By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 3, 2000
Yesterday's edition of Newsweek magazine carried a column by George F. Will entitled, "A Question for Gore Next Week" in which he asked: "Does a woman having an abortion have a right to a dead baby, even if it is born alive?" So far Al Gore has supported even partial-birth abortion. In fact, last week on the Larry King Live show he emphatically said, in response to King's question about the abortion bill RU-486: "I strongly support a woman's right to choose." Suddenly at issue in the campaign is the question, succinctly put by George F. Will:
"Mr. Vice-President, Do you favor passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, or do you believe, as your supporters at the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) do that a woman who seeks an abortion has an indefeasible right to a dead baby, no matter what?"
Will's question and this issue has burst upon the nation and the campaigns due in large measure to a procedure with the contradictory name of "live-birth abortions." Jill Stanek, a nurse who practiced at Chicago's Oak Lawn Hospital, appeared on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor last Friday and described the practice.
"Many times an infant enters the world alive, only to be left to die--without any medical assistance or intervention in this abortion procedure."
The measure passed in the midst of this election year 380-15. The fifteen who voted against recognizing infants who are born alive during abortion procedures included 13 Democrats, (Representatives Julia [IN] Carson, John Dingell [MI] Chaka Fattah, [PA], Charles Gonzalez [TX], Alcee Hastings [Fl], Jesse L. Jackson [IL], Sheila Jackson-Lee [TX], Nita Lowey [NY], Carolyn Maloney [NY], Cynthia McKinney [GA], Nydia Valazquez [NY], Maxine Waters [CA], and Melvin Watt, [NC]) and two Republicans, Nancy Johnson [CT] and Benjamin Gilman [NY]. However, that vote apparently does not reflect the real strength of the vote of those who believe babies inadvertently born alive during an abortion procedure. New York's Jerry Nadler said during the debate on the bill:
"Speaker, I believe the only real purpose of this bill is to trap the pro-choice Members into voting against it so that they can slander us and slander the pro-choice movement as being in favor of infanticide. That is why I voted for the bill in the committee. Mr. Speaker, that is why I voted in the committee in favor of the bill. That is why I will vote again and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill so we do not step into this trap."
It appears that the pro-death lobby in the Congress is getting skittish about admitting their true beliefs. In effect Roe v Wade made unborn babies the property of their mothers. Whether or not the mother disposed of the unborn child was totally up to her discretion. When the partial-birth abortion procedure was made known five years ago, there was an obvious reason why it developed in America and NOWHERE else. It was devised not as a medical procedure, but as a political procedure to get around Roe v Wade. The original Roe v Wade decision in 1973, using pages of discussion on the issue of when life begins, and the point in pregnancy when the unborn is "viable" created three "classes" of unborn:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Five years ago, when I wrote my book, "Coming Home -Families Can Stop the Unraveling of America" we had just had the first congressional debate on Partial Birth Abortion. As the debate began I was getting ready to leave the house and had my hand on the doorknob as Rep. Canady began describing the procedure, interrupted frequently by Rep. Pat Schroeder, who tried to force him to stop talking about it, saying over and over that it was a "woman's issue" and it was none of his business. I stood until the debate was over, with my hand still on the door, totally fascinated with what was happening. The effort to save the children was being directed by men in the Congress and the determined effort to destroy the children was led by women - Pat Schroeder in the House and Barbara Boxer in the Senate. I said after describing the procedure:
"It is technically an abortion rather than murder because the infant has not taken his first breath, and the logical male minds understood that instantly when the procedure was explained to them (in spite of objections by Rep. Schroeder who introduced a resolution to prevent Rep. Canady from showing diagrams of the procedure). (Congressional Record S18006, Dec. 5, 1995). While a few women legislators also opposed the procedure, it was the men and fathers who introduced the legislation in both houses of Congress and then fought valiantly and eloquently to ban partial birth abortions."
In the June 28, 2000 Supreme Court decision in Stenberg v Carhart the Court expanded what Judge Thomas called "mandated abortion" to such a degree that we are publicly discussing the constitutionality of protecting a living infant if the mother of the child wants him dead. Significantly, that case was decided with both of the women on the Court, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Ginsberg, voting for the mother's right to kill her unborn child in order to protect her "health." While a few years ago that meant protecting the mother from permanent and serious health consequences. Today, that definition has been broadened to mean almost any inconvenience or discomfort, physical or mental, that the mother might experience. It was on the issue of allowing abortion to "protect the mother's health" that the Court rendered a decision that Justice Thomas said "inexplicably holds that the States cannot constitutionally prohibit a method of abortion that millions find hard to distinguish from infanticide and that the Court hesitates even to describe."
A common complication of pregnancy is higher blood pressure. That was, in fact, a problem I had with all six of my children. In fact, it was sufficiently worrisome to the doctors that in the last three pregnancies, labor was induced early. Under the Supreme Court's decision, any woman with an elevated blood pressure could get a partial-birth abortion based on the Court's determination that such an abortion is permissible up to term in order to "preserve the health of the mother."
Three months after Stenberg v Carhart was decided, we are discussing whether or not a child born alive in a botched abortion has any constitutional rights if his mother wants him dead. George F.Will observed:
"Now that one of the nation's finest universities (Princeton) has given a prestigious position to an advocate of infanticide (Peter Singer suggests that for perhaps a month after birth parents should be entitled to dispose of unwanted children), it is not surprising that the Senate has what deserves to be called an "Infanticide Caucus." The caucus has at least three members."Two of them, Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersy, identified themselves when, during the Sept. 26, 1996 debate on partial-birth abortion, Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked: Suppose during such an abortion (during which a baby is delivered feed first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed) the baby slips all the way out of the birth canal. Should killing the baby even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say "no."
"During the Oct. 20, 1999, debate Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus:
"Santorum: 'You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?'
"Boxer: 'I think when you bring your baby home...'
"She said more. What she would not say was 'yes.'"
We have now reached a point in our culture where one can be arrested for plowing up an endangered species - a wild morning glory or a kangaroo rat, but can be applauded for one's wisdom in killing one's own unborn child, and even one's newborn - especially if that child is designated as "handicapped" and a possible burden.
This, naturally, opens the door for expansion of that notion to others who are not being productive - i.e. the adult handicapped and the elderly.
The implications are mind-boggling. As George Will puts it:
"Some pro-choice people cast their opposition to Canady's bill almost as a matter of protecting consumer rights - a woman purchasing an abortion is entitled to a dead baby. Does Al Gore agree? If not, why not?"
To comment: mmostert@originalsourcs.com
To write your Senators about this bill, go to: http://www.originalsources.com/PLobby/ContactCongress.html
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
