Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a partial birth abortion ban very similar to the ban passed last March by the U.S. Senate. Now, the two bills have to be reconciled and put on the President's desk for signing into law.
Let me describe this a neutrally as possible. The ban will prohibit doctors from delivering a fetus so that all but its head has been removed from the mother, inserting an instrument into the back of the fetal skull to suction the brain and collapse the fetal head before removing the dead fetus from the mother.
Abortion proponents hailed the ban as an appropriate compromise that protects the life of viable unborn infants while preserving the right to choose. Ah.... Sorry, that's not what happened...
NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman said, ``President Bush and anti-choice leaders in the Congress have crossed the Rubicon towards rolling back Roe.''
The Pro-Choice crowd is arguing that this procedure is needed to protect the health of the mother. Call me simplistic, but how is the health of the mother safeguarded by this procedure? Partial-birth abortion requires vaginal delivery of all but the head of the fetus. We're talking three inches. Another push by the mother or tug by the doctor and the baby's out.
And in the exceedingly rare circumstance where a breach delivery results in hemorrhaging and the head can't be delivered (and a Caesarean is not indicated) this bill does provide an exception if the mother's life is in danger. It just means that the procedure can't be premeditated. You can't schedule it anymore.
The other common argument that pro-abortion forces constantly put forward is that this procedure is so rare that it shouldn't be a concern.
[Abortion rights groups] cite one study estimating that this type accounted for less than one-tenth of one percent of the 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000.One tenth of one percent of 1.3 million is 1,300. That's 1,300 partial-birth abortions every year. I find that staggering.
Still, one tenth of one percent is a small part of the overall abortion picture. Why should these abortions be so important to the abortion rights people? A compromise on this would silence much mainstream criticism while maintaining "choice." But they can't give up partial-birth abortions. These abortions that are so morally troubling to the majority of Americans, why are they so important to these people?
"This is a broad, unconstitutional bill that sacrifices women's health and future fertility on the altar of extreme right-wing ideology," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL: Pro-Choice America, formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.I stand amazed at the audacity Ms. Michelman displays in her choice of metaphor. If I were arguing her side I wouldn't be talking about sacrifices on ideological alters. Down Moleck! Bad god!
Ms. Michelman is so turned around in her thinking that she calls this "extreme right-wing ideology." The billed passed 282-to-139. That means of the 421 voting members, 60% are not just right wingers, but are extreme right wingers.
An aside: I looked up "extreme" at Dictionary.com. Note the third definition:
"extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative."The left has used "extreme"so often in describing the right that it is now an example for how to use the word.
When a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, which could occur very soon, the left is going to go absolutely ape. Count on it.
mrstg87 -at- yahoo /dot\ com