Posted on 03/22/2002 5:23:30 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
Few characteristics of political discourse are more infuriating than the ease with which language is manipulated. Depending on who´s talking, a tax is not a tax. It´s "an investment". If a political operative is intent on frightening the electorate into the voting booths, an increase in federal funding that is still above the rate of inflation can be "a cut". And governmentally instituted racism that favors a targeted group of beneficiaries is not really racism; it´s "affirmative action".
Such bastardizations certainly help to foster the impression that "all politicians are liars", perhaps, rightly so. But if done often enough and applied with sufficient skill, distortions can slide effortlessly into the American lexicon and remain ripe for continuing perversion whenever it is convenient. The jargon employed to legitimize abortion and outright infanticide is a sterling example.
With this in mind, let´s consider the opening line from a March 13th, Associated Press release bearing the headline "House Expands Protection of Fetuses":
WASHINGTON (AP) - "A fetus outside a woman's body that has a heartbeat or is breathing on its own would be considered "born alive" and given legal protection under a bill approved by the House."
As a culture, we´ve become accustomed to the parsing of words as they relate to pregnancy and the unborn. A human life, though living and clearly human, really isn´t. To market abortion as a casually acceptable medical procedure, along the line of getting a boil lanced, it´s a "fetus" or an "unviable tissue mass". Certainly either of these alien, malignant sounding growths is easier to discard than something labeled "a baby" or "a child".
Until recently, these dehumanizing words were only creatively applied to a human offspring not yet removed from the womb. But as we can see from the quote above, however, a baby can now have a heartbeat, be breathing on its own, and be fully separated from the mother and still be a fetus. It is only by an act of congress, if ratified, that it will be "considered" alive and, therefore, be entitled to legal protection.
With the rampant ineptitude in the American media, it would be easy to dismiss this as a misstatement in reporting on the passage of The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. This is simply not the case. The wording was very much intentional. A March 20th article by CNSNews chronicled an exchange between supporting members from the House of Representatives and an Associated Press editor concerning the use of the word "fetus" as it relates to the bill. After an earlier article using the same term was published, objections were raised and it was restated that the legislation was meant to protect fully separate and living human beings. AP was even provided with the Merriam-Webster definition of the word. The protests were promptly dismissed. The response received stated, "fetus was the ‘correct term´ for the article ‘as opposed to baby or infant´". Follow-up AP releases contained the same wording.
More chilling than carefree word usage is the reality that such legislation is necessary. Reports and congressional testimony by health care professionals revealed that routinely live, near full-term infants are abandoned in sinks and tossed in with soiled linen. A nurse from Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois testified that doctors sometimes left infants to die alone in a utility closet, after botched abortions.
In all fairness, the highly influential news service is not alone in using freewheeling wordplay that trivializes of life and death. Once when commenting on the subject, California Sen. Barbara Boxer declared, "The liberty interest of pregnant women does not stop at the cervix". In a lengthy exchange with Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, she was asked, "So you would agree any child that´s born has the right to life, is protected under the Constitution?" Boxer replied, "I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision. And what you are doing goes against it and will harm the women of this country…"
During consideration of an earlier version of the bill, the National Organization for Women´s website posted commentary in opposition:
"This bill would effectively blur the line between pre- and post- viability, in an attempt to undermine a woman's constitutional right to abortion while the fetus is in the pre-viability stage. If passed, the bill would grant fetal personhood and limit a woman's right to make complex and private decisions regarding termination of pregnancy."
Here again, "fetus" is applied to children who have been fully birthed.
The use of "pre-viability stage" is a further expansion of the cold technical lingo that has been so effective in making abortion perfectly acceptable in our culture. The clear intention is to extend "pregnancy" into a period after delivery. The truth of the matter is that any and every child is "unviable" until years after birth, if left to fend for itself. This breezy apathy toward young life goes a considerable distance in explaining the support for Andrea Yates and the indifference toward her murdered children by American feminists. If the debate in the midst of that courtroom battle is any indication, the timeframe for retroactive abortion should be extended indefinitely for women with Postpartum Depression.
NOW has also contended that supporters of The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act just, "want to be able to use the issue as part of their infanticide rhetoric". The "infanticide rhetoric" being referenced is the argument to abolish so-called "partial-birth abortions". In any real sense, there is little difference in disposing of a child seconds after birth or while some portion of its body remains in the birth canal.
Like the subject of abortion in general, partial-birth abortion is usually discussed in antiseptic, euphemistic terms. It is seldom described in a manner any more accurate than "a type of late term abortion". This, of course, softens the reality that healthy full-term infants can be, and are, terminated after they have, by-and-large, been born.
The "procedure" itself, clinically tagged "Intact Dilation and Extraction" cannot be reviewed often enough. The child is intentionally delivered breach, with the exception of the head. The base of the skull is then pierced and its contents emptied. The result is a collapse of the skull and death.
Despite assertions from pro-abortion activists that this is a rare practice only used if the mother´s health is in question, experts have come forward to label the claims intentionally false. In fact, the procedure is far from uncommon.
The argument that the availability of partial-birth abortion is essential to address women´s health concerns has been rejected. It was based on this false claim that former President Clinton repeatedly vetoed measures meant to outlaw it. Acquiescing to the feminist lobby, and to the notion that abortion has some mythical foundation in the Constitution, pre or post birth, Senate Democrats failed to deliver a veto-proof majority.
Clinton and likeminded Democrats had stated that they would have supported a ban if an exemption for "the mother´s health" included. In truth, within the political sphere the word "health" is about as malleable as "fetus", "birth" and "is". A ridiculously loose definition is what currently legitimizes PBA. It is defined in the way best suited to the mother involved: mental, emotional, financial or otherwise.
As for this method having any beneficial attributes, The Journal of the American Medical Association has published findings to the contrary:
‘The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity associated with the termination of pregnancy increases with advancing gestational age. Induced midtrimester abortion accounts for an estimated 10% to 20% of all abortions, and for two thirds of abortion-related major complications especially maternal mortality. On average, the mortality from induced abortions increases 30% with each passing week of gestation.
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, hardly one of we knuckle dragging, conservative Neanderthals, professed:
"In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described—you know, partial birth and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born—is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby."
Unfortunately, all of the evidence and learned testimonials in the world do little against unchecked propaganda.
To their credit, the Bush administration has taken a proactive step in supporting an Ohio law banning partial-birth abortion. But essential to the effort is exposing, in all its horror, the slow but steady creep of Roe v. Wade. This will be all but impossible without challenging the distorted definitions that dominates the debate, and which has been wholly adopted by the press.
The ultimate fate of The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act may equally depend on a rational reclamation of our language. The tactics used to destroy Bush´s Court of Appeals nominee, Charles Pickering, in the Senate are but a small indication of the depths the disciples of Roe v. Wade are willing to go to ensure the continued expansion of their faith. And with obstructionist extraordinaire Tom Daschle at the Senate´s helm, its future could be dim. This is unless certain principled leaders have the wherewithal to call a baby a baby, and a life a life in clear, unapologetic terms.
Well, isn't that a crock! The mortality from induced abortions in the United States is virtually 100%, regardless of gestation. Except in EXTREMELY rare cases, the baby always dies, correct? Sounds inherently fatal to me.
Let's see... After CFR is put into law only the media will be able to put out messages in the last 60 days before an election. Boy, that should really help create a level playing field. (/sarcasm)
Nam Vet
I told her, you know who is for it even more than women, men. They get sex with no obligations what so ever. They get to have sex with no committment, no baby, no responsibility, no cares. I then asked her what she gets if she has sex before marriage? No answer. Once again I reiterate my line my kids have heard a thousand times, Abstinence works every time!!!!!
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.