborn child - proscribed by this statute is so horrible that
the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion."
Let's hope more people heed that shudder this time.
|
|
When does human life begin?
This is the philosophical question around which abortion debates
have been centered, most recently at measures taken to prohibit
late term or “partial-birth” abortion.
Anti-choice advocates argue with each other over the start of life
as well.
While 61 percent argue that life begins when brainwaves are detected
in a fetus, others contend that life begins with the heartbeat.
Many anti-choice advocates also oppose contraception as well as
legal abortion.
There is no biological evidence to help people determine when life
begins. It is a question that can be only be answered with an internal
study of one’s own belief structure.
Whether abortion is ethical or not often overshadows other moral
dilemmas surrounding the issue. To force a woman to incubate a fetus
until it can be born is wrong. To take away a woman’s right
to control her own body is wrong. To place legal restrictions on
a whole society because of particular religious beliefs or philosophy
is also wrong.
While abortion is debated, the health and safety of women is continually
compromised.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists continues
to oppose state or federal legislation known as so-called “partial-birth
abortions” bans.
According to the ACOG, which counts over 40,000 doctors who care
for women as members, legislative action prohibiting late term abortion
“would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician,
in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most
appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.”
In addition to opposing any legislation that would take a decision
of personal health away from the doctor and patient, the ACOG opposes
such legislation because no exception has been added in regards
to the health of the mother. Although, the group also contends that
even with an exception, the possibility of the ban have negative
effects by “encroaching on other safe and constitutionally
protected medical procedures.”
“If the measure becomes law, a woman who decides to terminate
a pregnancy after learning that her fetus has severe deformities
may not have a safe abortion option,” according to the Boston
Globe.
It is also important to mention that legalized abortion often protects
the health of the patient by offering a safe alternative to terminate
pregnancy without the back-alley, coat-hanger abortions that were
too familiar before the landmark case of Roe vs. Wade.
Laws have never stopped abortion, but only made it unsafe for women.
There are those who would contend that women who engage in sexual
acts should have to deal with the consequences of that act.
First of all, a child should not be punishment. Anti-abortion laws
serve to punish not only the mother, but the child. Cases of child
abuse and neglect stemming because the parents either didn’t
want or couldn’t care for the child increase with increased
restrictions on abortion procedures. This often leads to developmental
and social problems.
Restrictions on late term abortions would have a greater impact
on situations where the health of the woman is in jeopardy. Almost
all abortions take place during the first trimester. In Canada,
where women have recognized rights over their own bodies, late-term
procedures do not take place unless there is an overwhelming health
concern.
“Ironically, anti-choice harassment, laws, and defunding cause
delays and lead to increased numbers of late abortions,” according
to the Pro-Choice Action Network.
Beliefs about when a fetus becomes a person are questions of belief
and, therefore, not subject to laws in this country of religious
freedom.
However, the rights of a woman, to protect her health and control
her body, must be upheld. Any legislative action to restrict abortion
tramples these rights.
|
