Posted on 01/16/2005 10:22:09 AM PST by Ed Current
Gianna Jessen came into the world as a surprise. Her 17-year-old mother knew she was pregnant. She also knew she didn't want to be. She underwent an abortion procedure, having toxic saline solution injected into the womb during the third trimester.
Jessen, then in the womb for 7½ months, spent 18 hours in the solution. "It burns the baby inside and out," she said. "(The mother) is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours." But when a 2-pound Jessen emerged, she was alive.
(Excerpt) Read more at modbee.com ...
"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).
Destroying the Law Breaking Branch of the Federal with Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. ...
The law-breaking branch of the federal government has become move powerful than the law making branch, the President and even the Constitution.
How did five out of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court become so infallible that no one questions anything they say? When the Most High Court speaks, the nation must prostrate fall. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, during his confirmation hearings, said that he would not attempt to overturn Roe v.Wade and that he considered it the "settled law of the land." The abortion edicts from the Supreme Court aren't acts of Congress, nor a constitutional amendment, but a supposedly pro-life politician declares that those edicts are "settled law."
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to break as many laws as they have, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the law making process? Why did Marshall have to derive the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison? Why wasn't it explicitly stated in the Constitution?
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to amend the Constitution, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the amendment process? If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to enforce their own opinion, why does the Constitution leave that option with the President?
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be equal to, or above the written Constitution, why does the Constitution state, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…. and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.
It is past time to terminate the rule of broken law contained in the unconscionable and unconstitutional edicts of the U.S. Supreme court.
We the People Act needs to be reintroduced and passed by the 109th Congress and restore the rule of Law.
If the "mother" had to go through the birth process anyway, then why have an abortion? Why not just carry the child to term and give it up for adoption? I just can't understand why it's so difficult. There are plenty of resources out there for women with no money to receive care during their pregnancies. It's nine months out of your life. It isn't a huge sacrifice.
Anyone know of a site that attempts to estimate that number? Not total abortions or total 3rd trimester abortions of deformed kids, but of normal healthy kids like her?
She is absolutely beautiful (inside and out)!
God bless her. What this story doesn't say is that she is very lucky to have had some caring doctors. Normally when an aborted baby is accidentally born alive in a hospital--let alone in an abortion clinic--they are set aside to die of thirst, starvation, or exposure, so as not to inconvenience anyone. Indeed, doctors and hospitals have been sued for letting aborted babies live.
The doctors who helped this brave young woman pull through still had some old-time respect for the Hippocratic Oath and their duties as medical practioners.
Normally when an aborted baby is accidentally born alive in a hospital--let alone in an abortion clinic--they are set aside to die of thirst, starvation, or exposure, so as not to inconvenience anyone. Indeed, doctors and hospitals have been sued for letting aborted babies live.
As a young doctor in the early 1970s, Paul E. Jarrett, Jr., did a number of legal abortions. He began having doubts, though, after the urea-induced abortion of a mental patient. The child, weighing two pounds, was born alive, and the mother screamed, "My baby's alive! My baby's alive!" Dr. Jarrett later said, "I often wondered what we did for her mental status. That baby lived several days."
But it was a 1974 operation that "changed my mind about abortion forever." While doing a suction abortion, Jarrett found that the suction curette was obstructed by a torn-off fetal leg. So he changed techniques and dismembered the child with a ring forceps:
And as I brought out the rib cage, I looked and I saw a tiny, beating heart. And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being–a human being that I'd just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse and said, "I'm sorry." But I just knew that I couldn't be a part of abortion any more.
The option of placing children for adoption, as opposed to aborting them as late as the third trimester, is often discussed, but does not seem to be a complete solution. The reason may be that many American couples choose to adopt children of foreign birth - Russian, Chinese, or from a number of East European countries.
Why do American couples go overseas to find children to adopt? Couple of reasons - one being that children born in this country are particularly hard to adopt, because the birth parents continue to claim more and more "rights" to reclaim the child after the fact. Not just a few weeks or months afterward, but YEARS later. And because of the diminished numbers, as a result of an extraordinary number of abortions carried out, there is no longer that large a pool to adopt from.
When I was around 13 my Mother told me she had tried to abort me but had been unsuccessful. Probably has a little to do with why I am so PRO LIFE.
Ping!
"My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.
This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.
Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: '"The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words.'" Today's slogans are: "'a woman's right to choose"' and "freedom of choice," etcetera.
Amazing story! She is here to tell others about what happened to her.
It is a great thing as I can't think of anything that grabs my heart and soul to hear the story right from her. She will save a lot of babies with her story.
When I was around 13 my Mother told me she had tried to abort me but had been unsuccessful.
"I belong to an on-line support group (me, in a sup- port group, there's a picture) composed of adult children born of rape or incest. There are more of us in the former category than the latter. Jennifer is our webmistress, organizer, facilitator, coach, head nanny, chief nag (though very nice about it), and the child of a violent rape. Mostly, I lurk. But for some in the group, I am a kind of unofficial chaplain and sometime pastoral advisor. There are children born before Roe v. Wade as well as children born after Roe v. Wade. The handles adopted by some in the group are evocative: "former fetus," "unawares angel," names like that." Everything Personal: Children Born of Rape or Incest," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003
" She is a young lady who spreads joy wherever she goes. She has a place in the lives of many, not only her new husband, her parents, and her brothers, but many who know her well, and many who have met her in passing-a unique place that no one else could fill. She is happy by nature at 23, married, an avid reader, a good friend, a serious Christian. This is the person that these well-meaning people were willing to sentence to death. Oh, not now, not when they can see her; but when she was in danger the first time, in the womb and hidden from view." Robert Hart, "Her Mother's Glory: The Hardest Abortion Case," Touchstone Magazine, Jan/Feb 2003
A beautiful alternative is embryo adoption. Couples who use in vitro fertilization usually have "leftover" embryos that remain frozen until someone decides what to do with them. These are the embryos used as an excuse to support embryonic stem cell research: they are "spare" embryos, useless to all except those enlightened scientists. But groups such as Snowflakes are promoting embryo adoption. One may adopt 1, 2, 3... frozen embryos and have them implanted in one's uterus, thus becoming the biological (not genetic) mother of those children. I think that's a beautiful alternative for couples who wish to adopt!
Excellent article. What an inspiration this young woman has been and will continue to be! One question. If it's not a "Baby" when you abort, then why did we need this piece of legislation; the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act?"
"This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive -- including an infant who survives an abortion procedure -- is considered a person under federal law," the President said before signing the bill. He added, "Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well.
"The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights."
http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/Born_Alive_Infants/BAIPAsigned.html
You cannot understand because you are thinking in your box. Only your box. You'd have to climb out of it and listen. And hear. It's not the same as saying, "I agree with what you're doing." It is about listening.
There are multitude of reasons women do not wish to carry their babies to full term: Anger at the father. Anger at the Father (Heavenly, hence the "Father"). Shame at "being caught/found out/exposed" as having illicit sex.
Anger if raped because it's (to some) a daily, till-I-die memory that will haunt them, especially if there's a child as a result. And remember, I believe in some states the rapist can petition (and get GRANTED) for the right to see the child and even have a say in what goes on... Can you imagine the power that gives a rapist???
No. I do not agree with ABORTION. It does not solve one single thing... Really, really... It only hides the symptons and that in itself causes more trauma and pain.
And giving up the baby... Girls are looked at as if they are evil for actually giving up their child. It's a hard walk, doing that...
I still grieve for those who have aborted their child/children.
An afterthought.... if a guy can be charged with causing the death of a baby as in the last several weeks, a young man has, the girl/woman who participated in it should be charged, as well....
The source article is an amazing story. ping
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.