The over 500,000 members of Concerned Women for America (CWA) strongly support the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000 (H.R. 3660) in the 106^th Congress. CWA strongly supports the sanctity of life for the unborn and believes this cruel procedure should be illegal in the United States.

A Distant Thunder
Abortion - a word most people would like to avoid. Certainly one of the most controversial words of the century. Since 1973, abortion has been available on demand for any reasonor none at all. Two years ago the abortion issue was brought home to every American when network news showed the Senate debate on a bill attempting to ban a lesser known abortion procedure. This procedure, called "partial-birth abortion," has forced many Americans to reconsider their own beliefs on the entire abortion issue. Although this abortion technique is only one of the many used to end the life of an unborn child, no other abortion method has come under such intense public scrutiny since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

A Closer Look
Unlike abortion procedures in earlier months, a partial-birth abortion takes three days to complete. This method is performed on pre-born babies beginning at the fifth month of development. The abortionist begins by dilating the womans cervix for two days. Then, on the third day, he uses forceps to deliver the entire baby except for the head. At this point, the abortionist uses blunt surgical scissors, or a trochar, to stab the baby at the base of the skull. He then inserts a vacuum tube and sucks the childs brains out. Then he can collapse the skull and pull the dead baby through the cervical opening.

Dr. Martin Haskell, the physician who pioneered the technique after the late Dr. James McMahon, noted that during the three-day process, additional medical treatment is administered for such side effects as severe cramping, sleep disturbances and blood loss. Dr. Haskell warned that a partial-birth abortion may not be appropriate for some patients.

Since there are no reporting requirements for abortions, it is impossible to know for sure how many partial-birth abortions are performed annually. However, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on a 1995 "Nightline" show that he "lied through his teeth" about the number of partial-birth abortions performed each year. He conceded that such abortions are fairly common and performed on healthy fetuses.

During the initial debate over abortion, there were uncertainties as to whether the baby had a capacity to feel pain during the procedure. According to Professor Jean A. Wright, associate professor of pediatrics and anesthesia at Emory University School of Medicine, the baby does feel pain. At the 19-20 week stage of development when partial-birth abortions are performed, the baby may feel pain even more intensely because the brain has not yet developed the capabilities for blocking pain. ¹

The average cost for a partial-birth abortion ranges from $1,200 to $1,600 depending on the length of pregnancy.² This method of abortion is a lucrative business for those doctors willing to perform it.

A Rose Garden Veto
The legislation banning the procedure, H.R. 1122, was overwhelmingly approved by both houses of the 105th Congress. In the House of Representatives, it was passed with a veto-proof majority of 295-136 on March 20, 1997. Subsequently, it advanced to the Senate where, on May 20, it garnered immense support with a vote of 64-36. The Senate vote is only three Senators shy of a veto-proof majority. (The Senate voting record in 1998 on the same bill did not change.) Then, late on the afternoon of October 10, 1997, President Clinton vetoed the ban on this heinous procedure. He stated that since there was no "health" exception in the bill, he would not sign it. That was his second veto of a bill to ban partial-birth abortions during his presidency.

Political Reality
In 1986, then-Governor Clinton wrote to Arkansas Right-to-Life, "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong."³

Later, in a February 28, 1996, letter to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) regarding the partial-birth abortion ban, the President said that he "studied and prayed about this issue for many months. The procedure described in [then H.R.1833] is very disturbing, and I cannot support its use on an elective basis [emphasis added]."

On October 10, 1997, President Clinton admitted that the procedure "appears inhumane." He stated that he did not support it on an elective basis, but he wanted to preserve it for the cases in which a womans health was at stake.⁴

Despite the Presidents claims, the women featured at President Clintons first veto ceremony did receive a partial-birth abortion for elective reasons; some cited genetic abnormalities. The President stated these women represented a small but vulnerable group. They all desperately wanted their children. They didnt want abortions. They made agonizing decisions only when it became clear that their babies would not survive."⁵ But the truth is that the women would not have died nor have been seriously injured, if they carried their babies to full term. They made a choice, and their choice was death. It is interesting to note that the President refused to meet with other women who delivered their (live) babies in adverse circumstances, with no damage to their health or fertility.⁶

In essence, President Clinton continues to waver on the abortion issue. Today he is hiding behind a concern for the womans health. But is the womans "health" an appropriate exception? Is this a concession to the powerful abortion rights lobby who contribute heavily to his campaign?

The Health Hazard
In its present form, the bill banning partial-birth abortions allows for an exception for the mothers life. The pro-abortion lobby has simply embarked on a campaign to deceive the American public, as well as members of Congress, into allowing for a "health" exception also. However, the "health" exception is nothing more than a falsehood concealed by a cloak of deception.

There are no laws that prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion in the United States for any reason, up through the ninth month of pregnancy. Contrary to public understanding, Roe v. Wade said that states could not restrict abortions in the early stages of pregnancy. However, it did not forbid abortions in the last stages of pregnancy, either. Some states (e.g., New York) have laws against late-term abortions, but many (e.g., Ohio) do not.

According to Doe v. Bolton, the other landmark Supreme Court case on abortion, the "health of the mother" includes a wide range of emotional and familial factors that are independent of the womans physical health. These include depression, psychological factors and the age of the woman. Because of this vague definition, the "health" exception is used to justify any reason for an abortion.

Dr. McMahon (who developed the partial-birth abortion technique) said that of the over 2,000 partial-birth abortions that he had performed, only nine percent were for any maternal [health] reasons. Of that nine percent, the most common indication [reason] was "depression."⁷ Furthermore, he stated that about 80 percent of abortions he had performed after 21 weeks were "nonelective." However, he included as "nonelective": "depression," "pediatric indications" (i.e., the mother's youth), and a variety of fetal or maternal health problems that are not life-threatening.⁸ In other words, those excuses justified the "necessity" of abortion.

The Future Fertility Fallacy
President Clinton and the abortion rights lobby have used the mothers "future fertility" as another excuse for justifying partial-birth abortions. Abortion advocates claim that a woman would lose her ability to bear additional children if she should carry a deformed baby to full term. But again, no medical evidence for this assertion exists. PHACT (Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for the Truth), a group specializing in fetal medicine, said:

"Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a womans health or future fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant womans health and fertility."⁹

According to PHACT, the threats to her future fertility include a condition called "incompetent cervix" that is the leading cause of premature delivery. This is where the cervix loses its elasticity and is unable to retain the growing fetus. In addition, the partial-birth abortion is an invitation to infection and subsequent infertility. Pulling a child feet first out of the mother could seriously injure or kill her because the procedure risks tearing her uterus or lacerating the cervix or lower uterine segment. The medical community continues to speak out against partial-birth abortion:

"I cannot think of a fetal condition or malformation, no matter how severe, that actually causes harm or risk to the mother of continuing the pregnancy. I guess one extremely rare example might be a partial hydatidiform mole. But thats a one in a million situation."¹⁰ Testimony of Dr. Harlan R. Giles

"You really cant defend it... I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use." Interview with Dr. Warren Hern, author of the nations most widely used textbook on late-term abortions¹¹

Even the prestigious American Medical Association stated that a partial-birth abortion was "not medically indicated," and they gave public support to H.R. 1122 on May 17, 1997.

Hype and Hypocrisy
Pro-abortion advocates also previously claimed that anesthesia given to pregnant women actually kills the fetus before a partial birth abortion is completed. For quite some time, Kate Michaelman, President of NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League), and Dr. Mary Campbell of Planned Parenthood, among others, said that the pro-life lobby grossly distorted the procedure. They said that there was no such thing as a "partial birth," and the baby felt no pain. This assertion was countered by members of the medical community, including the American Society of Anesthesiologists, who testified that Michaelmans statement was completely false and had absolutely no basis in scientific fact. The baby is alive and feels pain, during the procedure.

Why So Late?
Convenience is the primary reason that women seek late-term abortions. Even abortion-rights advocates admit this. In 1993, the National Abortion Federation told its members: "Dont apologize. There are many reasons why women have late abortions lack of money or health insurance, social or psychological crisis, lack of knowledge of human reproduction. . ." ¹² The "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.

Another lie that continues to circulate about this technique is that it is performed mainly on babies with genetic abnormalities. Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a pro-abortion group), had this to say to the New York Times on February 27, 1997:

"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else."

For example, on June 30, 1998, a 17-year-old girl walked into the A-Z Womens Center in Phoenix, Arizona, in order to receive a partial-birth abortion. The abortionist, Dr. John Biskind, claimed that ultrasound testing determined the unborn baby to be 23.6 weeks along. During the abortion, Dr. Biskind "discovered" the baby was much further along 37 weeks. Instead, he delivered the six-pound, two-ounce girl, who suffered a skull fracture and cuts on her face. Dr. Biskind is known to have caused the bleeding deaths of at least two women on which he performed abortions.¹³

A very minuscule number of women seeking late-term abortions are mothers who discover that they are pregnant with a child with special needs, such as Downs Syndrome, cleft palate, or other genetic abnormalities that may not be detected earlier in a pregnancy.

Donna Joy Watts was one of these children.

Death Sentence Commuted
Lori Watts was told that the child she was carrying had a rare condition in which the brains hemispheres do not fuse. She was advised to abort her baby and was informed of the partial-birth abortion procedure. Calmly, doctors told her how they would collapse the babys skull by stabbing the back of its head and suctioning out its brain. Mrs. Watts vehemently refused. Her doctors did not want her to carry the child to full term, and she had to "force" her obstetricians to deliver her baby. Even when she was three days old, the doctors continued to deny the humanity of baby "Donna Joy." They still called her a "fetus."

The odds were against this child. She could not eat and was on the verge of starvation. Mrs. Watts prayed to God, and the answer was a wrong meal tray sent to her room. She took a mixture of fruit and cereal and tried once more to feed her baby. Miraculously, the mixture stayed down. It took years of love and patience, but the Watts continued their efforts. Today, Donna Joy is a testimony to their effort and diligence. Her mental and physical levels have improved tremendously. Doctors predicted that she would never walk or feed herself. Yet Donna Joy, who only has half a brain, can do both. The little girl also loves to play with the family puppy, answer questions in Sunday School class, recite the alphabet and play computer games. And as for mother Loris "health and future fertility," she has since given birth to her fourth daughter, Shaylah.

A death sentence should not be rendered to a child who is diagnosed with a genetic or abnormal condition. When families decide to raisenot abortthese special children, they often prove to be a blessing-not a burden for the entire family.

A Careless Compromise
The pro-abortion members of Congress cannot fully defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. Consider a quote from Representative Barbara B. Kennelly, (D-Connecticut) regarding the procedure: "It is brutal. It is inhuman. And it never should be used. However, may I say, that is not my decision. Under Roe v. Wade, the law of the land, it is the decision of the mother and her doctor."¹⁴ Isnt it ironic that even Mrs. Kennelly calls it a "decision of the mother"indirectly assuming that a child is involved?

In a letter on April 22, 1997, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) wrote, "Abortion is wrong. We, as a society, should do everything we can to prevent it." Sen. Daschle actually changed his vote in May 1997, and voted for the bill banning partial-birth abortion.

Because of uneasiness brought on by the partial-birth abortion procedure during 1997, several amendments and bills were introduced in Congress as "compromise" legislation. Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Senator Barbara Boxer and President Clinton proposed these compromises, but they were wholly inadequate for two reasons. First, they sought to ban all third trimester abortions (7-9 months). Yet partial-birth abortions are usually performed in the 5th and 6th months of pregnancy, the second trimester. Thus, under the "compromise" plans, most partial-birth abortions would continue. Second, and most importantly, the bills allowed a "health" exception that could be defined to include all aspects of the womans health, including "depression."

Planned Parenthoods Plunder
The irony is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that advocates the use of partial-birth abortions, once confessed that abortion is a threat to a womans health and future fertility. A 1965 pamphlet called "Plan Your Children" said this: "Is [family planning] abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child, you cannot have it." Yet three decades later, Planned Parenthood is more concerned about scoring points with women who need a political causeand less concerned about the woman in a crisis situation.

There is evidence that the walls of the ivory tower of Planned Parenthood are slowly cracking. "Weve been through some very tough times," said Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood.¹⁵ The organization suffered a year of losing clinics as well as clients in 1996. In fact, 1996 saw the closing of 38 clinics and the loss of 4,000 staffers and volunteers. But, federal funding for the group increased to $171.9 million, up from $163.1 million. Even with the loss of clinics and clients seeking birth control, the organization still enjoyed a five-percent rise in total income during the 1996 fiscal year.¹⁶

A Turning Tide
Twenty-five years after Roe v. Wade, peoples attitudes about abortion are shifting. In a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on partial-birth abortions, except to save the mothers life.¹⁷ Similarly, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll, the percentage that believes abortion should be legal under any circumstances has dropped by a spectacular one-third.

It seems that the abortion rights lobby is defending partial-birth abortion only because they know that any limit on the abortion procedure establishes a precedent for further restrictions. They know, deep down in their hearts that the procedure is terrible. Yet they continue to assert the necessity of this particular form of "choice." On the other hand, pro-life advocates continue to mount an aggressive campaign in order to educate and motivate their own constituency. This will enable them to put pressure on their members of Congress to vote for the ban on partial-birth abortions. If it passes, it will be the first and only restriction on any form of abortion in 25 years.

On July 23, 1998, the House voted 296-132 to override the Presidents veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 1122). In September 1998, the Senate voted on the override of the Senates veto. Although only three more senators were needed, the Senate again failed to override the vetothe voting record (64-36 in favor of the ban) mirrored that of 1997s vote.

The Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999 (S. 1692)¹⁸ in October 1999 with a vote of 63-34. The House of Representatives will consider the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000" (H.R. 3660). Please call your Representative and urge him to vote for the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000." Interestingly, several usually pro-abortion SenatorsDaniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York), Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) and Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota)and RepresentativesDavid Bonior (D-Michigan), Richard Gephardt (D-Missouri) and Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)have voted for the ban in the past.

Even if change does not come immediately, the evidence required to ban this procedure is overwhelming. This procedure is gruesome and never medically necessary for the woman. Pro-abortion members of Congress realize this, but some are heavily influenced to keep the procedure legal by their pro-choice wives and the women from abortion-rights political action committees.

Despite anyones rhetoric, partial-birth abortion is infanticide. In closing, we will examine the partial-birth abortion from a doctor's perspective. Imagine if you will . . .

The child is only inches from life, awaiting his first breath. The doctor feels the baby jerk. It occurs to him how strong and healthy this little one is. As he reaches for his scissors, he thinks what a shame it is to waste this life. To his surprise, the baby wraps his tiny hand around the doctors thumb. The doctor swallows hard and hesitates before he begins the procedure. He feels the woman shift her weight, as if she is wondering why this is taking so long. He breathes slowly and deeply, then takes the life of this innocent child. The babys body goes limp in his hands. The doctor breathes a sigh of relief and quickly begins to think about the rest of his day. No more abortions today, thank God. He pulls the baby out and glances at the face of a perfectly formed little boy. For just a moment, he thinks about the son he never had, the baseball games he never attended. He slowly walks over to the trash can and gently lays the dead baby inside. He closes the lid and walks over to the sink to wash the blood from his hands.

But no matter how hard he scrubs, he cannot wash away the guilt of what he has done. He disinfects the scissors and places them on the table for his next "patient." His mind wanders back to his days at medical school, where he learned about fetal development. He sighs as he takes one last look at the trash can in the corner. Someday I am going to stop doing this, he thinks to himself as he leaves the room to attend to the rest of his work.

How long can this doctor ignore his conscience?

And how long will we ignore ours?

What the HELL are people thinking?!?!

I know, they aren't thinking! Partial birth abortion has to be the most barbaric thing I have ever heard of. Listen folks, birth control is free and there is simply no excuse for it.

That's right, no excuse. Some say "to save the life of the mother." No again:

"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure's impact on a woman's cervix can put future pregnancies at risk."

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Letter to the Editor The New York Times
September 26, 1996

"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies" and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman."

Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D.
Letter to the Editor The Wall Street Journal
October 14, 1996

"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban on partial-birth abortions passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.)

Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., M.D.
Letter to the Editor The New York Times
May 26, 1997

There are other ways to do this without murdering (yes I said it, M U R D E R I N G) the innocent child. The only thing in the eyes of our screwed up legal system that separates this procedure from Murder One is a matter of inches (that the child's head is still in the birth canal.) Sounds like a pretty damn underhanded way to get away with killing someone to me.

Cases in point, both my wife and my older sister were born at less that 7 months through the pregnancy. I have seen children born as early as 4 months through. All of the aforementioned are now perfectly normal human beings; so it's crystal clear that partial birth abortion isn't anything more than premeditated murder.

But what about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body? That unborn fetus did not just appear--people need to take some responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, though the child is growing inside the mother's body, it is the child's body--another body altogther--not the mother's to discard like it was some wart on her big toe.

It's plain and simple despite what proponents of this may say: If you don't want a child or are not ready to take on the responsibility and/or the complications that can accompany pregnancy or raising the child no matter the outcome -- birth control is free at the local health department.

No excuses.

--Foamy Dog

For further reading on this subject, here are some excellent articles:

Does This Justify Partial-Birth Abortions? --RightGrrl.com

Live Birth Abortion -- Murder Exposed --RightGrrl.com

Partial-Birth Abortion (D & X) Procedure --Family.org

Partial-Birth Abortion (D & X) Procedure (Illistrations) --Family.org

Reply to this article in the Rant Forum!