I got this in the mail today. Now, I realize it’s from The National Right to Life committee and of course they’re a special interest group with an agenda just like everyone else in Washington, but it got me thinking about partial birth abortion and where the candidates stand on the issue. There are certain core issues that are so vitally important to me that I cannot turn my back on them, and abortion is one of them. I’ve worked with hundreds of children – both able and handicapped – for the past five years through my charity. Earlier this year, I fought to reform the foster care system with FirstStar in DC. Kids are important to me, I can’t turn my back on any of them.
I know I set a rule that I wouldn’t talk politics anymore, so I’m not going to make this about politics. This is about something that has me so frightened I want to cry. How anyone could be so apathetic toward a child is beyond my comprehension.
Partial Birth Abortion is performed when the fetus is anywhere from 20 to 32 weeks along. To sum it up, the baby is removed feet first until only the head remains inside the mother. Four more inches and that baby would be fully delivered. This is when the surgeon forces the closed tip of surgical scissors into the base of the baby’s skull, then opens the scissors to open a small hole into the skull. After removing the scissors, a catheter is inserted into the skull and the brains of the child are sucked out.
Want pictures? Here. Want a description of the procedure? Here. Just remember to bring some tissues.
To make matters worse, this outpatient procedure is performed upwards of 3,000 times a year in the United States alone. All of the doctors who have testified before the House of Representatives and Congress on this issue have all stated that 80 to 85 percent of all partial birth abortions are entirely elective. The remaining procedures, although classified as “medically necessary” are performed for such medical problems as cleft palettes, crossed eyes, club feet, and other easily correctable malformations. As far as the mother’s health is concerned, all of those doctors said that some of the remaining 15 to 20 percent of “medically necessary” procedures are done because the mother has contracted something as simple as chicken pox, or is complaining of vomiting or nausea. And finally, a whopping 1% of all partial birth abortions in the United States are due to rape or incest – the victims pro-choice people use as their case for allowing abortions, their cases amount to all of 1% not only of partial birth abortions, but all abortions performed in the entire country every year. One percent. One percent.
Partial birth abortions make me want to vomit. There’s no pleasant way of putting it. I’ve met and held babies born at 25 weeks, supposedly the prime age to perform that kind of abortion. Last year, a friend of my family’s delivered her baby girl prematurely, at 25 weeks. The Mother, a recent immigrant, hadn’t yet gotten a driver’s license in the United States, so my Mom and I would drive her to the hospital to visit her baby in the NICU. One week, I took my camera.
 |
This is Diana. She was born in the prime trimester for partial birth abortions. She’s now a perfectly happy, pleasant, beautiful toddler. Look at that girl and tell me she doesn’t have life in her. Look at her and tell me that she doesn’t deserve to live. If she had a cleft palette, her Mother wouldn’t have loved her any less. Diana’s Mother cried every time we went into that NICU because she was so in awe of her daughter, so grateful to the doctors for saving her daughter’s life. Again and again she would repeat to us, “Never in my country, never,” because babies in Guatemala would be thrown in the dumpster at 25 weeks. Why are we doing the same to our children? Why is that baby not considered alive, simply because four inches of its head is still inside its mother’s vagina? Is four inches really all it takes to justify murder? |
I don’t understand the callousness that it must take to listen to a baby scream as its brains are being sucked from its own skull. I’ve seen videos of this procedure performed and yes, some of those babies scream. It’s a horrifically painful procedure, no anesthesia is given to them, and somehow people think this is okay. If it’s a sin to wear fur because we killed some innocent animal, why are partial birth abortions even being considered?
I will never, never vote for anyone who is in favor of partial birth abortions. Never will I vote for a candidate who supports other forms of late term abortions, such as traditional Dilation & Extraction, which involves cutting a fetus up into smaller pieces while inside the womb so as to easily extract it from the Mother. It’s brutal, it’s senseless, and it is murder. In most states, if you were to kill a pregnant woman who was more than 20 weeks along, you would be tried on two counts of murder. It shouldn’t be any different if a woman decides to kill her own fetus without a damn good reason. And by “damn good reason”, I mean the mother’s life is clearly in danger, not that she’s just tired of throwing up every now and then.
Why the double standard with children? Why is it not okay to kill defenseless animals, but it’s okay to kill defenseless children? Why is it justifiably medically-speaking to murder a fetus simply because it has a cleft palette? I seriously don’t understand it. Especially not when there are so many couples out there who are trying, praying, hoping, and crying to have children, but are unable to.
I’m not one of those people, I’m single right now, not going to have any children until after I get married (and at this rate, who knows when that will be.) But you know what? If you’re a woman and you’re planning on having an abortion, please don’t. I will personally adopt your child if I have to. Heck, I will adopt any child out there facing something as grotesque and as heartless as one of these late-term abortions. Give me a baby with a cleft palette, with crossed eyes, with down syndrome. I’d take any of them if it meant saving them from having their brain sucked out by a heartless mother and a callous doctor. Look at what they do, look at the procedure, look at it being done – if you can’t even look at the picture, why allow it to happen? Some people say we shouldn’t legislate moral issues. Murder is murder, and no amount of rationalization will ever change that.
Didn’t you just make the argument against a comprehensive ban against partial birth abortion? Unless there is a “damn good reason,” I believe you said. Until the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, and until a law is passed against partial birth abortion, it’s all legal. Morally it may be wrong, and I’d certainly agree with you on that ground, but legally, it’s still OK. And until they try and pass a law that says it’s illegal to perform partial birth abortions that adds a qualification for ‘medically necessary to protect the life of the mother’ and then defines what is considered ‘medically necessary’ I’d rather continue on the way we’re going, because the other alternative is a complete ban on abortions and that I just don’t agree with.
On November 5, 2003, President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The procedure is now illegal. The law, however, could be repealed. A transcript of the signing statement can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html
One candidate for president has sworn to fight to ensure that there are no limits to abortion. He voted six times against the partial birth abortion ban, though now sometimes states he agrees with the ban. His stance is that there should be no cutbacks on a woman’s “right to choose” or “cutbacks on population control efforts around the world. (ie abortion as birth control)” He also believes that our tax dollars should be used to pay for all types of abortions. So, yes, for the time being partial birth abortion is thankfully illegal. As a law, it can be repealed.
Although, personally, I totally oppose abortion beyond 18 weeks, and find partial-birth abortion a particularly grotesque and unpleasant procedure, I don’t think that it’s right to make an electoral decision based on one horrific issue, when there are so many other horrific issues at stake. [I won’t be voting next week, am not even American, so, no, this isn’t a non-so-veiled jibe at Bush’s policy in Iraq.]
Also, while I do not doubt that you are an informed person, and that this is a long-standing opinion of yours, I think the fact that you made this post proves the value of tactical flyering by political pressure groups.
“In most states, if you were to kill a pregnant woman who was more than 20 weeks along, you would be tried on two counts of murder.”
An incredibly excellent point and one I haven’t considered in the past. You have a great way of distilling issues down to their core points. The statement above may stop some in their double-standard tracks.
Thanks for the great points and for your passion for life.
SC – I agree that clauses need to be in place for when the mother’s life is in danger, meaning that she would literally die from carrying the baby. I really don’t think there should be a clause for if the baby’s going to die or if they think it might be handicapped – my mother was told that I was dead at 20 weeks. Clearly, I’m not. She was told repeatedly that my brother Tim was “severely damaged” and “beyond retarded”, and yet he was fine. But yes, if they are certain the mother’s life is in danger, that’s the only time I believe it may be alright.
Bel – I don’t believe it’s wrong to make voting decisions based on certain horrific issues. Abortion isn’t my only concern, but it’s one that is vitally important in my mind. Societies show their true nature when caring for its weakest and most defenseless members, be they unborn babies, handicapped and retarded children, etc. Murdering babies is pretty high on my list of importance.
Was it tactical flyering? Of course, I said that in my very first paragraph. I’ve always believed that abortion was wrong, save for in very few circumstances. That one flyer just brought it to the forefront of my mind again and made me do some research. I learned about more than just the typical partial birth abortion procedures, and found out more about Dilation & Extraction methods. The flyer didn’t convince me, as I was already convinced years ago, but it did cause me to investigate more. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Heather,
The overwhelming majority of the human race I’m sure agrees with you in principle, myself included.
However, you said: “I agree that clauses need to be in place for when the mother’s life is in danger, meaning that she would literally die from carrying the baby.”
And we can all agree with that sentiment as well. But that in fact is the very reason John Kerry did not support GW’s partial birth abortion ban, specifically because it did NOT provide any such clause for considering the health of the mother. That is also the reason it is being challenged in court. It isn’t simply the case that Kerry and others who opposed the ban are nothing more than a bunch of callous, unfeeling butchers (you don’t really believe that, do you?). And think about it — if you call it murder (and you did), then there is NEVER justification for murder, the mother’s life notwithstanding.
And, continuing that thought, in the critical moment, does the mother then have to trade her life for the baby? Or do we force the doctor to just stand by and let nature take its course and see who survives without intervention (possibly resulting in the death of both parties)?
Perhaps a better question might be, is there a more humane way to remedy these rare and obviously painful and horrible paradoxes? I wonder…
Anyway, here is the OFFICIAL Kerry statement on this issue, FWIW:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0601e.html
I have a little different feeling. If the mother AND baby would die from whatever UNSPECIFIED disease or condition, it should be treated as triage. If the mother will die, but the baby might live, I, as that mother, would not abort my baby. Like an article I read about this woman with critical cancer, that found out she was pregnant, and decided to forgo chemotheropy and radiation, because it would abort the baby. She died, and her baby lived. I guess I look at it as, if you make the desicion to have sex, you are signing up for all that may involve, including you getting pregnant and having to protect your baby. Even, if that means giving your life for your child, though you will never meet them
Timothy – There’s a little thing called “self defense.” While I agree with Danni and I wouldn’t abort my baby if my life were threatened, I believe that some women might. Perhaps they have other children, perhaps they don’t want to die, that’s their issue. I wouldn’t but there’s still that case of self-defense. Self defense never constitutes “murder”, because murder is the cold-blooded, calculated killing of another human being.
I didn’t bring up Kerry, I never mentioned Kerry. All I said was I wouldn’t vote for any candidate who was for abortion – it’s a blanket rule of mine and applies to all political parties. However, the fact is, despite his official stance of changing the partial birth abortion ban, he is in favor of appointing “pro-choice” Justices, he wants to repeal other restrictions on abortion, etc etc. You brought him up first, not me.
Danni – If it were my body and my baby, I’d agree with you. I’m totally pro-choice in that the choice begins before you have sex – you choose whether or not you’re willing to have a baby at that particular moment. Like you said, you assume all the responsibility before the point of conception. But, I can understand why someone would want to defend themselves up to a certain time. It just depends on their situation, I guess.
You should get rid of the word “murder.”
After rereading the blog, this time without 14 kids crawling on me, I see that you allow for medical intervention when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Therefore I take back my comment.
Hey, I only mentioned Kerry because I don’t like beating around the “Bush”! ;o)
Now, I admire women who stand firm for their beliefs, and I especially admire someone who would trade their life for their unborn child.
However, do you honestly think your husband (and other children who need a mom) would agree with that decision? I don’t think it’s one you get to make all by yourself.
Is pregnancy ALWAYS the result of a woman willing / consenting to have sex?
One other thing still troubles me. You are obviously a kind, loving and amazing person Heather. But how many women (talking now about those who choose to have reckless sex) who are willing to opt for something as (I admit it) barbaric as abortion are going to be kind, loving and amazing for those babies we force them to bring to term? Are we making moms responsible for their actions, or simply inviting these babies into a world of abuse, neglect and sorrow? Are there enough Heathers in the world to care for the unwanted and unloved and neglected? I wish it were so…
I don’t think tactical flyering is a bad thing (not always a good thing, but that’s another issue). The point I was trying to make was that it can be very effective, as fact that you wrote this blog entry shows. You are an informed person, and feel strongly about this issue. The fact that you received the flyer motivated you to research the issue further, and to post this blog entry. Someone else, maybe not previously so well informed or passionate about the issue, may have received the flyer, and been motivated to research the issue further. They may have then formed or refined their opinion on the issue, which in turn may influence the way they vote next week. If this happens with only a few people, the tactical flyering campaign will have been a success.
Timothy – You’d be surprised how many Heathers there actually are out there. Adoptions agencies are all over the place, and if you send a child to a legitimate one that child will have a great chance of being placed in a kind, loving family. No, not all pregnancies are the result of consentual sex, but 99% of them are, as Heather pointed out earlier. 1% of all abortions in the United States are the result of rape or incest. One percent doesn’t justify the (continued) legalization of all abortions. I think what Heather is trying to get across is that the existence of abortion in our society represents a lack of respect for the innocence of children, which is a dangerous thing that contributes also to the also very depressing statistics on child abuse in America. For me at least, the question is not whether abortion is murder, it is whether we can justify the end of innocent life for personal gain.