Posted on 10/24/2003 4:39:39 PM PDT by DesertGOP
I was appalled, though not surprised, to read on the front page of our local High Desert paper, The Daily Press, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, Senator Barbara Boxer’s comments about the story behind the headline, “Senate Oks partial birth abortion ban.” Said Sen. Boxer: “This is indeed a historic day, because for the first time in history Congress is banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians (emphasis added).”
The Associated Press article went on to say that this bill was years in the making and imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the (U.S.) Supreme Court in 1973 confirmed a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The 64-34 vote came three weeks after the House passed the same measure by 281-142. President Bush has already vowed to sign the bill into law as soon as it hits his desk, but pro-abortion groups have pledged to challenge to law the moment he does.
As the father of an adopted daughter who was mercifully spared this grizzly procedure, I am thankful that we finally have a president in the Oval Office who is more concerned about fostering a “culture of life,” rather than fall victim to the ever-changing winds of political correctness and refuses to bow down to the hypocritical alter of the pro-choice agenda (for, the term “choice” is a misnomer and is simply a euphemism for murder).
What precisely takes place during a partial birth abortion is far too graphic to mention here and would most likely offend even the heartiest of readers. Suffice it to say, though, partial birth abortion describes a late term abortion procedure also known as Dilation and Extraction (D & X) that is generally performed in the second or third trimester of a pregnancy, in which a fetus is partially delivered before a doctor punctures the skull.
But, I am sure that Sen. Boxer knows from whence she speaks when she says that partial birth abortion is a procedure that is considered “medically necessary.” Then, again, maybe she’s not quite up to speed as she might think; for, there are others in the medical community who would beg to differ with her in this matter. One, for instance, is former Surgeon General of the United States, C. Everett Koop, M.D. Another is the American Medical Association’s president in 1997, Daniel H. Johnson Jr., M.D. And, there are other medical experts, possibly more qualified than our illustrious Ms. Boxer, who also deserve to speak out on the subject and share the opinion that there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman.
Perhaps the senator from California should have taken notes when her fellow senator from Tennessee, Senate Majority Leader and heart surgeon, Sen. Bill Frist, recently spoke about the need for the pending legislative ban: “Today, I do not wish to debate the politics of partial birth abortion. Instead, I will discuss the disturbing facts of partial birth abortion as a surgical procedure—a surgical procedure—to my mind—that should and must be banned. The fact is that partial birth abortion is a repulsive procedure.”
Folks, this isn’t about politics; it’s about decency and what any civilized society should be asked to accept as such. Correct me if I’m wrong.
President Clinton twice vetoed partial birth abortion bills on the grounds that they did not include exceptions addressing the health of the mother. The good news is that, in response to a 2000 Nebraska case ruling involving similar legislation, and in order to address the Supreme Court’s concerns that the definition of the (partial birth abortion) practice was too vague—making it unclear to doctors what procedures were illegal—and didn't have an exception concerning risks to the health of the mother to go along with an exception for when the life of the mother was in danger, pro-life attorneys drafted new legislation designed to satisfy the High Court’s criteria while still banning the late-term abortion method.
The result has culminated in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (otherwise known as S.3), now awaiting the president’s signature, followed by what’s sure to be a plethora of headline-grabbing legal battles along the way.
So, even though many of us in the pro-life community are celebrating a “culture of life” attitude returning to the White House—after eight long years of anything but—as Bette Davis once quipped in one of her films: “Fasten your seatbelts, kids, it’s going to be a bumpy night.”
I don't anticipate that this particular will see the printer's ink, but I thought I'd give it my best shot, while keeping most of the message's meaning in tact.
DesertGOP Victorville, CA
I was going to say 'may the Lord our God Messiah Y'shua bless you, but I see He already has.
Barb has short-term memory problems: she can't recall congressional testimony she heard recently.
Maybe she's in early-stage Alzheimer's. She is, herself, victim of what she would describe as a "Reagan moment".
I wonder if she would want to continue living like this? Can she swallow?
Why on earth not? It's brilliantly written.
Well duh! Since there have not been any restrictions, even requiring them to take an aspirin before the procedure would have been the most "far-reaching..."
That's like saying, the amount of people in favor of thus and such doubled (It was one person in favor. Now it is two people).
pro-life bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
