Posted on 06/26/2004 7:08:27 AM PDT by miltonim
Those of us who believe in the protection of innocent life achieved an important victory last fall after many years of struggle. President Bush signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on November 5, 2003.
Even though many Americans were horrified to learn what this gruesome procedure entailed, there was a vocal, well-funded minority determined to fight the truth to the last.
In the end, we prevailed over the supporters of legalized abortion, and thankfully, we have a president who is sincerely devoted to the pro-life cause and is willing to place his reputation on the line to protect innocent human life.
The natural question for the pro-life movement is what should our next step be?
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) supplied the answer last month when he introduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (S. 2466). There is a companion bill in the House (H.R. 4420) sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus, whose admirable devotion to the cause has won him the accolade "the lion of life on Capitol Hill."
The Family Research Council, National Right to Life Committee, Concerned Women for America, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Christian Medical Society support the principles embodied in S. 2466 and H.R. 4420.
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would require abortion providers to inform women, who are twenty weeks or more into their pregnancy, that the abortion procedure inflicts pain on their unborn child. This will be done both verbally and through a pamphlet issued by the Department of Health & Human Services.
If the woman intends to carry through with the abortion, she will have the option to first anesthetize the baby.
Unborn children cannot speak for themselves about the pain of dismemberment. However, modern science has convincingly demonstrated that the abortion procedure is painful to the unborn child.
Dr. Jean Wright, professor and chairman of pediatrics at the Mercer School of Medicine and executive director of the Backus Children's Hospital in Savannah, Georgia, testified to the Virginia State Senate's committee dealing with education and health issues.
She stated, "Over the past 20 years, there is a growing body of solid scientific evidence that now causes us to treat the unborn fetus as being capable of perceiving and responding to painful experiences. Aspects of pain architecture begin as early as 6-7 weeks and mature and are identified by their anatomy, their physiology, and the coordination of responses so that by 20-22 weeks of gestation the evidence reveals a developed system of pain perception and response. In addition, the ability to modulate or blunt the pain response does not develop until the last weeks of pregnancy and the first few weeks of infancy, leading us to believe that the pain perceived in the fetus is greater than that in the full term infant or child."
Clearly, most unborn children will feel pain even earlier than 20 weeks. However, a notable segment of the medical and scientific community agrees on 20 weeks as a benchmark for the unborn child's ability to feel pain.
A Zogby poll taken earlier this spring showed that public opinion is on our side. Over three-quarters of Americans support "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act puts the rhetoric of the self-proclaimed "pro-choice" lobby to a most difficult test. Are they really in favor of providing truly complete information to women interested in having an abortion?
Do they believe in informed "choice?" If so, then they would support this bill. If not, then they have clearly demonstrated that their agenda is more "pro-abortion" than "pro-choice," something that pro-lifers have long understood and the American public is coming to understand.
The pro-abortion lobby is interested in promoting legalized abortion, which is the "choice" that ends all choices for unborn children. In contrast to the deceptive labeling promoted by the abortion lobby, the "pro-life" movement describes exactly what the agenda of our movement is about: the protection of innocent life.
When President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act into law, he made clear that a basic responsibility of government is to defend innocent human life, no matter how defenseless or imperfect.
He stated, "America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life...This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from the government, it comes from the Creator of life."
It is our moral duty to issue a call to our nation and its conscience.
Millions of Americans have been denied their right to life since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision. Many more lives would have been lost if not for your effort to change our nation's laws and your outreach to misguided young women seeking to end the lives of their unborn children.
Slowly, but surely, due to laws such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and legislation such as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, the tide of public opinion is turning in our favor, and with that abortion becomes less and less attractive as more and more Americans have come to understand its true consequences.
The debate over measures such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in itself forced many Americans to think more seriously about abortion, and the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act will no doubt similarly serve as a spur to the consciences of many Americans.
Not everything changed as quickly as we wanted since Roe v. Wade , but for those of us in this fight for the duration, we battle knowing that, thanks to measures such as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, that in the end the truth and right will prevail. We need to pray that the courts will uphold these life-saving pieces of legislation.
Having the brains sucked out of one's head has to be just about as devastating as decapitation (beheading, for those of you in Rio Linda and Palm Beach). The end result is the same - what was a living creature has suddenly become a corpse. An inconvenient person is silenced and disposed of.
When an abortionist sees a beheading video, does he identify with the victim or the terrorist?
The women have a choice. But the misperception is that choice takes place after conception. The purpose of sex is reproduction. So why are people shocked when mother nature does her job? The choice is whether or not to have sex. Contrary to popular belief, abstinence does not kill!
I agree with you 100%. We have a social culture that promotes the idea of consequence-free sex. What I see us doing with laws like this is forcing people to face more and more of the consequences back into sex, slowly but surely. But make no mistake this is going to be fought tooth and nail.
I would also like to require that anyone having an abortion first be required to view a full diagnostic ultrasound of the baby inside. That alone would prevent quite a few abortions.
Dear God! There are tears in my eyes, as often happens reading this kind of article.
I hope I live to see the day this American Holocaust ends.
This is why atheism cannot be tolerated. When we deny the existence of a creator, then we have to ask, from where do our rights flow? Without a creator, our rights flow from government and government is subject to the whims of man.
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.