Bias On Display In Favor Of Murdering Children

On Wednesday (4/18/07) the Supreme Court upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by a vote of 5-4. This law bans a very gruesome form of late term abortion where, as described to the judge in National Abortion Federation vs. Ashcroft

the physician grasps the fetus's lower extremity with fingers or forceps and pulls the fetus through the cervix and vagina until its head is lodged in the cervical opening. At this point, the fetus's arms and legs have been delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is still alive. With the fetus's head lodged in the cervix, the physician punctures the skull with scissors or crushes the head with forceps.... The physician then drains the fetus's skull by suction, or by using a finger, and the skull collapses.

If you're not revolted by reading that description, then you're either an abortion advocate or just have no human decency (sometimes one and the same, but not always).

And, as was expected, the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper put their liberal anger and selfishness on display for all to see. The first display was an article entitled "Oregon doctors rail at interference with patient care". In reality, the fact that it is in the news section at all instead of the opinion section is wrong, because all it is is a thinly veiled editorial by Partick O'Neill and Michelle Cole. Almost the entire article presents one side of the story.:

While the high court upheld a ban on an abortion procedure that is seldom practiced in Oregon, health providers and abortion specialists reacted strongly Wednesday against what they see as the court's interference in patient care.

Specifically, they take issue with a ruling that disallows doctors from considering health risks of the patient in deciding whether to perform a partial-birth abortion.

Melody Rose, a political science professor at Portland State University and author of the book "Safe, Legal, and Unavailable? Abortion Politics in the United States," said the ruling "goes way beyond the so-called partial-birth abortion."

"This is the first time on record that a majority of the Supreme Court has not drawn the line at the door of women's health," she said. "It's taking regulation of a particular procedure out of the state's hands . . . and legitimizing a federal role in the restriction of a particular medical procedure."

Dr. Mark Nichols, medical director for Planned Parenthood of the Colombia-Willamette, said the law is the first to ban a specific medical procedure without making an exception to protect the health of the mother.

"The problem that a lot of us have is that . . . we discover that the dilation of the cervix has gone faster than we'd thought," Nichols said. When that happens, the fetus can emerge part-way from the birth canal before the surgeon can dismember and remove it. To fully remove the fetus under those circumstances, he said, the doctor must crush the skull.

"That would end the life of the fetus and break the law even though I wasn't intending to do that," he said.

Nichols estimates that that situation occurs five or six times in the 2,405 dilation and extraction abortions -- most commonly performed late, or between 18 and 24 weeks of gestation -- reported in Oregon in 2005. Others suggest it is less frequent.

Dr. Elizabeth P. Newhall, medical director of the Downtown Women's Center in Portland, said that in 20 years of providing abortions she's never done a partial-birth abortion or referred a patient to another doctor to have it done.

Both she and Nichols said the decision chips away at a woman's right to make her own decisions about abortion -- while limiting options for doctors as well.

But the news is not all bad for the pro-infanticide crowd; even though there have been four bills introduced in the Legislature this year that would regulate infanticide (aka abortion) and its practicioners, there's not much of a chance they will be passed.

Four bills regulating abortion or abortion providers have been introduced in the Oregon Legislature this year.

The proposals range from requiring medical providers to give women information 24 hours before having an abortion to a measure that would require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. But both advocates and opponents agree there's little chance of any of these bills becoming law because the House, Senate and governor's office are all controlled by Democrats favoring abortion access.

"It would take a political sea change here in Oregon before such abortion bills will have a chance of passing," said Gayle Atteberry,executive director of Oregon Right to Life. "We would have to get some pro-lifers in control."

But then it's back to the doom and gloom.

NARAL Pro-Choice America counts 14 states where legislatures and governors oppose abortion. Tuesday's decision "basically gives anti-choice lawmakers a green light to continue to attack safe, legal abortion," said Ted Miller, a NARAL spokesman based in Washington.

One quick note before going on; this infanticide isn't safe for everyone, is it? It certainly is life threatening for the fetus. What's that you say, liberals? Oh, right; the fetus isn't human, is it?

The one glaring omission from this article is simply the other side of the story. O'Neill and Cole are blatantly showing their (and the Fish Wrapper's) huge liberal bias. Are there no doctors that think this is a good thing for health care and for women? Do all doctors think this way (we know that all abortion providers do)? Or just the ones that think the way the authors do?

The second display is an editorial railing against the Supreme Court decision, and its title gives a good indication of its contents: "Dark day for abortion rights."

J ustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it best, in her stinging dissent to the Supreme Court ruling that erodes the central holdings of Roe v. Wade.

"This way of thinking," she wrote, "reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited."

By a 5-4 ratio, the high court on Wednesday upheld a law passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by President Bush to ban a medical procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and evacuation and called partial-birth abortion by opponents. The procedure itself is uncommon, but the language used by the court's new anti-abortion majority will affect every woman and family in the United States.

Bush got what he wanted: a court that will deliver the goods and overturn Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 ruling that defined women as free-thinking people and abortion as a private decision.


The Republican-led Congress in 2003 thumbed its nose at Roe by passing this abortion ban, which has no exceptions for women's health. Congress skirted the health requirement by declaring, despite overwhelming medical testimony to the contrary, that the procedure is never medically necessary.

One thing I say frequently here is that the Fish Wrapper's main motto is "never let the facts get in the way," and this is a classic example. In actuality, the overwhelming evidence is that this procedure is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. Dr. Pamela Smith of Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago testified at the House hearings on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act back in 1995.

There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial birth abortion to preserve the life of health of the mother.

In the National Abortion Federation vs. Ashcroft case, even though the judge ended up being forced to overturn the act, he still found absolutely no proof of medical need for this procedure.

Most importantly, Judge Casey concluded that many of the purported medical reasons that abortionists relied upon to justify the necessity of partial-birth abortion were "false," "incoherent" or "merely theoretical." Rejecting the common myth that partial-birth abortion is justified by certain maternal medical circumstances, Casey reasoned: "In no case involving these or other maternal health conditions could [the National Abortion Federation and its testifying witnesses] point to a specific patient or actual circumstance in which D&X was necessary to protect a woman's health." Similarly, the many purported safety advantages proffered by abortionists in support of the banned procedure "do not rise above the realm of the hypothetical."

Thomas Herringshaw of Western New Mexico University makes a good point on the truth about the safety of this precedure for the mother:

In all the cases, the bill was struck down because it lacked an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is in danger. However, many doctors across the country would argue that the “dilate and extraction” procedure is not the safest or best procedure to use if the woman’s health is indeed in danger. When a woman wants an abortion this late (third trimester) in the pregnancy the doctor has two options. The first would be the “dilate and extraction” procedure which kills the baby. The second would be a cesarean section operation to remove the baby. Dr. Pamela Smith a Director of Medical Education in the Department of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago said, “There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial birth abortion to preserve the life of health of the mother” (Willke). If a pregnancy were endangering a mother a Cesarean Section operation would be much safer. Many doctors argue that the “dilate and extraction” procedure itself poses significant danger to the woman. Joseph DeCook, Fellow, Am. Col., Ob/Gyn, founder of PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth) stated that, “Drawing out the baby in breech position is a very dangerous procedure and could tear the uterus. Such a ruptured uterus could cause the mother to bleed to death in ten minutes” (Willke).

The “Dilate and Extraction” procedure is simply not necessary to save the life of the mother. There are other options including Cesarean Section which are safer. However many women do not wish to have this procedure performed because they can now longer abort the pregnancy because the infant is legally born. It would be illegal to kill the baby once it is fully removed from the mother’s womb so the cesarean section would allow the baby to live. Even with the “dilate and extraction” procedure the baby is just inches away from birth. The woman should just allow the baby to be born, from there, she can allow the hospital to take care of the baby and she can allow the baby to be given up for adoption. For anyone who truly values life, there is no reason to kill the child when it is so close to life.

And the list goes on and on. But here is more DFW whining.

Congress also bet on some court turnover, which they got. After President Bush replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist with John Roberts, he replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito.

Goodbye to the court's abortion-rights swing vote.

Hello to a known abortion opponent -- and to a narrow anti-abortion majority.

And why is this a bad thing again?

Not wanting to show any dignity, the editors wind up the whine with a flourish.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court that the government has "an interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy." He said the government "may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." He further said the government has a "substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life" (italics added).

Obviously the Fish Wrapper doesn't believe in things like respect for life at all stages (they are also proponents of assisted suicide), or an interest in preserving and promoting fetal life. Apparently things like that are only important to stupid people. Can't you just feel the condescension dripping from every word?

The court referred to the fetus as "baby" and "unborn child." It redefined second-trimester, pre-viability abortions as "late term." And for the first time since Roe, the court shrugged off the law's lack of a health exception for women.

To this new court, fetuses matter more.

And to that I say a very loud "Hallelujah!!!" It's about time someone on the courts realized the the life of a human being, no matter how inconvenient, is worth infinitely more than anything else. The health exception is a joke, too, especially when liberals give it such a broad definition that it can even cover mental distress caused by not being allowed to have a partial-birth abortion.

Pregnancy is a matter of profound personal and moral significance. This is precisely why Americans believe the state shouldn't sterilize people or force them to bear children against their will. A majority of Americans believe in the right to an abortion as a matter of liberty.

The nation's highest court no longer does.

Right. That's why a Gallup poll in 2003 showed that 70% of people supported a ban on partial birth abortion (that's those pesky facts getting in the way again).

The selfishness of the liberals on this issue just staggers me, no matter how many times I see it. All that matters is me, me, me, and nothing - not even a human life - will get in the way of my personal autonomy.

In addition to the petulant whining of the editors, the hypocrisy of the Fish Wrapper was highlighted by another reader:

On page D6 Thursday was an editorial decrying a "(d)ark day for abortion rights." On page D7 was a litany of letters about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Does anybody else see the irony in this? The ignorance of our society at large?

One page says that life is ours for the taking. The abortion-rights people call it a "fetus" to make themselves feel better. The other page says that life is precious and should not be taken away from anyone.

The truth (and hypocrisy) is right there in black and white. How could you expect Cho Seung-Hui to respect life when our society and the courts tell us that if it is convenient, we may snuff out a beating heart? Yes, people, a fetus has a beating heart.

Whether it is with a pill, a high-powered suction device or an automatic pistol, we take life like we blow our noses -- just take the unwanted excess and throw it away.

So the next time a Virginia Tech-type occurrence takes place (and it will), don't react with shock and horror. Our response should be, "What do you expect? We do it every day."

I couldn't have said it better myself.



User login


Syndicate content