• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

On Wednesday, the House once again approved legislation that would
ban the gruesome late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth
abortion”.

Prior to the vote, leaders from both sides of the abortion debate
went to the mat over this greatly divisive issue. However, I believe
that morality is on our side in this heated debate.

Partial-birth abortion is a horrifying procedure wherein an
abortionist incompletely delivers a baby, leaving its head within the
mother. He then penetrates the base of a late-term baby’s skull so that
he can suction out its brain (thereby collapsing its little head) prior
to full delivery.

Evidence confirms that these unborn children experience profound pain
during these procedures.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a surgical nurse who observed first-hand this
gruesome procedure at Dr. Martin Haskel’s abortion clinic, recounted the
immense revulsion she experienced while participating in a partial-birth
abortion: “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping and
his feet were kicking. Then, the doctor stuck the scissors through the
back of his head and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, in a
startled reaction — like a baby does when he thinks that he might
fall.”

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, stated it well when he said,
“Most Americans wouldn’t want this done to a dog yet the White House and
others turn their heads away as it is done to babies. The abortion
industry has gone too far.”

It is important to note that most of these abortions are
performed on healthy babies carried by healthy mothers who choose to
terminate their pregnancies for purely elective reasons.

Dr. Haskel, the man credited with perfecting this procedure, said in
1997, “I’ll be quite frank. Most of my abortions are elective in (the
fifth and sixth month) range.”

Initially, the president and his pro-abortion allies utilized the
argument that partial-birth abortions were extremely rare and conducted
only in dire situations. But, you’ll recall that the source of that
misinformation, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted that as many as 5,000 such
abortions were performed each year.

Fitzsimmons also confessed that “they are primarily done on healthy
women and healthy fetuses.”

With Fitzsimmons’ “evidence” long ago discounted, there truly is no
reason to oppose a ban on this procedure!

However, abortion-rights extremists apparently do not believe that
there is such a thing as going too far as it relates to abortion.

President Clinton has predictably sided with abortion-rights
proponents, twice vetoing bills that would outlaw this type of procedure
following House and Senate passages of bills to ban it. Mr. Clinton
continues to maintain that legislation addressing late-term abortions
must contain a provision allowing the procedure when a woman’s “health”
is threatened.

The fact is, abortionists could — and no doubt would — concoct ways
to suggest their patients’ lives were at risk and could easily distort
such a provision, making the legislation meaningless. Abortionists who
have gotten rich in this industry are not about to threaten their
livelihood no matter how appalling their work may be.

Conversely, there have been many doctors who have testified that the
partial-birth abortion procedure is blatantly unnecessary.

One of these courageous individuals, Dr. Dominick Caselnova of the
American College of Ob-Gyns, called the practice “not only a brutal
mutilation of the baby, but a threat to the health and safety of the
mother.”

According to Linda Pratt Shafer, the partial-birth abortion
procedure, wherein a woman’s cervix is forcefully and mechanically
dilated, weakens the cervix and poses risks of miscarriage in future
pregnancies.

Janet Parshall, chief spokesperson for the Washington, D.C.-based
Family Research Council, said that opposing the partial-birth abortion
ban is tantamount to opposing true health safety for women and children.
She has called on President Clinton to “be a real champion of women’s
health” by reversing his “ill-informed position,” and signing the
congressional ban.

Sadly, our president habitually embraces misinformation and
distortions and is expected to maintain his opposition to the ban.

In addition, many of our most gullible fellow citizens, who are dupes
of the leftist media, will continue to receive and accept journalistic
misinformation on this topic.

U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo said, “I can’t think of a
major story in the last 10 years that has been distorted as fully as
abortion, and the partial-birth abortion (story) was so egregiously
handled that I think someone should do a great book on how the press
mangled this issue.”

Misinformation is the greatest — and possibly only — tool of the
abortion industry!

This is all the more tragic because this intentional misinformation
is costing lives.

Mary Angela Edwards, the member of my team who has become an expert
on the partial-birth abortion debate, noted in my National Liberty
Journal, “What the abortion industry fears most, and the reason they so
vehemently defend even a gruesome procedure such as this, is they know
if the public learns that killing a child that is mostly born is simply
cold-blooded murder, it is only a matter of time before all
abortions
are understood to be the taking of a human life.”

The challenge to halt partial-birth abortion is now a disturbing
chronicle of leftist politics, self-indulgence and greed. But we must
never give up in the hope that partial-birth abortion will ultimately be
eliminated.

If we cannot win a defeat of this procedure under the current
administration that maintains unparalleled allegiance to abortion
rights, then we will continue our quest with the next administration –
one that will hopefully embrace the sanctity of human life over the
calamity of lawful executions of innocent lives.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.