Friday, April 27, 2007

Supremes Hold the Line on Barbarity

One of the major stories in the last two weeks, somewhat lost in the coverage of the major story of the shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech - was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortion in the case of Carhart vs. Gonzales. It was the first time the court had allowed a prosciption on a method of abortion post-Roe.

Congress had earlier voted to ban the procedure, with overwhelming yes votes in both the House and the Senate. President Bush, signed the law banning it. Dr. Carhart challenged the law, and the Supreme Court upheld the law.

Thankfully, the court held the line allowing the banning of barbarity.

For, if we allow this procedure to take place, we are - in my opinion - no longer a civilized society.

Republican candidates for president applauded the decision. Democrat candidates, embracing barbarity and their power base of abortion advocates, decried the rollback of women's rights.

The issues surrounding this procedure have been hashed out for nearly a decade now. Just to recap - what is it that was banned?

Doctors call it DNX - dilation and extraction. The mother's cervix is Dilated (D) in a three day procedure using seaweed to swell and open the cervix. The baby is then extracted (X), feet first in a deliberate breech delivery, up to it's neck. The abortionist then inserts a forceps into the back of the skull to create an opening. Brains are sucked out. The dead baby is then "delivered" intact the rest of the way.

Why stop the delivery at the head? Why not complete the delivery? Because that results in a "live birth". That's a medical complication in a procedure entirely calculated to result in a dead child. If they were to deliver the baby two more inches, without delivering the death blow, they would be legally required to respect it's "personhood" and administer medical treatment. Again, not the result the patient and the doctor were trying to achieve. Barbarity was the plan. Not life.

Opponents of the procedure label it (accurately in my opinion) by a more layman description - partial birth abortion.

The masters-of-euphemisms (abortion rights supporters, the media, Democrat presidential candidates) attempt to obscure it by calling it "a certain type of late term abortion". Really? What kind, exactly? Let me help you clarify your vagueness - it's the infanticide type.

It comes down to this. If you can describe the procedure - plainly and dispassionately, you can understand the barbarity. This is not a procedure needed to protect the life and health of the mother. Would you choose a 3 day long procedure if the mother's life was in jeopardy? Would you deliberately induce a breech birth if her health was at risk? No. This is designed to produce a dead, intact, baby. It's infanticide and it's barbaric.

Every now and then there comes an issue that is a clear bright dividing line as you evaluate candidates for President of the United States. This Supreme Court ruling afforded us one here.

All of the Republicans applauded this stand for decency. They have my undying thanks.

All of the Democrats decried it. Which is why I could never ever ever vote for one of them. Barbarians.

No comments: