One Small Step for Babykind

The New American | November 17, 2003 | by Warren Mass

[Delphinium]

It is better to ban one abortion procedure — i.e., partial-birth abortion — than to ban none at all. But the magnitude of this pro-life victory should be kept in perspective.

It is natural for anyone who has labored tirelessly for years in the pro-life movement to feel a sense of satisfaction that Congress has finally shown an ounce of common sense, a pennyweight of compassion, and a gram of courage. The weary soldier welcomes any victory, however small.

We are referring, of course, to the long-awaited 64-34 vote in the Senate to pass the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003." The Senate vote on October 21 followed the 282-142 House vote three weeks earlier. Following the Senate victory, President Bush agreed to sign the legislation, keeping a campaign promise to pro-lifers — an important constituency without whose support he most certainly would not have been elected.

While those of us who are committed to defending the sanctity of life can honestly regard the partial-birth abortion ban as a step in the right direction, complete victory against abortion remains elusive. Depending on the source of your statistics, approximately 1.3 million abortions are performed each year in the United States. Of these, estimates on the number of partial-birth abortions range from 2,000-5,000. Using the higher figures, the ban will, at least in theory, prevent less than four-tenths of one percent of all abortions.

Every human life is worth saving, and saving even a single life is a worthwhile achievement. But, tragically, the language of the legislation condemns, not the crime of abortion, but a particular means (partial-birth abortion) for carrying out that murderous act. In so doing, the legislation actually implies that other means to the same deadly end are permissible. Instead of stopping the killing, the legislation may, in many if not most cases, only change the method of execution.

For example, among the congressional findings stated in the bill was the language: "Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure...." This language suggests that other abortion procedures are favored by the medical community. The legislation does nothing to discourage these other, supposedly more favored, abortion procedures.

Another section of the legislation reads: "[A] prominent medical association has recognized that partial-birth abortions are ‘ethically different from other destructive abortion techniques because the fetus, normally twenty weeks or longer in gestation, is killed outside the womb.’" Partial-birth abortion is a form of infanticide. But is killing the 20-week-old infant outside the womb ethically different from killing that same 20-week-old infant inside the womb?

Of course, it is better to ban one abortion procedure than to ban none at all. But the magnitude of this pro-life victory should be kept in perspective. Suppose our laws prohibited ax murders while permitting other forms of murder, such as murders by means of knives or guns. How much of an effect would outlawing just ax murders have on the overall murder rate?

Even if the practical end result of the partial-birth abortion ban is to cause abortionists to switch to other methods, the attention drawn to the issue may help arouse the conscience of a complacent American public. But although we feel positive about the passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, we feel much less so about the fact that it provided an all-too-easy way for a number of spineless politicians to win a "pro-life" label.

Consider, for example, President Bush’s position on stem-cell research. In a May 18, 2001 letter to Robert A. Best of the Culture of Life Foundation, Bush wrote: "I oppose federal funding for stem-cell research that involves destroying living human embryos." On August 9 of that same year, however, Bush made a decision that legitimized the practice he said he opposed three months earlier. His decision allowed federal funding for stem-cell research on 60 stem-cell lines consisting of what he called "embryos that have already been destroyed." One problem with this decision is that he had delayed his ruling for nearly eight months into his presidency. "President Bush’s prolonged stalling," explained the American Life League in an August 2002 white paper on the subject, "allowed scientists more time to develop stem cell lines that would be eligible for federal funding. When the discussion surrounding federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research first began, there were 12 known stem cell lines in existence.... By the time the President made his decision in early August, the number of lines jumped to over 60."

Many conservatives continue to hope that, given the chance, George W. Bush will nominate justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet, Mr. Bush has stated he would not use abortion as a litmus test for choosing Supreme Court nominees. And many conservatives view President Bush as staunchly pro-life, even though he supports a right to abortion under certain circumstances such as in cases of rape and incest.

If there is a lesson in all this, it is that as long as pro-lifers abandon genuine pro-life candidates for public office because "they can’t win," and cast their lot instead with slippery politicians who manage to straddle the fence on the pro-life issue, they will always fight an uphill battle.

[farmfriend]

I am happy that lives will be saved. I seem to be the only one who objects to the interstate commerce clause being used for this. The hipocracy of the right, who object when it is used for liberal causes but don't when it is used for conservative causes, slays me.

[Delphinium]

Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure...." This language suggests that other abortion procedures are favored by the medical community. The legislation does nothing to discourage these other, supposedly more favored, abortion procedures.

This bothers me.

[Delphinium]

I just hope they don't give up noe that they have got this passed.

I agree with the author that it probably;

it provided an all-too-easy way for a number of spineless politicians to win a "pro-life" label.

[ken5050]

Let's fast forward a few steps...assume that W gets judges on the SC and we overturn Roe...this means that the issue goe back to the state legislatures, where it belongs in the first place...and you're gonna have a wide range of laws..NY Cal Mass, et al, allowing abortions.....what you're never gonna have is criminializing a women who resides in a no-abortion states who goes to NY or Cal to have one done...what we could probably hope for, a best, would be a gradual banning or abortions, by the individual states, past the first trimester...in this regard..the dramatic advances in medical technological, especially imaging...make it harder to depict the fetus as a lump of tissue...and it's possible that someday, science may prove that viability is present at conception....can't you see the NY Times headline..."NIH proves God was right, after all"...myself, I'd like to see the pro-life groups take a more positive approach to the issue advocacy....remember the Iowa septuplets who were born about 5 years ago....they were delivered at 24 weeks I believe...now they're all about 5, and all healthy....can't you see a picture of all of them..at birth, then today...with the tag line "Who told you we we're viable?"

[Delphinium]

Who told you we we're viable?"

Good idea.

[bonesmccoy]

what bothers you?

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[shhrubbery!]

the ban will, at least in theory, prevent less than four-tenths of one percent of all abortions

Very true. Abortuaries will continue to kill late-term babies by "saline abortion" (aka "salting out" -- the lovely procedure that poisons and burns babies to death through the injection of extremely strong salt solution into the womb).

Abortionists will also continue to kill babies whose lungs are immature by inducing premature labor, delivering the child, and then "allowing" him or her to die in a medical waste bucket with no comfort or medical treatment. This is how it's been done in Canada.

But the author is right. Better to ban one murderous "procedure" than none at all.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah.

[biblewonk]

A 9 month baby can still be killed before it is born right?

[cpforlife.org]

This ban and the attention it recieves is good because it keeps the murder of children waiting to be born in the public light. And the overall rejection of killing unborn children cannot happen if the general public is unaware and uninformed.

Sadly, the butchers will simply switch to killing these babies with another method. They don't care, because the money is all that matters. One option is D&E:

From http://nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

About "Dilation and Evacuation" (D&E) Dismemberment Abortions

At the same developmental stage at which most partial-birth abortions are performed -- in the fifth and sixth months -- many unborn children are killed with a different abortion method called "dilation and evacuation" ("D&E"). It also is very brutal and painful to the unborn child.

"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." - H.G. Wells

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life Ping.

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[cpforlife.org]

Yes.

[Delphinium]

This language suggests that other abortion procedures are favored by the medical community. The legislation does nothing to discourage these other, supposedly more favored, abortion procedures.

Its almost like the legislators are actually favoring abortions other than partial birth.

[GrandEagle]

... 23 week old FETUS...
My wife and I have a child that is 24 weeks old. He is not an "it", lump of tissue, etc... He is a person with a name - Nathaniel. I can get him to kick and roll over by a simple touch. He responds to our touch nearly every time. Can't wait to meet him.

May God have mercy on our country

[Coleus]

http://www.thenewamerican.com

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/abortion/index.htm

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Coleus]

This one abortuary performs 1,500 per year!!
http://beta.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005370/posts?page=49#49