ARTICLE: Nothing Hidden in Partial-birth Abortion

[STR Ambassador]

(Originally published in 1996)

The controversy surrounding D&X is not like other abortion debates, because D&X is no ordinary abortion. One strains to be able to understand the procedure in civilized terms. Partial-birth abortion makes irrefutable what has been obvious to so many for a long time.

Nothing Hidden in Partial-birth Abortion by Greg Koukl

What is partial-birth abortion? To help answer that question for the legislature, Representative Canady presented Congress with five simple line drawings. They were captioned by seven brief, precise sentences describing the process.

Dr. Haskell, who as of 1992 had already performed over 700 of these abortions, said the drawings were accurate "from a technical point of view." The captions were virtually identical to a description of D&X abortions published in the LA Times, June 16, 1995.

The National Abortion Federation (NAF), however, called the material "sensationalized drawings and graphic language to attempt to enflame opposition to this surgery."
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) actually tried to prohibit the lawmakers from seeing the sketches during public, congressional debate on HR 1833.

One LA Times columnist claimed the procedure "has been successfully and inflammatorily mischaracterized as the heartless slaying of the helpless with scissor jabs to the skull and a sucking out of the brains."

A Clear, Medical Description

To settle the controversy, I refer now to a description from Dr. Martin Haskell's own instruction manual, "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion." It was included in presentation materials of the National Abortion Federation (notice this is a powerful, pro-abortion organization), entitled "Second Trimester Abortion: From Every Angle," pages 30-31. This material was distributed at the NAF Fall Risk Management Seminar, held September 13-14, 1992, in Dallas, Texas.

"The surgeon introduces a large grasping forceps, such as a Bierer or Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus.... When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing aversion of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity into the vagina....

"With a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities.

"The skull lodges at the internal cervical [opening]....The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and 'hooks' the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down)....

"While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

"...The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

"The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient."

This procedure is almost never done before viability. By Haskell's own admission, two thirds of the children are still alive when he "forces the scissors into the base of the skull." He adds, "When I do the instrumentation on the skull [thrusting the scissors into the cranium]...it destroys the brain sufficiently so that even if it (the fetus) falls out at that point, it's definitely not alive."

[b]D&X is Not "Surgery"[B]

One strains to be able to understand this procedure in civilized terms. There's no need to resort to "sensationalized drawings and graphic language." Dr. Haskell's description speaks for itself.

This procedure cannot be sanitized or legitimized by calling it "surgery," as the NAF repeatedly does. Partial-birth abortions are not surgery. Webster's NewWorld International Dictionary defines surgery as "the treatment of disease, injury, or deformity by manual or instrumental operations, as the removal of diseased parts or tissue by cutting."

First, there is no disease or injury; this is a pregnancy, not a sickness. Indeed, there may be deformity in the child, but the D&X procedure does not remove the deformity; it removes the child. Second, the only cutting done is in the back of the baby's skull to end its short life, not to treat its defect.

Surgery removes a disease, an injury, or a deformity; an abortion removes a child. The use of this term treats a baby like a disease.

Nothing Hidden

Partial-birth abortions make irrefutable what has been obvious to many for a long time: abortion brutally kills a human child. You can no longer get away with distracting terms like "fetus" or "conceptus."

Nothing is hidden in D&X abortion. This is not a piece of tissue or a mere part of a woman's body. This is a little boy or girl dangling between the legs of its mother. You can clearly see its sexual organs, male or female. It squirms and kicks. Its hands open and close, grasping for something to hang onto, until the moment when the doctor's instrument pierces the back of its skull. Then, of course, everything goes limp, because the baby is dead.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton Ohio, accepted assignment to Dr. Haskell's clinic because she was "strongly pro-choice." In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, nurse Shafer described the end of life for one six-month-old "fetus."

"[Dr. Haskell] delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head....The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall....[Then] the baby was completely limp....After I left that day, I never came back."

That child, a baby boy, had Down's Syndrome. The babies in the other two abortions she assisted in that day were perfectly healthy, she testified.

Amazing Justifications

The things people say to justify D&X are amazing. Some of the attempts are more sophisticated, and I'll speak to them in the next section, but some defy belief.

One woman told a radio interviewer that she preferred partial-birth abortion because the baby was delivered whole and not chopped up into pieces. It gave her the opportunity to say good-bye. As the NAF material puts it, "Removing the fetus intact meant that the family can see it, hold it, and mourn their loss."

Another said it's the most "humane" way for the child itself. I thought this was an odd thing to say for a couple of reasons.

First, the question at hand is the morality of killing the child, not the manner of the killing. Our concern is not finding the best way to take a child's, but whether it's right to dispose of children at all.

Does it somehow strengthen a killer's legal defense because it took one shot to the back of the head to dispatch his victim? Imagine the appeal: "Your Honor, it was the most humane way; he didn't feel a thing."

A second thought occurs to me, though. If this is the most humane way for the baby, what then of the morality of other abortions that are not so humane? Doesn't this automatically call into question other more "inhumane" forms of abortion?

What of the mother, who is conscious during the whole gruesome procedure? What must she be thinking as she watches her newborn child hanging between her legs? It's not crying yet, because its head is still in her vagina, though it would cry, in most cases, if it was simply given some air.

What must be going through her mind as she watches the doctor methodically suction out the brain tissue of her own flesh and blood--and in some cases remove his vital organs--while he's still alive, then gives one last tug to expel the baby's shapeless head and lifeless body?

Ignoring the Obvious

What goes through your mind when you contemplate the reality of this procedure? Sometimes it's possible to talk about an issue in the sterility of a classroom or a radio talk show. When we get a clear, unambiguous look at the particular thing we're discussing, though, words of justification fail us.

There is a moral quality to partial-birth abortion that is self-evident. This is why Pat Schroeder doesn't want line drawings displayed in Congress. All you have to do is picture it and you know immediately what's going on. Yet it's a medical procedure being performed on a regular basis, protected by the laws of our government.

Why don't more people see this? Because of our moral confusion. We're dizzy with the speed of our own moral decline.


Stand to Reason - training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org - http://www.str.org/free/commentaries...on/nothing.htm

[Dee Dee Warren]

Thank you for posting this!!!!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

As I understand it, the current bill on PBA is very similar to a bill that was already ruled unconstitutional. As such, this bill has a higher risk of also being ruled unconstitutional.

I'm sure one could form a bill that would be less likely to be ruled unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to do so. If the law is overturned by the Sup Court then it will likely put pro-lifers into a frenzy and they will turn out to vote in the next election so that Dubya can appoint a supreme court justices that will make such a bill constitutional.

So, while I hate PBA, I think that one should change abortion law based on stage of pregnancy, not the type of abortion, and I fear that the current bill has been formed with a view, not to reduce the number of said abortions as quickly as possible, but to manipulate pro-lifers politically to continue to give their much-needed votes reliably to the economic-conservative-dominated republican party.

dlw

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here
Love-Warrior:

As I understand it, the current bill on PBA is very similar to a bill that was already ruled unconstitutional. As such, this bill has a higher risk of also being ruled unconstitutional.

I'm sure one could form a bill that would be less likely to be ruled unconstitutional, but I'm not sure that it is in the interest of the Republican Party to do so. If the law is overturned by the Sup Court then it will likely put pro-lifers into a frenzy and they will turn out to vote in the next election so that Dubya can appoint a supreme court justices that will make such a bill constitutional.

So, while I hate PBA, I think that one should change abortion law based on stage of pregnancy, not the type of abortion, and I fear that the current bill has been formed with a view, not to reduce the number of said abortions as quickly as possible, but to manipulate pro-lifers politically to continue to give their much-needed votes reliably to the economic-conservative-dominated republican party.

dlw

This is controversial?

We need to stack the Supreme Court with men of good character that rule according to Law:

Scripture Verse:

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just , ruling in the fear of God.

One thing is for certain, the democrats are not going to support anything godly. If you want the democrat vote, just stand up and pander to the dredges of society. While the Republicans certainly aren't righteous, they at least don't vomit at the concept of Justice.

I think we need to restore the vote to property ownership - this would negate the biggest portion of the power base of the democrat party - throw that ring back into the fires of mordor from whence it came.

Cordially,


Thomas

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Thomas2003:

This is controversial?

We need to stack the Supreme Court with men of good character that rule according to Law:

Scripture Verse:

2 Samuel 23:3
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just , ruling in the fear of God.

What is controversial is if they have fashioned a bill that is likely to be ruled unconstitutional so that the issue will loom large in the next election. That means that some abortions will still be legal in the next year or so because of their political maneuvers.

One thing is for certain, the democrats are not going to support anything godly. If you want the democrat vote, just stand up and pander to the dredges of society. While the Republicans certainly aren't righteous, they at least don't vomit at the concept of Justice.

I think we need to restore the vote to property ownership - this would negate the biggest portion of the power base of the democrat party - throw that ring back into the fires of mordor from whence it came.

Cordially,

Thomas

Why would property owners be any more Godly? I think that the Dems have been captured by interests with some serious wrong ideas, but we have no exit threat in the Republican Party and that means our sway within the Repubican Party is correspondingly less. Too many Religious Right leaders are such strong partisans, I mean Pat Robertson endorsed Ahnold cuz he also is weight-lifter.

If we changed our political goals re:Abortion and were willing to consider becoming swing-votes then it would be easier to get bipartisan support to change our current laws and that would result in their being fewer abortions in our country.

There are many, many devout Christians among non-property-owners who should never be divested of their right to vote.

dlw

[Queen]

Ewww

That is why we have a law that abortion is only allowed in the first trimester. This is so cruel....reading it made me sick, so I stopped.....

[bar Jonah]

Yes, let's restrict abortion to the period of time when the murder is pretty much invisible, so we don't have to deal with the disgusting reality of it... We can just treat it as if we're doing away with a nasty virus or something else inconvenient and invisible to the naked eye.

Nevermind that this is just as alive, and just as human...

[Queen]

Okay, I understand.....You are right of course.....but only partially. I have worked in a pre diagnostic lab and believe me, some genetic abbreviations are too cruel for words. To abort the child is not murder, it is compassion.

I have told this before in another posts. We have to look at every decision individual. We have no reason to judge one of the most difficult decisions a woman has to make in her life, neither must we judge when the woman decides against abortion. They are the only ones that can judge about the life of their unborn child, because THEY (!) have to live the rest of their lives with this knowledge. Not we. But there is a difference of being compassionate or being cruel. You must make sure none of these unborn children suffers too much!

I ones refused to do an experiment with embryo's of chickens. It was cruel and I could look at pix in a book and learn enough about embryology without hurting/killing life. I would not know what I would do if I got pregnant. I can die during pregnancy because of my bad health so I am very careful, but nothing protects 100%....so what if I belong to those women that get pregnant even when they protect them selfs for pregnancy?

I am just very glad that I never had to decide about life or death of my child. I would not be able to do that. It is my worst nightmare. But I have seen such horrible disorders that I never, never judge those who decide to have an abortion, neither judge those who decide to keep their child.....even if the child is healthy, but the mother is too young or raped or whatever......having an abortion is not the same like shopping for a new dress......remember that before you judge those who have had an abortion. They mourn their lost child.....always! whatever their reason was

Lots of love,
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Queen, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but if you're not willing to ban abortion for everyone except those cases of the child suffering from a horrible birth defect... then stop bringing it into the discussion; as such, it is nothing but a red herring and a straw man argument. You can't use that as a defense of abortion if you believe it should be legal in all cases. If the issue is all cases, then birth defects have nothing to do with the question of ban or don't ban.

Why was it wrong to participate in that experiment involving a chicken fetus, but you're not opposed to making it illegal to end the life of a living, unborn human based on the issue of convenience?

Queen:
I would not know what I would do if I got pregnant. I can die during pregnancy because of my bad health so I am very careful, but nothing protects 100%....so what if I belong to those women that get pregnant even when they protect them selfs for pregnancy?

Lots of love,
Queen

Queen, with all due respect, if you are biologically capable of becoming pregnant, and you're having sex, then you're not protecting yourself from becoming pregnant. You're just decreasing the likelihood of such a life-threatening pregancy which you yourself admit would be a nightmare for you. A medical study just a year or so ago found that a couple having sex an average amount (approx. 2-3 times a week) for three years with a condom every time has a roughly 50% chance of getting pregant. As I just saw them make note on a rerun of Friends the other day (of all places) ... condoms are 97% reliable.

Multiply that 3% chance for every time you have sex with a man... and you get a dangerous likelihood of making that nightmare a reality. Something to seriously consider... I don't say this out of moral indignation but out of a genuine concern for another human being.

Because I have been involved in a similar circumstance, myself. I lost my virginity to a woman whose tubes were tied. We used protection. One time and she got pregant the first time. Because her tubes were tied, it was a "tubal pregancy" which threatened her life if she didn't terminate it. I will always stand on the statement that there is no such thing as "safe sex," ... it is a myth.

My own child was dead before I even knew I was a father. I got the phone call a couple hours later. Congratulations, Jim... you're the father of a dead baby.

I wouldn't wish that on another human being on earth, including you, Queen. Everything I say here is said from love; I hope you'll take it in that spirit. Take it from someone who has lived through the nightmare.

[Queen]

I am sorry to hear that. That must have been horrible to not be able to decide what to do..........I hope the soul of the child has found peace......(for you that is in heaven). You are in my thoughts.

And you are right, if you don't want to get pregnant, you can stop having sexual intercourse. But for me it is also a way to express my love for my husband. Because I have this risk, I am not able to do that? That would be too hard....I always keep in mind when I ovulate, so I avoid having sex during that period.....that is the best I can do, in combination with other protection.

Even the birth control pill isn't 100% safe....so even happens when women are prepared and very careful.

It is a difficult subject and you are right that the life of the unborn child is important enough to protect. That is why it is so important that there is good sex education in schools and so on. Because many girls get pregnant out of ignorance. And sometimes a pregnancy for a not fully grown body is life threatening....

If you don't want your healthy baby you can give it up for adoption. That would be a respectful act for the child.

I believe life starts when it is still a zygote, and to me all life is sacred. But I have seen the "dark' side of pregnancy and of the development of unborn children. The last thing I would want if to see a life suffer. But I respect it when a couple decides to let the baby be born, because of their religious believes. Who am I to judge. I am not standing in the shoes of those people. I always say that if you will keep the baby, no matter it's health don't use the prediagnostic possibilities, because it is a difficult and stressful road. If you need to prepare for a handicapped child, you can use it, but there is always a change you miscarriage because of the procedure, even if the embryo/fetus is healthy!

That is why I look at the decisions individually, because it is not possible to judge them all equally.

I know you didn't meant any disrespect....I don't approve of abortion as a contraceptive...to me that is wrong, and even then, if the child isn't accepted, what will it's life be like?

Lots of love ans sunshine and again, I am sorry you had to endure that. We sometimes forget the feelings of the father in these sensitive discussions...
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Then, Queen, let's decide to ban abortion in the all cases except those where the mother's life is in significant danger (not just "health" which can be a cop-out), or when the child will have serious birth defects to the degree you referred to.

I want more than that. But if you put that on a piece of paper and shove it in front of me, I will sign it so fast I might tear the paper it's written on.

Can you say the same?

[Queen]

No, because why has a seriously handicapped unborn child less rights then a healthy unborn child. Is it's life worth less? Why should that be allowed to be aborted and for other reasons not. Is a 13 year old pregnant girl able to raise a child? Doesn't has a woman the right to choose for her child's life and give up hers. Why make a difference in situation where we are merely outsiders? Like I said we have to look at every story individually, because we don't know the real reason, we can't look inside the heart and the mind of a woman who has to decide to end the life of her unborn child.

I understand your POV, because you had a terrible experience with this. The woman was wrong not to inform you sooner.....she was so wrong to leave you out of the decision and I understand your pain.

We also have to keep the dialogue going, because things and views change over the course of years and adapt to the new ages. Keep talking about it and avoid that it will be used as a contraceptive........but what will happen if we forbod abortion under certain circumstance? Do women really have to go to back-alleys again to be butchered llike just a few years ago? Do we want scary young teenager death, because they were treated horribly by such illegal butchers, instead of getting proper care from official doctors?......Think about those sides as well

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Queen:
No, because why has a seriously handicapped unborn child less rights then a healthy unborn child. Is it's life worth less? Why should that be allowed to be aborted and for other reasons not. Is a 13 year old pregnant girl able to raise a child? Doesn't has a woman the right to choose for her child's life and give up hers. Why make a difference in situation where we are merely outsiders? Like I said we have to look at every story individually, because we don't know the real reason, we can't look inside the heart and the mind of a woman who has to decide to end the life of her unborn child.

I understand your POV, because you had a terrible experience with this. The woman was wrong not to inform you sooner.....she was so wrong to leave you out of the decision and I understand your pain.

We also have to keep the dialogue going, because things and views change over the course of years and adapt to the new ages. Keep talking about it and avoid that it will be used as a contraceptive........but what will happen if we forbod abortion under certain circumstance? Do women really have to go to back-alleys again to be butchered llike just a few years ago? Do we want scary young teenager death, because they were treated horribly by such illegal butchers, instead of getting proper care from official doctors?......Think about those sides as well

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

She wasn't wrong, because she didn't know, herself, that she was pregnant. It totally took her off guard, too. She was feeling ill, and as her tubes were tied, the last thing she expected was to find she's pregnant.

As for taking every situation on a case-by-case basis, I don't know of any situation where it would be right to end a child's life after he or she is born... and if the child is just as alive and just as human before birth, the same applies.

Although there are some intellectuals and professors who are openly proposing that a mother should have a right to terminate the life of her child up to 2 years after birth. One of them received an international "ethics prize" of some kind for his work. Absolutely disgusting, insane. But it seems that's the direction we're "progressing."

(Or regressing, as the case may be.)

[Queen]

I understand that she had a difficult choice (and no other because she could die.) I meant that she had to include you in this....but it is (you are right of course) not my right to judge people I do not know personally. Sorry if I have gone to far. I merely wanted to express that I do understand your feelings of....helplessness in such a situation

Two years after birth??? Even when they are healthy??? WHAT????? I can't believe what I am reading.

I can understand that parents decide not to treat a severly handicapped child and let nature take it's course. As long as there is no pain during that period (which we can provide artificial, tahnk goodness). Passive euthanesia.....but that is true for all ages. I also respect that. But to terminate the life of a child after birth (even after the first trimester of pregnancy) is so.....unreal?? I do not understand what you are saying here? Is this passive euthanesia or is this active termination???

weird "progress"........

Lots of love and sunshine (and my apologish again)
Queen

[bar Jonah]

Active termination. They propose clinics, just like abortion clinics.

After all, they point out... up to the age of two, a human child is no more intelligent than a chimp or dolphin, just an animal. Still not a true "person."