Congressman: Ironic that federal law protects animals more than unborn humans
The criminal code of the District of Columbia, Section 22-1001, prohibits cruelty to animals….
This statute explicitly covers “all living and sentient creatures, human beings excepted,” if a prosecutor can prove “serious bodily injury,” or if a prosecutor can prove “to an animal or indifference to animal life, that a single offense can be punished by up to five years in prison or a fine not to exceed $25,000 or both.”
A serious bodily injury includes among other things the infliction of “extreme physical pain or mutilation or broken bones or severe lacerations.”
Now I heard your vivid description of the D&E abortion method, which I’m told is the most frequent method used for abortion after 20 weeks, and it seems clear that it follows this description of mutilating, breaking bones, lacerating, and worse, and we’ve heard very convincing evidence pain that it would inflict “extreme physical pain.
Now that fits all the criteria. I find it tremendous – I don’t even want to use the word irony – just a break from human compassion, that while we would do the right thing and prevent those things from happening… to animals, but not to human babies.
~ Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, sponsor of HR 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, in a subcommittee hearing on the bill, May 17
[HT: David D. at LiveAction.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I listened to this hearing and it was unbelievable to hear the actual procedure described by the Dr. who was an abortionist and is now pro-life. If it doesn’t shake you to your core you are indeed a cold-blooded, heartless S.O.B. (Oh that’s right the current POTUS sat unmoved during the hearings in IL. legislature while Jill described the death of a baby who survived an abortion and he voted to keep Partial Birth Abortion). God help us.
God bless Congressman Franks. Oh, for a hundred more like him!
This is just sad. How support, let only perform such an evil procedure?
This is just sad. How could anyone support, let alone perform such an evil procedure?
I requested deletion of my 12:42 comment on the grounds I mangled it to the point it makes no sense. It’s supposed to enter moderation when such a request is made, but it didn’t. Mods, could you look into this?
Trent Franks, from Arizona, did not allow Washington DC congressional rep., Eleanor Holmes Norton to speak. But hey, when it comes to ladyparts, father always knows best.
The AMA (you know, the gold standard when it comes to medicine) said, in the late nineties, that ”The AMA recommends that the intact dilatation and extraction procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman and that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life…In addition, the AMA recommended that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life”
So it looks like the medical community accepts, in certain cases, this type of termination. If you have anything more recent, it would be interesting.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=280&issue=8&page=724
One of Tiller’s patients was a nine year old girl who was raped and impregnated by her daddy. When she was 18 weeks long, it was decided that her body would be torn apart if she delivered. In other words, she would have died. And you sweet, pro-lifers would have allowed that in order to save “the baby” who might not have made it either. Oh well, just another sacrificial victim to your god. Right?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/george-tiller/
And BTW, your hard line (the same as the Catholic Church) on rape and incest does alienate those who are pro-life in some circumstances.
If rapists don’t get the death penalty, why should their innocent children?
Pro-life, 100%, without apology.
ninek says:
May 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm
If rapists don’t get the death penalty, why should their innocent children? Pro-life, 100%, without apology.
(Denise) In the case mentioned, the girl impregnated through incestuous rape by her father was 9 years old. The fear was that her body was just too small to carry to term and give birth.
Do you accept abortion when the life of the pregnant girl or woman is threatened by carrying to term?
This reminds me again of poor, horrible Lisa Coleman who is on death row. I mentioned to a friend how frequently people who end up in prison or death row seem to have had very young mothers. I told him about how Lisa Coleman’s mother had given birth to her at the age of 12 after being raped by her uncle. I asked him, “What kind of mother is a 12-year-old girl likely to make?”
He answered, “A terrible one.”
How can anyone have “anomalies incompatible with life” when they are currently alive? Incompatible with a type of life, perhaps, but then let’s pick a descriptive, honest word and call it what it is. Sorry, living human being, you are not compatible with life, so we must make you un-living now. Maybe the question is incompatible with WHOSE life, supposedly.
CC – “her body would be torn apart if she delivered.”
C sections are not new and are used in just those cases where the mother is not able to deliver otherwise.
I guess that not all ladies know everything about lady parts. Sounds sexist when one thinks that Norton, who is not a doctor, should testify about medical matters just because she is a women. What could Norton have added to what the ex-abortionist said unless she had experienced such a procedure?
According to http://www.rollcall.com/news/Abortion-Hearing-Brings-Out-Jurisdictional-Battle-214635-1.html a woman “Neonatologist Colleen Malloy gave more medical evidence for pain the fetus can experience 20 weeks into the pregnancy so a woman did testify.”
What was the penalty for the father/grandfather in the case that you referenced? Or was this case like one of Planned Parenthoods where the girls were sent home to be raped again followed by yet another abortion? http://www.ccn-usa.net/news.php?id=462
You may be interested in this article; http://www.theblaze.com/stories/facebook-bans-mother-for-posting-photos-of-baby-born-with-severe-birth-defect/. In this case a mother delivered her baby that had anencephaly, a fatal condition in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull.
LifeJoy says:
May 19, 2012 at 5:28 pm
How can anyone have “anomalies incompatible with life” when they are currently alive? Incompatible with a type of life, perhaps, but then let’s pick a descriptive, honest word and call it what it is. Sorry, living human being, you are not compatible with life, so we must make you un-living now. Maybe the question is incompatible with WHOSE life, supposedly.
(Denise) I believe this is about cases in which, were a baby to be born, he or she would die at birth or very soon afterward.
Cootie Catcher, you might be interested in this section of the bill:
(B) Subject to subparagraph (C), subparagraph (A) does not apply if, in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions or any claim or diagnosis that the woman will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death.
(C) A physician terminating or attempting to terminate a pregnancy under the exception provided by subparagraph (B) may do so only in the manner which, in reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive, unless, in reasonable medical judgment, termination of the pregnancy in that manner would pose a greater risk of–
‘(i) the death of the pregnant woman; or
‘(ii) the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman;
than would other available methods.
The AMA (which represents about 15% of all US doctors) did not endorse abortion in those cases. Rather, it rejected third trimester and partial-birth abortions in all other cases.
The lifesaving abortion stories are usually too good to be true (even though I would accept abortions only in those cases). Girls that young and younger have delivered babies in the past. Maternal mortality rates in other countries, which have more restrictions on late term abortions, are lower than that of the US. The editorial you cited also didn’t state that there was a medical emergency. In that case, it is likely that they could have waited a few weeks and done a c-section or induced labour (rather than going all the way to term). Wouldn’t trying to save both mother and child be more consistent with sound medical ethics?
And BTW, your hard line (the same as the Catholic Church) on rape and incest does alienate those who are pro-life in some circumstances.
See ninek’s post. I could also say that your hard line stance on late term abortions, partial-birth abortions, sex-selective abortions, taxpayer funded abortions, and secret abortions done on minors alienates those who are pro-choice in some circumstances.
CC, isn’t it about time you brought up the Jews?
CC, a 5 year old gave birth in Peru I think it was? Google it. It is documented. Not ideal but it can be done. So a 9 year old could give birth or have a c-section and a baby wouldn’t have to be torn apart. But then you’d be bummed over a baby not getting torn apart wouldn’t you?
CC you said it right “one of Tiller’s “…I wonder how many others were not 9 yo and still paid him to kill their babies. You are grasping at straws. (PS I refuse to call that butcher’s victims “patients”. Drs are supposed to heal not kill)
And having lived in DC I can tell you personally that if Norton had given her opinion it would have been a waste of tax payers money. She has nothing of signicance to contribute except bias and lies to back up the biases. I am mystified at how she keeps her office.
Coutney and Sydney M. LOL!! I just love your last post to CC, “you’d be bummed over a baby not gettng torn apart, woudn’t you?.” So true.
As Sarah Palin would say “You betcha!”
Dear Denise: Thank you for sincerely answering my question, though I posed it for some rhetorical effect or another. I do realize these cases exist, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be for parents to hold their child in their arms for the first time and say good-bye for now all in the same day.
But these babies pass with as much dignity and love as is possible and with their parents knowing their baby lived as long as he or she could. Contrast this with baby being sucked, burned, ripped up out of the womb in order to spare baby’s own suffering. I know how I’d rather spend my last moments on earth, or what I’d choose for my child.
LifeJoy says:
May 20, 2012 at 12:42 am
Dear Denise: Thank you for sincerely answering my question, though I posed it for some rhetorical effect or another. I do realize these cases exist, and I can only imagine how difficult it must be for parents to hold their child in their arms for the first time and say good-bye for now all in the same day.
(Denise) Ironically, the horrible “partial-birth abortion” or intact D&E procedure, was invented for this type of case. Something went wrong in a pregnancy — a pregnancy wanted and often planned — and the pregnant woman was informed that if she delivered, the baby would be dead when the air hit it or just shortly afterward. Some felt they just couldn’t prolong the agony by carrying to term when they knew a baby was doomed. However, the available abortion procedures meant having the fetus torn to pieces. They asked: Isn’t there some way I can hold my baby? They wanted a whole baby to hold and mourn.
Thus, a doctor invented this ugly procedure: pull it out by the trunk, suction out the brain, and hand an intact baby to a grieving mother.
Of course, once invented, this procedure wasn’t legally restricted to the above sort of tragic case. It could be used in other cases. Thus, the controversy over a procedure that seemed to open the door to infanticide.
Ironically for the abortion-loving crowd who just love throwing the rare young rape victim in our faces like it’s some kind of get out of jail free card for the other 99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape…the maternal morbity/mortality rates for mothers under 12 (in nations with modern medicine) is actually statistically *better* than for those in the standard 25-35 age range. Young, flexible bodies capable of faster and more complete healing are more than capable of bringing a pregnancy to term and the overwelming amount of top notch medical care such young mothers receive when their condition is found out gives them truly optimal outcomes. Very, very few people would see a pregnant 9 year old (or 6 year old or 12 year old) as a ‘good’ situation. But the baby that comes at the end of that sitution isn’t the ‘bad’ part. The bad part was how she got that way to begin with. And since young children overwelmingly love babies and are horribly traumatized by the thought of someone killing a baby, abortion only makes a bad sitution infinitely worse. It’s abortion advocates who should be shamed and horrified when pro-lifers bring up such situations, not the other way around. There are not ‘hard’ cases when it comes to abortion, it’s always unecessary, it’s always harmful, and it’s never in anyone’s best interest.
“you’d be bummed over a baby not gettng torn apart, woudn’t you?.” So true
Nice projection on your part but wrong. I wouldn’t be “bummed” about a “baby” not being “torn apart” (I’m not emotionally invested, as you are, in the outcomes of any pregnancy be it either birth or abortion). I would be “bummed” if the child died. I do believe that forcing a pre-pubsecent child to give birth is very detrimental to the physical and well being well being of that child. That you folks approve of forcing women and girls to bear their rapists’ children is, IMHO, truly sick. “Young, flexible bodies” heal fast so it’s fine if they give birth? Really? Not only will the mother need a lifetime of counseling – but the child born to that ugly coupling will also be consigned to a life of emotional distress. Oh, right, having a baby makes everything all better. You are very naive.
Oh, and love the cute little names that you make up for me. Your intellectual acumen is great – for seventh graders!
CC:Not only will the mother need a lifetime of counseling – but the child born to that ugly coupling will also be consigned to a life of emotional distress. Oh, right, having a baby makes everything all better.
(Denise) Perhaps not a full lifetime. Lisa Coleman was born to a 12-year-old who had been raped by an uncle. Lisa Coleman is on death row for the starvation death of her lesbian lover’s child.
It seems reasonable to believe that LC’s warped personality is connected to her background. I asked a friend, “What kind of mother do you think a 12-year-old would be?”
He answered, “A terrible one.” That might not be an overly brilliant insight but it seems about right to me.
Rebecca Kiessling would end your “abort the baby who is a product of rape”. She is an attorney who is just such a “product of rape” and was scheduled to be aborted. She is glad she is alive and is the person who convinced Gov. Rick Perry to become even more pro-life. Do yourself and us a favor by reading her story. http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html
CC: “Oh, and love the cute little names that you make up for me. Your intellectual acumen is great – for seventh graders!”
What difference does it make, CC, whether your interlocutors are jejune? Your rejoinders fail to discourage. I mean, you’ve basically adopted, as a pastime, an entirely futile quest. You’ve straitjacketed the best you have to offer by casting yourself as a troll. Whatever the failures of others here, the role you’ve assumed for yourself has left you impotent, a nutter ranting against the wind. It just doesn’t seem in your self-interest to beat your head against such a solid wall.
A second wrong (abortion) does not fix the first wrong (the rape). If my father runs a red light do I get a ticket in the mail? (Not mitigating rape in any way looking at this relationship philosophicaly).
CC, what do the AMA, congressional rules, and the crime of incest have in common? You continuing to shut your own eyes and talk about anything else other than the morality of taking a baby and tearing off her appendages until she bleeds out. You come up with faux justifications but at the end of the day a doctor with a child’s mangled arm in his forceps is what you continue to advocate for, day, after day, after day. I’ll believe you when the president of a pro-abortion group volunteers to be publicly drawn and quartered to personally demonstrate to all what the painless and compassionate response is in civilized society for someone “unwanted” by others.
I’m assuming that CC believes that the child inutero has less of a claim to living than a child that is not in utero anymore. This is now a standard argument since the rest of the proabortion rhetoric has been proven to be lies.
The youngest female to give birth was 5yo in Peru…in the 30s I believe. She gave birth by c section. Its definitely safer now. Its sad and terrible but the baby still does not deserve to die.
Speaking from a long past history of sexual abuse you never forget the violation. Never. Adding to that the trauma of abortion is a horrible idea. Even the actual procedure is akin to rape. Psychologicaly speaking just getting rid of “the evidence” is never recommended by therapist in a journey of healing, except in these cases. I am curious to see how their healing compares to others who carried the baby to term. As in would like to see actual studies. Not hear opinions mind you.
“I’m not emotionally invested in the outcomes of any pregnancy” so you don’t care if born people are slaughtered, either. Thanks for clearing that up.