Posted on 02/07/2007 1:18:11 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Key Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion
(excerpts)
In a partial-birth abortion, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.
The January 2003 Gallup poll found that 70% favored and 25% opposed “a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as ‘partial birth abortion,’ except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother.” (margin of error +/- 3%)
The term “partial-birth” is perfectly accurate. Under both federal law and most state laws, a “live birth” occurs when a baby is entirely expelled from the mother and shows any signs of life, however briefly -- regardless of whether the baby is “viable,” i.e., developed enough to be sustained outside the womb with neo-natal medical assistance. Even at 4½ months (20 weeks), perinatologists say that if a baby is expelled or removed completely from the uterus, she will usually gasp for breath and sometimes survive for hours, even though lung development is usually insufficient to permit successful sustained respiration until 23 weeks.
Some prominent defenders of partial-birth abortions, such as NARAL's Kate Michelman and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, insisted that anesthesia kills the babies before they are removed from the womb. This myth has been refuted by professional societies of anesthesiologists. In reality, the babies are alive and experience great pain when subjected to a partial-birth abortion. [Documentation on request.]
She does not, don't put words in her mouth that were never present in the first place.
Mia T raises a very good point at her post #159. One I happen to concur with.
His position as expressed to Hannity is unambiguous:
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: I think that's going to be upheld. I think it should be. as long as there's provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth abortion.
GIULIANI: If it doesn't have provision for the mother I wouldn't support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother I would support.
As for prior statements, I can't say, but what politician hasn't tweaked if not flipped his position on abortion (in both directions!) when transitioning from a local to a national run? (Not to condone it, but it is virtually a universal truism.)
As for calling Giuliani a 'liberal,' in my view that is not accurate. His positions run the gamut. On the most important issue of the day, the war on terror, he is hardly a 'liberal.'
And dear hosepipe, what's wrong with the city in which I was born and bred, anyway?. ;)
Thank you, jla. :)
No, Republicans are NOT okay with ripping human babies limb from limb!
Posted by Convert to Mia T
On News/Activism 02/08/2007 7:55:11 AM PST · 193 of 223
Both lives are precious
Then save BOTH lives
This is the twenty-first century
But some people have a hard time letting go of the seventies
And in the 70s, I think Mia T was jumping rope or playing hopsctoch outside a New York brownstone.
Give me a real for instance
I am not a doctor. Are you?
And Mia must be reading or listening to the old seventies propaganda
A real for instance - have you got one?
ARE YOU SAYING 47,000,000 WOMEN WOULD BE DEAD NOW IF THEY HADN'T HAD ABORTIONS?
You sure like putting words in people's mouths instead of just simply answering a question.
Some Republicans support partial-birth abortion. My congressman, Mark Kirk, of IL, is a Republican who is more liberal than many Democrats. He voted against the partial-birth abortion ban. He also voted against banning gay marriage, and he's anti-gun rights. I think that he should run as a Democrat.
Still no answer
Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Surveys of Doctors Finds Half Oppose Abortion, Others Won't Refer
Life News ^ | 2/8/07 | Steven Ertelt
Posted on 02/08/2007 4:09:59 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new survey of doctors nationwide finds 52 percent said they oppose abortion and others wouldn't refer women considering an abortion to a place that does them. They survey also found some physicians believe it is appropriate to withhold information about abortion on moral grounds.
University of Chicago researchers conducted the study with interviews of 1,144 doctors around the country. It is believed to be the first comprehensive survey of the moral attitudes of physicians.
The study found 14 percent of those surveyed do not believe they are required to tell a patient about all treatment options when it comes to morally objectionable procedures such as abortion.
And 29 percent of physicians say they do not feel they must refer someone to another doctor for a treatment they oppose or were undecided.
Doctors who described themselves as strong Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, were more likely to refuse a referral or more information about morally objectionable procedures like abortion.
Dr. Gary Smith, an obstetrician and gynecologist at the Women's Health Center at Robinwood in Hagerstown, Maryland, is one such doctor.
Smith does not do abortions or refer women to physicians that do and he won't tell a pregnant woman that abortion is an option.
"They know it's an option," he told the Baltimore Sun newspaper. "They don't need me to tell them abortion exists."
"I was always taught I have two patients: the mother and the baby," he said. "Why would I want to send somebody out to hurt their baby?"
Female doctors were more likely to refer women to abortion practitioners than male physicians the study showed.
The survey also found that 42 percent of physicians opposed prescribing birth control to a minor without parental approval.
Dr. Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago ethicist and internist, led the study, which was published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
Some 1,820 practicing U.S. family doctors and specialists chose randomly from a database were mailed a survey and 63 percent of them responded
Wow, this is an incredible coincidence. Just yesterday I posted the following:
"The justification for congressional authority to ban partial-birth abortion was the typical overreaching of the Commerce Clause, but there is also a perfectly constitutional grant of congressional authority on the matter: Sections 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment. Section 1 declares "nor shall any state deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Section 5 provides as follows: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Thus, a principled constitutionalist should have no qualms about Congress banning partial-birth abortion, or all abortions for that matter, since Congress would be protecting persons from being deprived of their lives without due process of law."
And today westmichman posted a story on a House bill sponsored by Congressman Duncan Hunter that uses Section 5 of the 14th Amendment as justification for the congressional authority to protect the right to life from the moment of conception (or cloning, God forbid). See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781684/posts?page=14#14
Here's the list of co-sponsors to this long overdue bill (which IIRC is similar to a bill proposed by Jesse Helms back in the 1980s):
Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] - 1/31/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 1/22/2007
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Boustany, Charles W., Jr. [LA-7] - 1/22/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] - 1/22/2007
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] - 2/5/2007
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 1/22/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 1/22/2007
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR] - 1/22/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Gillmor, Paul E. [OH-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 1/22/2007
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 1/22/2007
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 1/22/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Johnson, Timothy V. [IL-15] - 1/22/2007
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 1/31/2007
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 1/22/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 1/22/2007
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 1/22/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 1/22/2007
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 1/22/2007
Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25] - 1/22/2007
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 1/22/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 1/22/2007
Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] - 1/22/2007
Rep Pickering, Charles W. "Chip" [MS-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 1/22/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 1/31/2007
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Rogers, Harold [KY-5] - 1/22/2007
Rep Sali, Bill [ID-1] - 1/22/2007
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 1/22/2007
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 1/22/2007
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 1/22/2007
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 1/22/2007
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 1/22/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 1/22/2007
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 1/22/2007
The only Democrat brave enough to stand up to the abortionists and co-sponsor the bill was Lincoln Davis of Tennessee (who is one of the three or four most conservative Democrats in Congress and, sitting in a district that gave President Bush 58% in 2004, a good candidate to switch to the GOP). Where are all the other pro-life Democrats in the House, such as Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Collin Peterson, Jim Oberstar, Mike McIntyre, Henry Cuellar, Solomon Ortiz, Charles Melancon, Gene Taylor, Marion Berry, Tim Holden, Jack Murtha, Paul Kanjorski, Mike Doyle, Dan Boren, Jerry Costello, Dan Lipinski, Jim Langevin, Michael McNulty, Charlie Wilson, Tim Ryan, Nick Rahall, Alan Mollohan, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler and probably a dozen others? And what about the 100+ other pro-life Republican Representatives who have remained silent? Even with Democrats in the majority, a majority of Representatives are pro-life, but few of them appear willing to put their sponsorship where their mouth is.
It is also worth noting that one of the co-sponsors is not eligible to vote on the bill's final passage in the unlikely event that the Democrats allow it to get to the floor---Republican Luis Fortuño is the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, so he may only vote in committees, not on the floor.
Posted on 02/10/2007 12:32:30 PM PST by wagglebee
Each year, 68,000 women worldwide die of abortion and 144,000 American women are injured by abortion. The media has not reported adequately on the harms and dangers of abortion, but a new booklet produced by United Families International
fyi - still waiting for the instance of partial birth abortion saving the life of the mother
And how many are coerced into abortion - esp poor women?
"The real shame is that none of the Republican candidates are saying anything about abortion or other life issues. They all seem to have other agendas that THEY feel are more important."
Rep. Duncan Hunter and Senator Brownback both spoke at the pro-life march in D.C., and they are both running for POTUS.
Interestingly, Senators in the democrap party are more vested in a woman's right to a dead baby when seeking a 'termination of pregnancy', so any compromise over LIFE of the Mother is not the real issue of opposition to the ban on this heinous killing method, your imagined emergency not withstanding, Mia. Additionally, the commerce in fetal bodies for research programs is sust ained with partial birth aborticide. Ever wonder how much campaign money flows to democrats from tissue sellers?
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.