Welcome to FR
What?
NTRL has not had much success in the 33 years since Roe v Wade. My husband and I have been active in the pro-life movement for the last 30 years, and we had never heard of the partial-birth procedure until a few years ago when NRTL started sending out fundraising letters describing the procedure. It seems at that time, they ceased trying to stop all the millions of abortions that were going on in this country in favor of promoting the elimination of the PBA procedure. Now all a politician has to do is to say he is against that one procedure, which I do not believe actually happens, and they can call themselves pro-life. That is what Mary Landrieu in Louisiana tries to do. NRTL also has feverishly pushed for exceptions in legislation for rape and incest, which is promoting the killing of babies because of the way they were conceived. I sometimes wonder if they aren’t working for the other side. I haven’t seen any progress in 33 years, if anything, there’s been a downward slide in public opinion over the years, and they are supposed to be in the forefront of stopping baby-killing.
(b) As used in this section--
(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which--
(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and
(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus; and
In (1) (a) above, the law applies only if the entire head or the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother. Given this narrow definition, as a physician, it is clear that one could leave part of the head in the body of the mother (including the vulva tissue) or, if breech, it would be important not to pull the body out beyond the umbilicus before slaughtering the baby. What the effect may be is to truly jeopardize the health of the mother as an unscrupulous abortionist will be doing more manipulation with possible additional internal trauma to the mother in order to get at the base of the baby's skull.
Both of these bills allow a "doctor" to kill a child during the very process of birth until, "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother." Or "in the case of breech presentation", the child should be killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of S.3 and HR 760 in quotes)
That is not a ban. Those are targeting coordinates for the butcher/doctor, plain and simple. These words were put in the bill by its authors: Rep. Chris Smith & Sen. Rick Santorum. The abortionists may be cunning, but they are certainly not stupid. This will not even slow them down.
A law that only protects a child in the last ten seconds of a nine-month pregnancy is a total fraud. It is hard to imagine how anyone could even write a law that would provide fewer restrictions on the legal killing of a human being. As such, it is highly unlikely that even one single child will be saved using the language of this "ban."
Does any one care to read the text of the Fake Partial birth abortion bill Bush signed. Read it and you will see that it does not ban the PB abortion but rather changes how it is done.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.00003:
`(1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion--
`(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus
The National Right to Life worked with NARAL & NOW AGAINST South Dakota's anti-abortion Bill
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Pro-Life/Stem Cells/Conservative Issues Ping List. Sign up and Try Conservapedia instead of Wickipedia. Instead of Google, try Pro-Life Search
Cant believe FR didn’t post this already. NRTL is headed by self destructive idiots. Rohrbough was a father of a Columbine victim btw.>>>
How would we know about this if the story did not make it to the National News outlets like the AP or Newswire or Reuters? Are we mind readers? That’s why we rely on the locals like you and the thousands of other freepers to bring the issue to the forefront and post it on the FR. BTW, many states have told the National Right to Life to go stick it, NJ was one of them. Welcome to the FR. I see you joined on June 21 and the date of this thread is June 20th. I wonder how this was accomplished?
National Right to Life and Colorado Right to Life both have problems.
You can argue about the best tactics to use, but most RTL people think that the ban on PBA was a good thing, because it started the momentum moving the other way. Of course it’s not the whole job, but it was an important step.
Personally, I stopped supporting NRTL quite a long time ago because I thought they were stupid on the tactics they used in particular situations. I prefer to support several Catholic RTL organizations (HLI, PRI, and others), also Operation Rescue and Survivors, because I think those are the front line organizations, and they do NOT think in terms of making money on this issue. Also, a couple of legal groups that work against Planned Parenthood.
You can also do some good indirectly by supporting outfits like the Cardinal Newman Society, which goes after dissidents in the Catholic Colleges and helps defend life that way.