Posted on 07/29/2002 12:22:09 PM PDT by usconservative
Two significant pro-life achievements were attained recently: one was front-page news, the other hardly noticed. Let's take the hardly noticed measure first.
A Chicago area nurse won a national victory in her battle against live-birth abortion last week when the U.S. Senate, without dissent or debate, passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act and sent the measure on to President Bush for his signature. Jill Stanek, a nurse from suburban Mokena, brought the issue to Congress two years ago with the stunningly disturbing news that babies surviving abortions at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn were left to die without medical care. Stanek lost her job as labor/delivery nurse at the hospital because of her protests. Stanek had herself held one of the surviving infants--a 21-gestational-week boy--for about 45 minutes while he struggled for breath and died.
The bill passed on the unanimous consent calendar through the leadership of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) but with the concurrence of Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), the Senate majority leader. Modest though the bill is, the measure is historic because, according to Dr. Hadley Arkes, the Amhurst college professor who wrote the text of the bill for the House Judiciary's Constitution subcommittee, ''it would confirm that Congress can lay hands on this subject [abortion], that Congress may legislate to establish the limits to the right of abortion and even bar certain kinds of abortion.''
Stanek has been out of work as a nurse through her intense battle to persuade Advocate Health Care to stop inducing premature births as a method of abortion. The measure defines as legal persons infants born alive during abortions regardless of the condition of the babies or circumstances of their birth. Stanek ran for a state House seat in March but lost. This victory, which has national significance, more than makes up for her defeat.
An auxiliary victory of sorts was scored with the Associated Press coverage of the live birth abortion issue when the measure passed the House. The news service reported that the measure affected a live ''fetus.'' Live fetus? That's a baby, isn't it? By that yardstick, are we not all grown-up fetuses? What's wrong with the use of the word ''baby'' or ''infant''?
Well, baby and infant are words that evidently make the issue too graphic. But after protests, this time the AP shifted its ground somewhat, but is still reluctant to use the word baby or infant. ''The Senate sent to the White House . . . a bill that ensures that a live birth--even if it occurs during abortion--has certain rights under federal law,'' the AP said. Live birth of what? A baby, obviously.
The second pro-life victory was scored by the Bush administration. It cuts off $34 million earmarked for UN ''family planning'' programs overseas. In doing so, Bush has rebuffed Secretary of State Colin Powell. An independent study, led by the prestigious Population Research Institute, scored China's forced abortion policy, which would have benefitted from the funding. The private group contradicted a report by a State Department panel that whitewashed China's depopulation actions. Some lawmakers intend to fight the Bush decision. If so, they should take into account a Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) story by Patrick Goodenough.
It says that Chinese women married to Taiwanese men ''are being ordered to have abortions or sterilization surgery during visits to the mainland to comply with China's controversial 'one child' policy. At least six of these women report that [Beijing's] family planning officials forced them to undergo pregnancy tests in recent months. About 100,000 Taiwanese are believed to be married to spouses from the mainland.
Social conservatives chafing at not winning all their battles with the Bush administration should consider the population fund cut-off and the live-birth abortion measure that the president will sign as vital. Now their job is to push Congress to pass the partial-birth abortion ban. It passed the House Judiciary Committee last week by a vote of 20-8. The goal is for speedy House passage (it has passed the measure before) and on to the Senate before its August recess.
When pro-lifers grumble at Bush, they should recall that Bill Clinton vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban twice--in 1996 and 1997.
This time, President Bush would enthusiastically sign it.
She ran for the Illinois House against a Pro-Abort candidate and lost. As a newcomer, she garnered just over 40% of the vote, showing the incumbent to be vulnerable.
Here we have a fine example of God using someone for the greater good. Jill knows this, and is a happy servant of our Lord. She's a role model. One person affected all this change.
Just think what we freepers could do, if we set our minds to it.
Hadley Arkes is a pro-life nonpareil in academia. He has written one of the great essays on Roe v. Wade: Harry Blackmun, RIP -- And May He Now Know Better
I applaud the results of her 'crusade', but am troubled by some aspects of it, particularly in regard to the hospital, her characterization of events there, and the media circus that surrounded her case.
In following her case both through the media, and crossing paths with some of the people involved in the 'other side' of her quest, I came away with the unsettling feeling that she grabbed onto this issue because it was controversial, and held onto it for personal gain (or fame, or notoriety or who knows what).
Many times I felt that it was about 'her' and being a victim and garnering media coverage, and less about the 'issue'.
JMHO.
"Hey willie the pervert klinton, How well do you sleep at night? With all that blood on your hands it's a wonder that you can even close your eyes without seeing and hearing the screams of the aborted babies that you could have helped to save.
I hope it stays with you for as long as you live. You are the most discusting person that I've ever known.
Unable to ever tell the truth, and without a trace of anything moral in your being.
Gore would have blocked both of these pro-life achievements.
There has been no personal gain for Jill. She has been without a job for the last two years. What "fame" is there in being considered a pro-life nut by the mainstream media, and shunned by other hospitals where she's sought a job?
Jill's only "gain" in all of this, was doing what she knew in her heart to be the right thing to do. Her concern first and foremost has always been for the unborn.
She stands very tall on the issue.
I guess I don't see how her "motives" are relevent. She is not the one who has to explain herself here. The ones who have the explaining to do are the animals who watch live babies die a slow death.
Dan
Well, this Sunday I would like you to walk up to Jill, kiss her on the cheek and tell her that John and Linda Walsh from Ct thank her.
Bump to the top!
And a President Bush bump!
I don't think he's going to lose any sleep over it in this life. He hasn't the conscience. However, I believe it is very likely that he will hear those screams throughout eternity.
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay", saith the Lord.
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.