- forcibly turns the child in the womb into a breech position;
- pulls the living child by the leg, out of the mother, until only the head is left in the birth canal;
- stabs the child in the base of the skull, and sucks out his or her brain with a vacuum;
- pulls the now-dead child the rest of the way out of the mother.
- thousands of times a year in the United States;
- primarily in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy (second trimester), but sometimes later (third trimester).
- Return to Pro Life Corner
Partial-Birth Abortion:
The Legacy of Roe V. Wade
- January 22, 1998 marks the somber 25th anniversary
of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion. For 25
years abortion advocates have claimed an absolute right to terminate a
child's life for any reason, and at any time during the pregnancy. In the
name of Roe, they now embrace a form of infanticide: the brutal procedure
known as partial-birth abortion.
Partial-Birth Abortion
During the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy
(and sometime later) partly-born children are deliberately killed painfully
and violently. Guided by ultrasound, an abortionist manipulates
the child into a breech position and begins delivery feet-first. When the
child is delivered except for the head, the abortionist
forces scissors into the base of the child's skull, then inserts
a catheter and suctions out the brain, killing the child. Delivery of the
now-dead child is then completed.
It is hard to believe that calculated killing
of this kind happens in the United States today. But it does, thousands
of times a year.
The Reaction
The truth about this inhumane treatment of human beings has become public. The overwhelming reaction is one of abhorrence and rejection. The American Medical Association and other medical authorities have examined partial-birth abortion and determined that it is NEVER medically necessary. Legal experts, including some who identify themselves as "pro-choice," have called for legislation to outlaw the practice. We must draw a line and say:
Legislation Banning Partial-Birth Abortion
In 1996 and 1997, the U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban this procedure. The current bill is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, HR 1122. It bans partial-birth abortions with a "life of the mother" exception. On October 10, 1997, President Clinton vetoed it. Contrary to all objective evidence, he insists that the bill should also have a "health of the mother" exception.
Need to Override President's Veto -- Act Today!
An effort is underway in Congress to override the President's veto
of HR 1122. To do so requires two-thirds of those present and voting in
both the House and Senate. Override votes will likely take place in 1998.
Federal elected officials need to hear from pro-life constituents
with this message: Please send this message to your
U.S. Representative and two Senators today. Write a letter, sign a postcard,
send a telegram, phone, stop by and visit their local offices, attend a
town meeting--but act! You might also write a letter on partial-birth abortion
to the editor of a local newspaper; these letters are read by elected official
and help to educate other citizens too.
Where to Write
The Honorable___________________________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable___________________________
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Include your name, address, and zip code. Ask for a written reply.
Where to call
Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121. Ask for the office of your Representative or Senator. When you are connected to the office, ask to speak to the staff member who has responsibility for the abortion issue. Introduce yourself as a constituent. Briefly convey your request in a clear and polite manner. Leave your name and address, including zip code. Ask for written reply to your call detailing how the legislature intends to vote.
Partial-Birth Abortion: The Facts
What is it?
In this procedure, an abortionist:
It is now a matter of public record that partial-birth abortion is performed:
Mainly on healthy babies of healthy mothers. Sometimes it is done on children with disabilities because parents do no want a live-born disabled child.
Is it ever medically necessary?
Never. Hundreds of ob-gyns and specialists in high-risk pregnancies, along with former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop have come forward to state unequivocally that partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve a mother's life or health or her future fertility. In fact, the procedure can significantly threaten a mother's health and her ability to carry future children to term.
AMA President Daniel Johnson, Jr., M.D.:
"The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing
it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicans.
Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure
was the only safe and effective abortion method."
Letter to the Editors, New York Times, May 26, 1997
Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association:
"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to
be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate
procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about
D&X."
Report of May 1997
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
"A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstance under
which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve
the health of the women.
Statement of Policy, January 12, 1997
Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop
"I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on
what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions. Because
in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late term abortion as described--you
know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the
head is born--is a medical necessitity for the mother. It certainly can't
be a medical necessity for the baby."
American Medical News, August 19, 1996
Abortionist Warren Hern:
"I have very serious reservations about this procedure...You really
can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not
do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it...I would dispute any statement
that this is the safest procedure to use."
American Medical News, November 20, 1995
Drs. Nancy Romer, Pamela Smith, Curtis Cook, and Joseph DeCook of Physicans' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT):
"None of this risk is ever necessary for any reason. We and many other doctors across the U.S. regularly treat women whose unborn children suffer the same conditions as those cited by the women who appeared at Mr. Clinton's veto ceremony. Never is the partial-birth procedure necessary." Wall Street Journal, September 19, 1996
The above information, in its entirety, is taken directly from a phamplet distributed by the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment, 1511 K Street, N.W., Suite 335, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 393-0703, FAX (202) 347-1383
This page is hosted by
Get
your own Free Home Page
Todays Date: