“Health”
was defined by the US Supreme Court. It said abortion could be performed: “In
the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial,
and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient. All
these factors may relate to health.” Roe vs. Wade,
Jan. 22, 1973
In its companion decision, the court stated: “Maternity
or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
Psychological harm may be eminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by
childcare. There is also stress for all concerned, associated with the unwanted
child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable,
psychologically or otherwise, to care for it.” Doe vs.
Bolton, Jan. 22, 1973
In a concurring opinion, Justice
Douglas stated that health included if she had to: “endure
the discomforts of pregnancy; endure the pain, higher mortality rates and aftereffects
of childbirth; abandon educational plans; sustain loss of income; forgo the satisfactions
of careers; tax further mental and psychological health in providing childcare,
and, in some cases to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood.” Roe vs. Wade, Jan. 22, 1973
As
a result of the above decisions, the word “health” has become a legal
term of art. The overwhelming majority of the general public thinks of it as physical
or maybe emotional health that would seriously threaten the life of the mother.
In fact, when “health” is in a law, it guarantees abortion-on-demand
until birth. It can be briefly described as including physical and social well
being as defined by the woman herself. Every attempt in law to directly limit
abortion has stumbled on this rock. Most recently, we have seen three federal
district courts in California, Nebraska and New York enjoin the new federal ban
on partial-birth abortions. All three of them referred directly to the fact that
it did not have a “health” exception. Two of these judges, by their
history and writing, were clearly pro-abortion sympathizers. Judge David Casey
in New York, however, was clearly different. He asked very piercing questions
requiring extremely vivid detailed and graphic answers. As the case proceeded
in front of him, many of us became more and more hopeful that his decision might
be to uphold the law. Sadly, we were to be disappointed. Judge Casey had forced
them to admit abortions kill live babies who experience excruciating pain during
the abortion. He found that the pro-abortionist’s attempts to justify partial-birth
abortions were “false, incoherent or merely theoretical.” He rejected
their contention that partial-birth abortion was sometimes justified for medical
reasons and called the procedure “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”
But in the end, he enjoined the law. Why? He said that he had to, citing the above
cases and the more recent US Supreme Court case in 2000, Stenberg vs. Carhart.
Judge Casey said that a health exception is constitutionally required, so he was
bound to rule against the law.
The Partial-Birth Abortion ban in question
had been carefully tailored. Previous court decisions against partial-birth abortion
bans had basically given two reasons. One was lack of clarity, stating that it
could be confused with the earlier and quite different dilatation and evacuation,
which is a live dismemberment inside of the uterus. This new federal law, whose
prime sponsor was Congressman Steve Chabot, quite clearly delineated the difference.
They couldn’t hang their decisions on vagueness this time.
The other
objection was the lack of a health exception. Congressman Chabot and his committee
had labored long and hard and came up with several pages of expert medical testimony.
This included medical facts proving conclusively that there was no legitimate
health reason for doing a partial-birth abortion. Even so, at least in these three
lower court decisions, it seems that the health exception required by the US Supreme
Court was non-negotiable. These three cases will likely be appealed. It is not
the role of a federal district court to change laws. Appellate courts can do so,
but the Supreme Court has the power and tradition and could, of course, accept
the new Chabot federal law if it wished. Pro-life veterans, however, are not betting
the mortgage on such a change by the High Court, at least not if the current membership
sits in judgment.
The New Ohio
Law Ohio was the first state to pass a law forbidding this
gruesome procedure. It was called a “brain suction bill.” It forbad
this procedure but swept more broadly, prohibiting all late-term abortions. The
US Supreme Court enjoined it.
Benefiting from Ohio’s groundbreaking
experience, Congressman Canaday crafted a new bill in the US House of Representative
and renamed it, “Partial-Birth Abortion.” This bill passed but was vetoed
by President Clinton. A second passage, several years later, met the same fate.
In the meantime, almost half of the states had passed their own bans on partial-birth
abortions. Two of these cases, Nebraska and Wisconsin, made it to the US Supreme
Court, which struck them down in Stenberg vs. Carhart. The reasons given
were vagueness and lack of a health exception.
Benefiting from all of
the above, Ohio proceeded to pass a second law. This one very clearly described
the procedure, thereby eliminating any “vagueness.” Unlike the federal
laws, it did include a health exception. By doing so, it plowed new ground for
this type of bill. From the time of the Supreme Court Casey decision in
1992, Ohio had noted that a health exception in their protective bill had not
been challenged and has remained in force. The Casey decision did not strike its
health exception, which had very tight wording. It stated that “health”
meant when it is “necessary in reasonable medical judgment to preserve
the life or health of the mother, as a result of the mother’s life or health
being endangered by a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment
of a major bodily function.” Under the Casey law, abortion in Pennsylvania
was forbidden after 24 weeks and allowed after that only when this new health
exception applied. Information from veteran pro-life activists tells us that since
1992 there have only been two abortions done in that state after 24 weeks. Clearly,
this particular health exception wording has been almost totally successful in
limiting late-term abortions in Pennsylvania.
As a result, the newer Ohio
ban on partial-birth abortion incorporated a health exception but used the exact
same wording that was operational in Pennsylvania and had not been challenged.
Dayton, Ohio is the home of Martin Haskell, the original abortionist who pioneered
the partial-birth abortion. He challenged the new Ohio law, which was enjoined
by a Federal District Court. It went to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. There,
on a two to one vote, the Ohio law was declared constitutional. He asked for an
en banc decision of the entire Sixth Circuit. It considered the case and
voted to agree that the law was constitutional. Haskell formally decided not to
appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit then immediately ruled that
the law would be in force in Ohio and constitutional throughout the Sixth Circuit.
Therefore, if the states of Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee also passed this
legislation, it would be in force unless appealed to the US Supreme Court.
As of this writing, it is too early to know whether or not Haskell will try
to get around the law in some other fashion. Clearly, there are other ways of
killing late-term babies, and Ohio’s law forbids only this one procedure.
He and others are free to kill late-term babies through the equally gruesome D&E
method, i.e., reaching up into the womb and tearing arms and legs off of the live
baby and pulling these and the rest of the body out of the mother. The
Future No one knows what the future holds, but much will depend
on the upcoming presidential election. If John Kerry is elected, the situation
will be desperate for at least four more years and perhaps much longer because
of his likely new Supreme Court appointments. If President Bush is re-elected,
the hope exists that his appointments to the US Supreme Court may well tilt the
balance against Roe vs. Wade.
However the above plays out, the
controversy over partial-birth abortion has had an immense impact on our nation.
No, it hasn’t saved any babies yet. Most agree that the abortion industry
can kill late-term babies by other methods. True enough, but what this controversy
has done has been to lay in front of our nation the whole grizzly mess.
Prior to this, it was generally accepted and continually reported by the press
that abortion was only legal for three months of pregnancy. Now, our nation knows
it is legal until nine months, and for social and economic reasons. Our nation
knows that live babies, in the process of delivery, are being cruelly killed.
Further, that over 90% of these babies are entirely normal and almost all of the
pregnancies are not a health risk to the mother. It is during the years when this
controversy has been aired, that we have seen a specific drop in pro-abortion
support in the United States. During this time we have seen a sharp increase in
Pro-Life support, particularly among young people.
The controversy continues.
Two different partial-birth abortion bans are now in the public arena. We shall
see.
Life
Issues Today with
J. C. Willke, M.D.
The
First Week of Life, Words We Use
“Stem
cells,” “cloning,” “emergency contraception,” all of
these are being discussed to a degree and with an intensity that has never before
existed. Inappropriate or flatly deceptive wording is clouding much of it. Therefore,
it is of extreme importance that we consistently use the right pro-life language
and not fall into their semantic shadings and distortion. Let’s review some
of this wording.
“Stem Cells”
They like to say these cells are “harvested,” but harvest is a positive
word—the end of a growing season, a successful planting or a bountiful harvest
is what we think of, and none of these apply here.
They sometimes, and
sadly most of us almost all of the time, speak of “destroying” stem
cells. But that is not the best word either. We destroy things. We kill people.
When you use the word destroy, you subtly undermine their humanness, reducing
them to an inanimate “it.” When we speak of killing human embryos, we
bring the reader up very short, for it is obvious that you only kill humans, therefore
you are testifying to their humanity. While we are at it, human embryos are not
an “it.” A human embryo is already a him or her from the first cell
stage (X and Y chromosomes). In referring to a human embryo it is best to say,
“kill him or her, or he or she implants…”
“Fertilized
Egg” Pro-lifers make this mistake inadvertently while
pro-abortion people do it with clever calculation. A fertilized egg, or zygote,
is the first cell stage and exists for only 24 hours. After cell division, this
is no longer a fertilized egg. We then use several other names, which are incomprehensible
to the general public, but one name covers them all and that is “embryo.”
So after the first day, he or she is a “living human embryo.” Most importantly,
“fertilized eggs” do not implant within the womb. There is a certain
power to their sneering comment, “Why would you want to protect a fertilized
egg from planting?” It makes a difference if you say, “Why would you
want to prevent a living human embryo from planting?”
“Cloning”
We hear there are two types. This is incorrect; there is only one type. They speak
of reproductive and therapeutic cloning, “reproductive” being when the
new living human is planted and carried to term and delivered. “Therapeutic”
is when “it” will not be planted in a womb, but will be experimented
upon and then “destroyed.” We can accept the term “cloning for
reproductive purposes,” but it is best not to use “reproductive cloning,”
for that indicates there are other types. “Therapeutic” cloning is a
total lie, for there is nothing therapeutic about this. President Bush uses the
term “research cloning” which is quite adequate and accurate. But since
they don’t allow these tiny humans to live when they are done with their
destructive research, very commonly the best words to use are “clone and
kill.” Finally, they often now don’t use the word “cloning”
at all because it is too negative. They use the term “somatic cell nuclear
transfer.” This is the scientific term for cloning, however it does confuse
the public and sounds awfully important and scientific. From our standpoint we
should not use those four words. Let’s call it “cloning.”
“Embryonic Stem Cells”
This is a perfectly legitimate way of describing these cells. The other types
are “adult” stem cells or, better, “non-embryonic stem cells,”
which includes stem cells from the umbilical cord. Never pass up the opportunity
of describing how embryonic stem cells are obtained. You take a five-day-old living
human embryo, cut him or her open, and extract embryonic stem cells from the inside.
Obviously, to obtain these cells you must kill a living human embryo.
“Human
Life” But does human life begin at the first cell stage?
We have all been asked this question and will be in the future. Your answer must
be very scientific. Each one of us was a zygote, a fertilized egg, a single cell;
and all we have done has been to grow up. At that first cell stage, we were alive.
We were not dead. Our single cell body was programmed by nature to proceed in
an ongoing, self-controlled pattern of growth and maturation, ending only when
the old man dies. We were human as identified by human chromosomes. We were not
a carrot nor a rabbit. We were sexed, i.e. male or female, as shown by X and Y
chromosomes at the beginning. Very importantly, we were complete, for nothing
has been added to the single cell whom each of us once was, nothing but nutrition
and oxygen. All we have done since we were a single cell is to grow up. There
is no scientific way of drawing a line in time before which you can say, “He
was not human,” and after which you can say, “He is.”
Conclusion
So, in your debate, your opponent has no answer; they cannot dispute when you
say, “You and I each once were a single cell, a zygote.” This is a medical
fact, which is undeniable. What your opponent wants to do is assign a different
value to an existing human life at whatever stage your opponent chooses. So the
argument is not about whether human life exists, it does. The argument is about
the value that you, they or our government places on human life and at what stage
in his or her growth.
Words are of immense importance. They are, when
face to face in direct discourse. They also affect the listener’s unconscious.
Use them wisely. They are tremendous tools.
TeenBreaks.com
Fills the Pro-Life Void
Later
this fall the Rosetta Foundation will launch an all-new, pro-life website specifically
designed to reach Generation Y. TeenBreaks.com is geared to develop and solidify
pro-life values during that crucial time period between the ages of ten and twenty
when values and behavior are established in the still developing teenage brain.
At 60 million strong (compared to only 17 million Generation X) and highly receptive
to the pro-life message, Generation Y is our best shot yet at actually changing
the culture on the abortion issue.
Consider these facts:
Currently, when teens do a keyword search on “abortion,” there are very
few “teen” websites appearing on that all-important first page of sites
on either the Google or Yahoo search engines.
Google and Yahoo
(Overture) are the largest search engines in the world, feeding other search engines
as well, and will produce over ten million sites on the keyword “abortion.”
Teens
will choose a site with “teen” in the name before other sites that are
presented.
The Rosetta Foundation is committed to out-bidding
the abortion sites and clinics to have TeenBreaks.com appear in the first, second,
or third spot for the “abortion” keyword.
TeenBreaks.com will fill this
void!
There is almost no other pro-life group in the country specifically targeting
these teens at this level on their medium of choice — the Internet. Based
upon extensive research and experience with a prototype teen website, TeenBreaks.com
will provide easy navigation for all the life issues affecting teens. Whether
searching for “abortion” for a school research paper or to end a pregnancy,
they will be immediately presented with abortion sections providing information
in a non-technical language, such as:
Girls who
aborted — True personal stories by other girls.
What is abortion?
— Descriptions of abortion procedures and abortion photos, if they choose
to view them.
Abortion docs speak — Testimonies by Dr.
Nathanson and other abortionists who quit and now speak out.
Abortion
complications/girls — Information on both immediate and long-term physical
and mental complications.
Abortion complications/guys —Information
on the little talked about short and long-term impact on the fathers of aborted
children.
Abortion survivors — Testimonies of survivors
of abortion attempts, survivors whose twins were aborted, and survivors whose
siblings were aborted.
Other equally comprehensive
sections are entitled Pregnancy, Adoption, Hooking Up (this is where we cover
abstinence), Confidence, and Thoughts. Pregnancy
covers everything from “Life B-4 Birth” to personal stories
of girls who parented, girls who adopted, and girls who aborted, as well as a
section of “Might be Pregnant?” and a “Pregnant? Need Help?”
cyberconnection to the pregnancy center network Optionline.org. The “Life
B-4 Birth” section covers fetology from conception to birth with pictures,
but is written as your life began…, you grew…, etc., with a heavy emphasis
on the uniqueness of your life to personalize the baby before birth.
Adoption is another important section,
as research has shown how very little teens know about it. They have almost no
knowledge and even a fear of adoption, resulting in adoption not being an option
in their minds in a teen pregnancy. There will be inspiring stories of birth mothers,
adoptive parents, and adoptees, as well as facts and information on the adoption
process, ending with a section called “Right for me?”
Hooking
Up is part of the new language for teen relationships and will cover
relationship problems, peer pressure, and sex — yes/no. Research and experience
has shown that before abortion and pregnancy comes the initial problem of teen
sexual activity, which must be addressed. It is the precursor of most all future
problems — resulting in low self-esteem, depression, and the destructive
behaviors of drug and alcohol abuse, self-cutting, eating disorders, etc.
Confidence will be devoted to building
self-esteem and confidence through inspiring and courageous stories, encouragement,
problem solving, and help hotlines. Thoughts
is the interactive section for submitting personal stories, comments, suggestions,
poems, etc.
As the website is now in the building process, anyone with
teens wishing to submit stories, poems, etc., may do so at RosettaFound@aol.com.
This website will be launched as soon as content and design are completed this
fall. We’ll keep you posted!
From
The Executive Director Bradley
Mattes
Disguising
Abortion to Look Like Labor
Words are important
in our efforts to protect innocent human life. Those who promote abortion use
a litany of euphemisms designed to de-humanize the child.
Here’s the
latest example. Some hospitals have incorporated late-term abortion into an institution
previously dedicated to healing. These abortions are so late that the baby is
often born alive. An accurate description is “live birth abortion.”
Even though the baby survives, the healthcare personnel do nothing to assist these
babies as they struggle for life.
The hospitals’ public relations
and marketing teams don’t like to use the “A” word. They know admitting
to doing abortions would make them vulnerable to pro-life pickets, media controversy
and furious donors. To avoid all that unpleasant pandemonium, they’ve come
up with a description to disguise the fact that they have joined the ranks of
late-term abortionists. They call it an “early induction of labor.”
Translated, this means they deliberately put the mother into premature labor,
knowing the baby will not survive without immediate medical attention.
In
reality, it’s a cold, calculated scheme to blur the line between spontaneous
premature delivery and abortion. And it’s become widespread.
Two prominent
Catholic-affiliated hospital systems are committing late-term abortions on handicapped
babies under the guise of “early induction of labor.”
The Loyola
University Health System and the Providence Health System (31 hospitals) have
a written policy regarding live birth abortion. Both said they strictly adhered
to the “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.”
The Providence statement was more vague. However, Loyola University specifically
said they delayed the abortion until the baby was twenty-four weeks old in the
womb and considered “viable.” In their corporate mind, this doesn’t
qualify as an abortion and makes them compatible with the US Catholic Bishops’
ethical and religious directives.
Viability is a scientific measurement
to determine when an unborn child can live outside his or her mother’s womb.
But any healthcare provider knows that critical medical care is essential to every
child at this age. Tragically, these babies have a symbolic scarlet “A”
written on their foreheads and receive zero medical attention. There’s even
evidence that in some institutions, babies are actively killed by drowning or
other means.
Loyola is quick to point out they only kill babies who are
the victims of anencephaly or Potter’s disease (underdevelopment of the brain
and kidneys). This doesn’t exonerate them. Quite the opposite — it further
condemns them for discriminating against handicapped newborns. The fact that they
kill only a small segment of society doesn’t make the dirty deed any less
vile.
Hospitals that participate in live birth abortions are putting their
federal funding at risk. President George W. Bush signed the Born Alive Infants
Protection Act. It states that children who are lucky enough to survive an
abortion will be afforded proper medical care to sustain their lives. Herein lies
the problem. Hospitals are either unaware of this federal legislation, or are
thumbing their noses at it.
There is also the possibility that the American
With Disabilities Act may be a way to prosecute wayward healthcare facilities.
It can be eagerly argued a hospital that intentionally induces labor, and then
ignores the baby’s struggles for life, fully gets what it deserves within
the parameters of law.
Jill Stanek, a registered nurse, was at the forefront
of initially exposing live birth abortions. She testified before Congress to pass
legislation to protect their lives. Now, Jill is hearing from nurses that live
birth abortions continue to be committed in hospitals around the nation. Jill
shared with me some of the alarming, first-hand accounts of so-called labor inductions.
A nurse in a Southern California emergency room reported her experience
of seeing a premature birth and death of an infant:
“The
focus turned to stabilizing the mom who was bleeding profusely. I felt so badly
for her and tried to comfort. She was quite cold to my attempts, which, of course,
raised suspicions. When mom’s “primary physician” arrived on scene,
we all realized that it was, in fact, an abortion. This was a perfectly formed
26-week baby. Someone laid her on a table. The image of that beautiful, perfect
little infant haunts me to this day. I’ve seen it in my sleep.”
At
one abortion mill, a nurse witnessed horribly cruel acts:
“They
put the babies in red biohazard bags when they were still moving . . . tied the
bag up . . . put them in a biohazard box. The biohazard medical service would
pick boxes up Monday and Thursday.”
Jill
said, “The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is like the proverbial
tree that fell in the woods no one heard.” As a nurse, she is ashamed of
the medical profession. Jill said, “I shouldn’t have to remind so-called
Christian hospital administrators, ethicists and theologians that they are called
to protect — not destroy — the most vulnerable and sickest among us.
They are called to help parents bear the unbearable loss of a child, not trigger
it.”
While legal and civil options are being pursued, you can go
to pro-life healthcare professionals in your local hospital(s). Ask them to investigate
and find out whether or not it is involved with “early induction of labor.”
If so, immediately get in contact with Jill Stanek. You can reach her at: Jill
Stanek, 11664 Sundance Trail, Mokena, IL 60448. E-mail jill@jillstanek.net.
Cell: 815-274-2744. Home: 815-464-0984.
As
a result of the above decisions, the word “health” has become a legal
term of art. The overwhelming majority of the general public thinks of it as physical
or maybe emotional health that would seriously threaten the life of the mother.
In fact, when “health” is in a law, it guarantees abortion-on-demand
until birth. It can be briefly described as including physical and social well
being as defined by the woman herself. Every attempt in law to directly limit
abortion has stumbled on this rock. Most recently, we have seen three federal
district courts in California, Nebraska and New York enjoin the new federal ban
on partial-birth abortions. All three of them referred directly to the fact that
it did not have a “health” exception. Two of these judges, by their
history and writing, were clearly pro-abortion sympathizers. Judge David Casey
in New York, however, was clearly different. He asked very piercing questions
requiring extremely vivid detailed and graphic answers. As the case proceeded
in front of him, many of us became more and more hopeful that his decision might
be to uphold the law. Sadly, we were to be disappointed. Judge Casey had forced
them to admit abortions kill live babies who experience excruciating pain during
the abortion. He found that the pro-abortionist’s attempts to justify partial-birth
abortions were “false, incoherent or merely theoretical.” He rejected
their contention that partial-birth abortion was sometimes justified for medical
reasons and called the procedure “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”
But in the end, he enjoined the law. Why? He said that he had to, citing the above
cases and the more recent US Supreme Court case in 2000, Stenberg vs. Carhart.
Judge Casey said that a health exception is constitutionally required, so he was
bound to rule against the law.
