Does a pro-life stand matter?

Buster Brown and the baby

Does a pro-life stand matter, or will more modern approaches reduce the number of abortions more? Apart from the moral issues raised by the government's condoning of child murder, consider this quote from an interesting article by Michael J. New:

As Election Day approaches, the mainstream media is, as usual, showcasing self-identified ''pro-lifers'' who are supporting the Democratic Party's pro-abortion presidential nominee. In 2004, a number of media outlets cited an analysis by ethicist Glen Harold Stassen which claimed--wrongly--that the number of abortions had increased slightly since President Bush's inauguration in 2001. The New York Times published an op-ed by Dean Mark Roche of Notre Dame encouraging pro-life Catholics to vote for John Kerry. This year the story is similar. Former Reagan administration Assistant Attorney General Doug Kmiec and Duquesne University Law Professor Nicholas Cafardi, both of whom claim to be opponents of abortion, have received plenty of media attention for their support of Barack Obama.

Their arguments are the same ones put forward in 2004. They have not improved with age. Most of these authors attempt to make one of two points: either a) that there is little that elected officials can do to curb abortion through legislation, or b) that the pro-life movement has not reaped any real benefits from supporting candidates who oppose abortion. Voters should, therefore, they argue, place greater emphasis on other issues. However, an examination of the history of the pro-life movement and a careful analysis of abortion trends demonstrate that these arguments are deeply flawed. In fact, the success of pro-life political candidates has resulted in substantial reductions in the abortion rate.

For instance, the 1990s decline in the abortion rate--a decline that is eagerly touted by these Obama and Kerry supporters--had virtually nothing to do with policies enacted by President Clinton, and much to do with the dramatic increase in the number of states that were enacting pro-life laws. The information below comes from NARAL's Who Decides, an annual publication which provides information about abortion legislation:

- In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing informed-consent laws; by 2000, 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect.

- In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion; by 2000, twelve states had bans or restrictions in effect.

- In 1992, only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes; by 2000, 32 states were enforcing these laws.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence which suggests that these and other types of pro-life legislation have been effective at reducing the incidence of abortion.

Read the whole thing here.

Choose life - and vote life!

We're not Catholic but I thought this video from CatholicVote.com was outstanding. Please see also the quotes on abortion below attributed to Mother Teresa.



"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

(Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"

"What is taking place in America is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Demographic Winter: coming soon to a country near you

Trailer for the DVD Demographic Winter

What is "demographic winter?" If you haven't heard this buzzword yet you will shortly. It refers to the belief that we are about to experience the opposite of a "population bomb." Abortion, failure to reproduce, denigration of traditional families and other factors are working to depopulate developed societies around the globe. In the short run, this will have the noticeable effect of Islamicizing regions such as Western Europe, a trend most ably discussed by political writer Mark Steyn in his bestseller America Alone. In the long term, even nations such as China will be affected by a failure to, well, breed at the "replacement rate" of 2.1 children per woman.

Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes.

For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050....

Of the 10 countries with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe. Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3, well below replacement level (2.1). No European nation has a replacement-level birthrate.

Italy’s fertility rate is 1.2. Spain’s is 1.1. That means in the not-too-distant future, absent massive immigration, these countries will lose half of their people in every generation.

Russia’s birthrate fell from 2.4 in 1990 to 1.17 today – a decline of more than 50% in less than 20 years. Each year, there are more abortions than live births in the Russian Federation.

These aren't even the scariest parts of the Demographic Winter movie website. Check it out here.

More on Connecticut's abortion clinics

Peter Wolfgang at FIC graciously quoted our story yesterday about Planned Parenthood and has done an admirable job digging further into the netherworld of Connecticut's abortion clinics and what happens after the "procedure" is over.

People seldom have the taste for a real examination of all the various businesses that surround the trade in abortion. This is understandable. But reflexive politics shouldn't keep the public and its representatives from looking again - and looking hard.

Read the rest of the FIC Blog story here.

Will States ever prosecute Planned Parenthood facilities for violations?

Disturbing and yet apparently all too common:

Police investigating a kidnapping and sexual abuse case in Connecticut have confirmed that a Planned Parenthood abortion business did an abortion on a 15 year-old girl who is the victim. The news is the latest in a string of cases across the country where abortions have been used to cover up cases of sexual abuse.

That sad saga continues, complete with the revelation, gruesome to me, that abortion centers apparently keep remains long enough to allow DNA testing, but another large question is whether statutory rape statutes are being taken seriously enough by officials and electorates. Does the value they assign on easy abortion on purely ideological grounds outweigh the State's interest in protecting teen (and pre-teen) girls from predation?

Will anyone draw the proper conclusions from the circumstances of the Gault case?

For more on the problem, read this story from the National Catholic Register.

Abortionist repents, prays for an end to abortion in America

Dr. Patti Gibbink at the recent The Call rally in Nashville

From LifeSiteNews.com:

During "The Call" rally, former Planned Parenthood abortionist Dr. Patti Gibbink stood up and testified, confessing her sins and begging God to end abortion. She told the crowds, "Ten years ago, I did abortions for Planned Parenthood." Here she paused, overwhelmed with tears.

"Oh Lord, oh God, God most holy and just," she continued, quoting Psalm 51, "You hate hands that have shed innocent blood. God, I acknowledge my transgression. My sin is always before me. Against you, you only have I sinned and done this evil in your sight."

"God, I repent. I repent for myself and all abortionists all over. We have sacrificed innocent lives to the altars of Baal and Moloch. God, God….Forgive me Lord and other abortionists. God, hear our cry. Be merciful to us. Jesus, I plead your blood over my sins and the sins of this nation."

She then cried out amidst thousands of cheers, "God end abortion and bring revival to America. God end abortion! It's time, it's time."

Others got up and gave their testimony, including one young woman, the daughter of a pastor, who had had an abortion when she was seventeen. She said, "I feared man, my boyfriend, more than I feared the Lord." Referring to her boyfriend, she said, "He set life and death before me, and I chose death."

That's what it comes down to.

Catholic Bishops assail "Plan B" as an attack on religious liberty

...which it surely is.

The bishops in this heavily Catholic but pro-choice state say the legislation, already signed into law by the Republican governor, could force Connecticut's four Catholic hospitals to perform what they consider chemical abortions.

An attorney for the hospitals said they are considering state or federal legal action claiming the new law that takes effect Oct. 1 infringes on their constitutional rights.

“If the religious liberty of a Catholic hospital can be violated on this issue, what's next?” asked Bridgeport Bishop William E. Lori. “Will the law insist that Catholic hospitals further violate their ethical standards by performing abortions on demand? Or will the law someday force Catholic hospitals to euthanize those deemed not fit to live?”

The poor record of American Christians when it comes to understanding and resisting the abortion culture leads me to think that those will indeed be the next steps. Evangelicals and Catholics historically "do not play well together" but even the efforts of their combined leadership has not sufficed to place many obstacles in the way of our society's embrace of death.

More on Justice Kennedy and partial birth abortion

Law Professor G. Tracy Meehan, III has picked up on the idea we discussed here that it was socially useful for Justice Kennedy to spell out the horrors of abortion. Writing in the American Spectator, Professor Meehan says:

Reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the partial birth abortion decision, just handed down, can be tough going even for a recovering lawyer like me. While he came out on the right side, i.e., banning the horrific practice, he justified his majority opinion through a close reading of and maneuvering through the labyrinth of the jurisprudence established in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Contrast Kennedy's majority opinion with the short, concise concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas (Justice Scalia concurring). While joining the Supreme Court's opinion "because it accurately applies current jurisprudence," Thomas hastens "to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence [citations omitted] has no basis in the Constitution." Period. End of story. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were no-shows on this concurring opinion.

Notwithstanding that Justice Kennedy's opinion remained firmly grounded in the deformities of Roe and its progeny, the man deserves credit for an excruciating, factual, and grueling statement of the underlying facts of the case, specifically the horror which is abortion and partial birth abortion. He does not mince words....

It remains to be seen if he will conform his jurisprudence to real life. But for now, at least, Justice Kennedy deserves our praise for his landmark decision and his unflinching description of what is at stake.

Well said. Read the rest here.

Supreme Court decision shows that abortion supporters are paving over the truth

Abortion supporters must pave over the truth and invent euphemisms (a fancy way of saying "doubletalk") so that people will not be disgusted by the reality of abortion and so pull down the whole rotten edifice that is Roe v. Wade. Therefore, it was refreshing in an odd and tragic way, to read the U. S. Supreme Court 's language this week approving a ban on partial-birth abortion in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

Public officials don't often describe the horrors of abortion to the citizenry, and much less do we receive the hard facts from the Supreme Court itself. In a spiritual and prophetic sense, the mere act of stating these obvious and appalling truths has the power to change hearts and opinions, awakening the conscience. What follows is difficult to read but should be read by every American. I want to apologize in advance for the content and want to suggest to parents that they exercise their judgment in letting their children read what follows.

Writing for the majority of the Court, Associate Justice Kennedy describes abortion:

Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development. Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the first three months of pregnancy, which is to say in the first trimester. The most common first-trimester abortion method is vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue. Early in this trimester an alternative is to use medication, such as mifepristone (commonly known as RU–486), to terminate the pregnancy. Nat. Abortion Federation, supra, at 464, n. 20. The Act does not regulate these procedures.

Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.

A doctor must first dilate the cervix at least to the extent needed to insert surgical instruments into the uterus and to maneuver them to evacuate the fetus. The steps taken to cause dilation differ by physician and gestational age of the fetus. A doctor often begins the dilation process by inserting osmotic dilators, such as laminaria (sticks of seaweed), into the cervix. The dilators can be used in combination with drugs, such as misoprostol, that increase dilation. The resulting amount of dilation is not uniform, and a doctor does not know in advance how an individual patient will respond. In general the longer dilators remain in the cervix, the more it will dilate. Yet the length of time doctors employ osmotic dilators varies.Some may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less.

After sufficient dilation the surgical operation can commence. The woman is placed under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The doctor, often guided by ultrasound, inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety, though sometimes removal is completed with fewer passes. Once the fetus has been evacuated, the placenta and any remaining fetal material are suctioned or scraped out of the uterus.The doctor examines the different parts to ensure the entire fetal body has been removed.

Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit.

The abortion procedure that was the impetus for the numerous bans on “partial-birth abortion,” including the Act, is a variation of this standard D&E. The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as “intact D&E,” “dilation and extraction” (D&X), and “intact D&X.” For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.

Intact D&E, like regular D&E, begins with dilation of the cervix. Sufficient dilation is essential for the procedure. To achieve intact extraction some doctors thus may attempt to dilate the cervix to a greater degree. This approach has been called “serial” dilation. Doctors who attempt at the outset to perform intact D&E may dilate for two full days or use up to 25 osmotic dilators.

In an intact D&E procedure the doctor extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart. One doctor, for example, testified:

“If I know I have good dilation and I reach in and the fetus starts to come out and I think I can accomplish it, the abortion with an intact delivery, then I use my forceps a little bit differently. I don’t close them quite so much, and I just gently draw the tissue out attempting to have an intact delivery, if possible.”

Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment. A doctor also “may use forceps to grasp a fetal part, pull it down, and re-grasp the fetus at a higher level—sometimes using both his hand and a forceps—to exert traction to retrieve the fetus intact until the head is lodged in the [cervix].”

Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. Haskell explained the next step as follows:

“‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

“‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. “‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.“‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’”

This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description. Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. “‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . “‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’”

Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it.

Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.”

D&E and intact D&E are not the only second-trimester abortion methods. Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions.

It is astounding and gratifying to see the Supreme Court baldly and boldly describe abortion. For ease of reading I edited out the legal and other citation references so that it reads more like ordinary prose rather than as a legal opinion - but there is no way to soften the blow of reading the actual content. These procedures - all of them - should be enough to make any person vomit, unless he has been desensitized to violence. They are the stuff of horror movies.

What about this quote: For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.”

Why would that be difficult is abortion is noble and wonderful and merely the removal of "tissue?"

End abortion now.

(To read or download the actual Supreme Court opinion in its entirety, go here.)

More reaction to partial birth abortion case

Not to be obnoxious, but we can tell how significant this is by who's appalled by it...

"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent with justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety," Eve Gartner, deputy director of litigation and law for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a news release.

"Today, the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients," Gartner added. "This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health-care decisions for them."

More here from CNS.com.

First Major Crack in Abortion Wall

This is breaking news: the Supreme Court has apparently upheld the constitutionality of the Federal law banning partial birth abortion.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.

It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how—not whether—to perform an abortion.

More here.