Did IL abortion law protect babies aborted alive?

Sean Hannity has done a fabulous job covering the Barack Obama/Born Alive scandal.

For the past 2 nights his liberal counterpart, Alan Colmes, has proposed rationale far and away from Obama's original reason for opposing the IL Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he stated on the IL State Senate floor in 2001, at the genesis of this debate:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny....

I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Colmes has maintained, quoting from last night's show, "there was already a law in place that said that in the unlikely case that an abortion would be - cause a live birth, a doctor should provide immediate medical care for any child born alive."

Here are Hannity and Colmes segments from August 20 and August 21, debating Obama's opposition to Born Alive:


Was there a law in place? As National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru explained in a column August 20...

IL law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant. Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

National Right to Life adds:

Obama's defenders... fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb."...

Moreover, as [liberal columnist] Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune notes (August 20, 2008), "Prosecutors in IL entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on 'born alive' definitions or other definitions." To read or download the consent decree to which Mr. Zorn refers, click here.

Also see this letter we received from Republican pro-life IL Attorney General Jim Ryan in July 2000 stating he could find no law Christ Hospital was violating (click to enlarge):

Jim Ryan letter page 1.jpg

Jim Ryan letter page 2-2.jpg

I also received this startling letter at the time, proving the need for both an IL and federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act (click to enlarge):

DHHS 2.jpg

Michael Kruley had a blind spot. While he understood civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on age, he counterintuitively argued they did not cover the rights of newborns.


Comments:

Jess, call out your animal rights buddies. Jill has beaten this horse to death, and still won't stop hitting it with a shovel! It has been 8 years! Stop the cruelty!

Posted by: PPC at August 22, 2008 3:57 PM


It's just unbelievable that all these "educated" officials and agencies can't see that a baby who is living and breathing after being delivered whether by induced labor or attempted abortion is a precious infant, worthy of every means available to protect its fragile life.

What has our country turned into?

May God have mercy on us!

Thank you Jill for speaking out for all who value God's gift of life, and especially for the little ones.

Posted by: Opinionated at August 22, 2008 4:00 PM


PPC,

I love the argument now. Its not turned into "oh okay duh we get it! Its not big deal right guys? Whatever."

It was "there was a companion law!!" until that was explained to be misleading then it was "but THERE WAS ALREADY A LAW" and now that this has been shown to be false its "whatever dude stop bringing it up so much already!" as if the pro-choice side had conceeded this issue a long time ago.

Want to know why she is "beating a dead horse?" The Obama supporters have yet to admit they were mistaken and that he needs to apologize.

Posted by: Oliver at August 22, 2008 4:07 PM


PPC,
Ridiculous. This issue is obviously very timely. Keep up the good work Jill!!

Posted by: Sandy at August 22, 2008 4:09 PM


ok - I'm stupid right?
newborns can't possibly be discriminated against.
My question: if civil laws don't apply to newborns is this the back door to infanticide?

Posted by: Patricia at August 22, 2008 4:12 PM


Civil laws don't apply to newborns??!!? Well, when the heck DO they apply, then? What's the magical age according to THIS guy? Good grief.

Do these people even listen to themselves when they speak?

Posted by: Kel at August 22, 2008 4:18 PM


Civil laws don't apply to newborns??!!? Well, when the heck DO they apply, then? What's the magical age according to THIS guy? Good grief.

Do these people even listen to themselves when they speak?

Posted by: Kel at August 22, 2008 4:18 PM

NOT proaborts. They make it up as they go along.

Posted by: Patricia at August 22, 2008 4:38 PM


ok - I'm stupid right?
newborns can't possibly be discriminated against.
My question: if civil laws don't apply to newborns is this the back door to infanticide?

Posted by: Patricia at August 22, 2008 4:12 PM
.....................................

Put your paranoid delusions away and think this through logically Patricia.
A non viable newborn is a non viable newborn. If there is no reasonable course of action available to change non viability to viability it is not legally mandated that unreasonable courses be pursued.
All this nonsense has nothing to do with 'saving' newborns. It is attempted interference in medical decisions involving the termination of pregnancies involving non viable fetii supporting the irresponsible, irrational and unprofessional opinion that all pregnancies must be continued to a 'natural' conclusion no matter what the danger or suffering involved.
If Obama and every other legislator that voted against the Illinois amendment supports infanticide, it can equally be claimed that Jill and anyone that supports her extremist beliefs, supports sadism.

Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 4:39 PM


What is this 1975 Illinois law Colmes is reading and the 1984 decision by the Federal court Erickson refers to that declared it unconstitutional? If Obama is tossing in the "law-in-place" defense (among many other defenses), then what law is he referring to?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 22, 2008 5:06 PM


My question: if civil laws don't apply to newborns is this the back door to infanticide?
Posted by: Patricia at August 22, 2008 4:12 PM

Civil Rights laws protect certain "suspect classes." Racial minorities, women, old people, etc. That is what is meant by "age" in the statute. Protecting jobs of older workders. There is not civil rights law that protects "young people." The office of civil rights was entirely correct that this situation was not within their jurisdiction. As they pointed out, other state agencies would be able to investigate Jill's allegations. Can anyone tell me a specific civil rights law that this hospital violated that would be within the jurisdiction of the Office of Civil Rights?

Posted by: Hal at August 22, 2008 5:16 PM


Jill,
Are "pre-viable" and "non-viable" interchangeable terms? Just curious.


Posted by: Janet at August 22, 2008 5:30 PM


Sally,
I think Patricia raises a very valid point.

Abortion is granted to women. These women who need abortions are poor and desparate and can't afford a child.

Abortion becomes acceptable as a regular birth control method for many women.

Abortion becomes an accepted method to the medical profession to wipe out a child's life who may be imperfect.

Abortion becomes an accepted method to wipe out a child's life because they are the wrong sex.

Selective abortion becomes an accepted method to wipe out children's lives because oops too many embryos implanted in their mother's womb and she doesn't want to raise that many children.

Do you see where this is going. I don't have time to continue....but hopefully you get the point.


Posted by: Sandy at August 22, 2008 5:35 PM


Right Hal 5:16, civil rights laws would never apply to this situation. Age discrimination under federal and typical state laws apply to those older than 40, so they would never apply to anyone who was 39 years of age or less.

The outrage expressed at the common sense advice in these letters reflects ignorance of the applicable law, coupled with the paranoia and misdirected wrath typical of the extremist.

In fact, the entire "infanticide issue" is based in ignorance of the law and the legislative process. In some cases this ignorance is innocent-these are complicated issues, that many simply don't have the background to grasp. For Jill and Sean Hannity it is a cynical and dishonest attempt to mislead others in order to vilify Obama.

Posted by: PPC at August 22, 2008 5:40 PM


ok - I'm stupid right?
newborns can't possibly be discriminated against.
My question: if civil laws don't apply to newborns is this the back door to infanticide?

Posted by: Patricia at August 22, 2008 4:12 PM

Silly Patricia, It's this personhood issue, it won't go away. There's certainly consciousness in a born baby, but it probably shouldn't be accorded any civil rights until it can ask for them directly. Babies start talking at about 2 years old. Hmmmm..... that may be too early yet.


Posted by: Janet at August 22, 2008 5:40 PM


Sally,
I think Patricia raises a very valid point.

Abortion is granted to women. These women who need abortions are poor and desparate and can't afford a child.

Abortion becomes acceptable as a regular birth control method for many women.

Abortion becomes an accepted method to the medical profession to wipe out a child's life who may be imperfect.

Abortion becomes an accepted method to wipe out a child's life because they are the wrong sex.

Selective abortion becomes an accepted method to wipe out children's lives because oops too many embryos implanted in their mother's womb and she doesn't want to raise that many children.

Do you see where this is going. I don't have time to continue....but hopefully you get the point.


Posted by: Sandy at August 22, 2008 5:35 PM
......................................

Why women have abortions is as varied in reasons as the women themselves. One size does not fit all.
Pretending that you know what these reasons are is assumptive. I love how fetal anomolies, you know, serious and deadly conditions are little more than imperfections to you. Is being born without a brain simply a little imperfection?
Yes, I see where you are going. Into denial of reality.

Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 5:55 PM


PPC, Sally and Jill:

Laws are only as good as the morality behind them not the politics of blowing wind.

Abortion is murder.

Hypotehtically, would all of you support a retroactive law that prosecuted and imprisoned everyone who had an abortion, approved an abortion, was the spouse of person who had an abortion and agreed to the abortion, committed the abortion?

If not, why not? I mean it's the law.

Posted by: HisMan at August 22, 2008 5:56 PM


PPC:
"...civil rights laws would never apply to this situation. Age discrimination under federal and typical state laws apply to those older than 40, so they would never apply to anyone who was 39 years of age or less."

PPC, I was hired at age 39 for my current job. I was given points as I was an 'older white male'. Are you sure about the 40 age?

Posted by: Andy at August 22, 2008 6:23 PM


Off topic: is that the same Jim Ryan that later became governor and later went to jail?

Posted by: Andy at August 22, 2008 6:26 PM


PPC, Sally and Jill:

Laws are only as good as the morality behind them not the politics of blowing wind.

Abortion is murder.

Hypotehtically, would all of you support a retroactive law that prosecuted and imprisoned everyone who had an abortion, approved an abortion, was the spouse of person who had an abortion and agreed to the abortion, committed the abortion?

If not, why not? I mean it's the law.

Posted by: HisMan at August 22, 2008 5:56 PM
................................

Laws are only as good as their ability to serve and protect the citizens governed by them.
Would you support the compensation of every person convicted of alchohol related charges during Prohibition? If not, why not? I mean they were obviously wrongly convicted by legal standards before and after Prohibition.

Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 7:04 PM


Off topic: is that the same Jim Ryan that later became governor and later went to jail?

Posted by: Andy at August 22, 2008 6:26 PM

No it is not. You must be thinking of Gov. George Ryan of Illinois.

Posted by: Janet at August 22, 2008 7:19 PM


Remember that sicko. Peter Singer, who wanted all children to be allowed to be put to death at the whim of their parents for the FIRST MONTH of their little lives. Do the research, he is a professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. This infanticide just is so disturbing. And yes, it is an ugly, awful word, but the truth hurts.

(Again, keep the faith Jill, there are a lot of us behind you!!)

Posted by: lovethemboth at August 22, 2008 7:56 PM


Why women have abortions is as varied in reasons as the women themselves. One size does not fitall.
Pretending that you know what these reasons are is assumptive. I love how fetal anomolies, you know,serious and deadly conditions are little more than imperfections to you. Is being born without a brain simply a little imperfection?
Yes, I see where you are going. Into denial of reality.
Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 5:55 PM

Sally, there was a couple in Great Britain who aborted because of a clefted palate. It is probably pretty safe to assume that there are a significant number of abortions done on babies with non-lethal deformities. Not every "imperfection" is terminal. But Parents who abort because of a terminal condition or lethal deformity not only have that grief to handle but also the grief and guilt from having to face the fact that they deliberately brought about the end of their baby's life. My husband and I had to face a diagnosis of anencephaly with my one and only pregnancy. It was a terrible blow. The specialist that I saw, after it was confirmed by a more advanced ultrasound, advised terminating the pregnancy on that same day. It took several minutes before I comprehended what he was advising. It occurred to me that if her mother (me) wasn't going to protect her no one would. My husband and I grieved after she passed away at 4 days old but we had some peace of mind knowing that we didn't end her life on our terms. We were able to hold her and love her while she was with us. I'm not judging anyone -- I am just trying to shed a little more light on the topic from a more personal perspective.
Fortunately, there are Perinatal Hospice programs being established so that parents confronted with situations such as these can receive some material and most importantly, some moral support so that they don't have to abort but can carry a pregnancy to term and have and hold their baby for what little time there is.

Posted by: Eileendd at August 22, 2008 9:33 PM


Sorry, I am making mistakes right and left today! It shouldn't be Eileendd but Eileen!

Posted by: Eileen at August 22, 2008 9:35 PM


Eileen, thank you for sharing your story. God bless you.

Posted by: Kel at August 22, 2008 9:55 PM


Here is a point that I think helps bring things into clearer light. I think it is something that many people, unless they work in a medical setting, do not realize.

It is a basic that a civilized culture recognizes that any dying human being has a right to human care, respect, and reverence—to be comforted, loved, and attended to. If an adult is dying, and it is known that he is dying, do we not agree that a decent society would expect, if it is at all possible, someone would come to his aid, comfort him and express basic human solidarity for him? In other words, we recognize that dying persons should be treated like human beings; they should be rendered the dignity of loving human accompaniment and compassion. They should not be treated like discarded trash.

Here's the thing: a "soiled utility room" such as Jill refers to in her testimony about what happened at Christ Advocate hospital, is basically a trash room. It's the place on a hospital ward, usually an enclosed space, where trash of all sorts is taken by medical staff and segregated away from the rest of the ward until other workers come and remove it. This trash may include biomedical waste, regular trash, soiled hospital garments, dirty linens, and a special sewer sink to empty bedpans and vomit into. Yes, human excrement is also disposed of here. The messiest, most nasty types of refuse that most people could imagine end up in the "soiled utility room." And nothing else, usually, goes in there. It's a place dedicated to place (often foul) garbage until it is taken elsewhere.

Now, when a person is dying (still alive, but dying), and let's say beyond saving--dying for sure--does any decent person think that it would be a civilized thing to put the dying person in a trash room and ignore him? You know, just plop him between the human waste sink and a big trash bin until he dies, unnoticed and uncared for. Would this be OK to do with a living human being even though he was surely dying? This is what happened at Christ advocate, and this is what Obama seems to have no problem with.

Should we, as a supposedly decent human society, ever cast aside as trash living human beings while they are still living, merely because they are in the process of dying? There are places in the world where individual human life is not much valued. In some (non-Christian) places in this world, dying, wretched human beings, alive and suffering, but dying, lay ignored in gutters in the street waiting to die like a sick rat. People step over them and ignore them. No one extends basic human care, no one recognizes the dying person as a human being worthy of love and compassion. Treating all people as though they were human beings rather than inhuman trash is not automatic among the broad sweep of all the various human societies on this earth.

I'm not sure many people realize the visual picture of what is being talked about here. Obama's sometime reference to the IL state law (the one Colmes keeps talking about like a talking doll that has one phrase it can say and only one) that says a born and living, viable (i.e. probably not dying) baby should be rendered care (duh!) doesn't address how a pre- or non-viable born alive baby (i.e. probably dying) should be treated. In other words, Obama doesn't mind, apparently, if living, very premature babies who are most likely going to die because they are too premature but nonetheless are alive and not dead yet, are cast aside like trash and ignored until they die. Indeed, it is no concern to him if these tiny babies, gasping for life, are literally placed in a trash room, alongside other trash, and treated just like trash, even though they are living human beings.

This raises a question every one of us should ask ourselves: Should American society maintain as one of its basic values that any dying human being should be treated like a human being, with care and attention and love? Or, is it OK to write off dying persons as no longer human and treat them like garbage even before they die????? What do we say?

Posted by: Scott Johnston at August 22, 2008 10:01 PM


Eileen,

God bless you!

Posted by: Jasper at August 22, 2008 10:03 PM


Eileen, I have a niece who was advised that she terminate her pregnancy when it was discovered that her baby's kidneys weren't working. She said that God put the baby there and He would take the baby if He so chose.
The baby's kidneys started working but, she's still not out of the woods. My niece says she's going to enjoy whatever time she has with the gift from God.
There's a wonderful article titled "Why Carry a Dying Child? A Mother's Perspective" from a newsletter (Summer 2008 edition) called "One More Soul" It's written by a mom who had two children with anencephaly. God will surely bless you for your love and conviction. You are my hero!!

Posted by: One who's been there at August 22, 2008 10:16 PM


Scott @ 10:01,

Thank you for your comments. I had no idea what a disgusting place a "soiled utility room" is. It makes what happened at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL all the more incredulous.

Are you a medical professional? Since you used the words "pre-viable" and "non-viable", I wonder if you could clarify their definitions. Are they used to describe unborn and born children alike? Are they interchangeable? Thank you.

Posted by: Janet at August 22, 2008 10:16 PM


Janet,

I am not a medical professional but in the past I did work in a medical setting. Some years back I was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy and spent about 1 1/2 years providing basic nursing care for cancer patients at a Navy hospital on the oncology ward. So, the "soiled utility room" is something I am very familiar with and anyone who works on a hospital ward or in a medical clinic would also know very well. And I thought that the term would be something that the non-medically experienced person would not necessarily understand with specificity. Your response confirms my hunch.

So, that's right folks, the baby Jill found alive after it did not die as intended during an induced abortion was placed in the medical trash room, left alone and abandoned to die as though it were mere garbage.

I do not know if there is a technical difference between the terms "pre-viable" and "non-viable" as medical terms. They seem to be more-or-less interchangeable but I don't know if they truly are, medically speaking.

Going by the literal meaning of the terms, however, they aren't exactly the same. "Pre-viable" would apply exclusively to a baby that is born too early to survive outside the womb (i.e. before the point of viability outside the womb). The term "non-viable" is broader, and could be used to describe a baby that is not able to live for some other reason than being too premature in development (for example, if a baby's lungs never developed properly, or, it's kidneys don't work). So, a baby can be born at the normal time, but be "non-viable" because of an irremediable medical defect that will soon result in death. Such a child would not be "pre-viable," but would be "non-viable."

Posted by: Scott Johnston at August 22, 2008 10:55 PM


Sally, there was a couple in Great Britain who aborted because of a clefted palate. It is probably pretty safe to assume that there are a significant number of abortions done on babies with non-lethal deformities. Not every "imperfection" is terminal. But Parents who abort because of a terminal condition or lethal deformity not only have that grief to handle but also the grief and guilt from having to face the fact that they deliberately brought about the end of their baby's life. My husband and I had to face a diagnosis of anencephaly with my one and only pregnancy. It was a terrible blow. The specialist that I saw, after it was confirmed by a more advanced ultrasound, advised terminating the pregnancy on that same day. It took several minutes before I comprehended what he was advising. It occurred to me that if her mother (me) wasn't going to protect her no one would. My husband and I grieved after she passed away at 4 days old but we had some peace of mind knowing that we didn't end her life on our terms. We were able to hold her and love her while she was with us. I'm not judging anyone -- I am just trying to shed a little more light on the topic from a more personal perspective.
Fortunately, there are Perinatal Hospice programs being established so that parents confronted with situations such as these can receive some material and most importantly, some moral support so that they don't have to abort but can carry a pregnancy to term and have and hold their baby for what little time there is.

Posted by: Eileendd at August 22, 2008 9:33 PM
............................

You chose to risk your future gestational abilities if not your actual life for a doomed pregnancy. You found some reward in watching your baby die. I'm sure that knowing it couldn't perceive any pain made that bareable for you. You did what was most comfortable for you as is your choice. Mandating that everyone in the same situation do the same as you is cruel and irresponsible.
I can mouth I'm so sorry platitudes but I really don't know what you went through any more than you know what another can handle in the same situation. Physically or emotionaly.
Your's is just one in a million of sad gestational experiences and if I sound insensitive to your experience it is because you sound insensitive to those that might never recover physically or emotionally from the same choice you made.
By the way, cleft palate can indeed be a life threatening deformity. You may be confusing cleft palate with cleft lip.

Posted by: Sally at August 22, 2008 11:39 PM


What is this 1975 Illinois law Colmes is reading and the 1984 decision by the Federal court Erickson refers to that declared it unconstitutional? If Obama is tossing in the "law-in-place" defense (among many other defenses), then what law is he referring to?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 22, 2008 5:06 PM

Cranky,
Efrem explained that one on a previous thread. Here it is again for anyone who may have missed it:

One other point that you need to clarify. Alan Colmes and others defend Obama with the new argument that there was already a law on the books in Illinois which protects these infants, and then he read from the law last night.
That is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
There is such a 1975 law. However, there was a condent decree entered into in 1993 called that "Herbst-O'Malley" consent decree which retrained and prevented the enforcement of that very law. After Colmes made that argument, no one responded to it. We must respond to it.
Here is a link:
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/
herbstconsentdecree. pdf
Posted by: Efrem Fischer at August 21, 2008 10:14 AM


Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 11:40 PM


thats
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/herbs
consentdecree. pdf

Posted by: ts at August 22, 2008 11:41 PM


That dash in the link makes it tough to post:

Here is a link:
http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/courtdocuments/herbstconsentdecree.pdf

Posted by: Efrem Fischer at August 21, 2008 10:14 AM

Posted by: truthseeker at August 22, 2008 11:57 PM


Going by the literal meaning of the terms, however, they aren't exactly the same. "Pre-viable" would apply exclusively to a baby that is born too early to survive outside the womb (i.e. before the point of viability outside the womb). The term "non-viable" is broader, and could be used to describe a baby that is not able to live for some other reason than being too premature in development (for example, if a baby's lungs never developed properly, or, it's kidneys don't work). So, a baby can be born at the normal time, but be "non-viable" because of an irremediable medical defect that will soon result in death. Such a child would not be "pre-viable," but would be "non-viable."

Posted by: Scott Johnston at August 22, 2008 10:55 PM
....................................

Actually pre-viable would relate to a conceptus in utero at a stage of development prior to expected/actual viability. Actual viability is never a given. Once outside the uterous, pre-viability becomes non-viability. Given the understanding that no known medical measures are available to support further viability of a given pre-viable birth.
My son-in-law's sister is a OB/GYN fellow researching fetal anomolies. I've picked up a few things. : )

Posted by: Sally at August 23, 2008 12:10 AM


Help for Sally : It's "uterus" and "anomaly". Previable supposes that viability could be in the future. Nonviable means there's no hope in the mind of the diagnostician, and it's not limited to location outside the mother.

These diagnoses, as well as the diagnosis of anencephaly can sometimes be incorrect.

There is probably not any help for Sally in the area of compassion for mother or baby. It's not natural for a mother to kill her kid.

Eileendd is a normal and respectable mother who did the natural and humane thing. Abortion is painful for the victim. She opted to provide comfort care for her baby.

The post of Scott Johnston was well written and illustrative of Obama's complete lack of compassion.
Obama's troubles are not without basis. The guy was thrown out by his father and by his mother. One couldn't expect him to form normal relationships, nor have functional regard and empathy for others. Child abuse or abandonment can wreak permanent damage.

Posted by: KB at August 23, 2008 3:39 AM


It is the "the baby is going to die anyway so let's kill it" mentality that is so hard for me to comprehend.

Posted by: Carla at August 23, 2008 6:51 AM


You chose to risk your future gestational abilities if not your actual life for a doomed pregnancy. You found some reward in watching your baby die. I'm sure that knowing it couldn't perceive any pain made that bareable for you. You did what was most comfortable for you as is your choice. Mandating that everyone in the same situation do the same as you is cruel and irresponsible.

Sally, there was no risk to my life or my future gestational abilities. You can be sure that I found no reward in watching my baby die. I am not a sadist or a masochist. KB made a very good point -- abortion is hardly any less painful for the baby. You worry about inflicting cruel and unusual punishment by forcing women to carry to term yet you seem to want to ignore those people who suffer even more after the fact of having aborted. I'm not judging anyone -- I just don't want to see anyone making a painful situation even worse. We were fortunate because we received a lot of love and moral support. We were also coming from a spiritual perspective that sustained us. I realize that not everyone has that support so it is important for those who support life to do what they can materially and spiritually. Unfortunately we live in a society today that views life in a utilitarian way -- if we are going to be inconvenienced or made to suffer in any way then dispose of the problem.

Cleft palate can be surgically corrected -- anencephaly can not.

Jasper, KB, and one who's been there -- thanks for your kindness and support. ( I am praying for your niece, o.w.b.t.)

KB, you mentioned something that reminded me that some of us are coming from world views that are distorted by very painful experiences in our lives. It reminds me of the importance of praying for conversions.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 23, 2008 7:49 AM


Above is me.

Posted by: Eileen at August 23, 2008 7:55 AM


Scott Johnson,

Excellent explanation. If only the media talking heads could pick up on it.

Posted by: carder at August 23, 2008 8:12 AM


God bless you, Eileen!!

Posted by: Carla at August 23, 2008 8:26 AM


Meant to comment further -- beautiful post, Scott.

One whose been there --- I remember hearing about a couple who had two anencephalic babies -- I never would have considered that it would have happened to me again had I been fortunate to become pregnant. There are always people with even more difficult crosses to bear! I know a young couple who lost their 9 month old baby boy to a genetic disorder that causes muscle atrophy and eventual death. He required 24 hr care and his mother was right there doing most of it. She poured herself out for him -- it was such a beautiful witness to self-giving love. They touched so many... Again, I am praying for your niece and her baby.

Posted by: Eileen at August 23, 2008 8:32 AM


God Bless you too, Carla!

Posted by: Eileen at August 23, 2008 8:34 AM


A couple I know from church was told their baby had anencephaly and were horrified to be "counseled" to
"terminate the pregnancy" while my friend was in her 6th month. Nothing doing. They carried their precious daughter, Grace and she was born and lived an hour with her loving family. They feel blessed to have shared that time with their little girl.

Posted by: Carla at August 23, 2008 9:51 AM


Unfortunately we live in a society today that views life in a utilitarian way -- if we are going to be inconvenienced or made to suffer in any way then dispose of the problem.
Eileen at 7:49 am
********************************************

So true, Eileen. :(

And for the record, I am sorry that the sharing of your personal story has brought forth further insult to you, which I found to be incredibly insensitive, shocking, and completely lacking in compassion.

Posted by: Kel at August 23, 2008 9:05 PM


Help for Sally : It's "uterus" and "anomaly". Previable supposes that viability could be in the future. Nonviable means there's no hope in the mind of the diagnostician, and it's not limited to location outside the mother.
............................................................

KB dear, it's really groovy that you have spell check and use it. And access to dictionary on line as well. @@
When a pre-viable conceptus becomes located outside of the woman it becomes non-viable. Either it is capable of life independent of the woman or it isn't.

Posted by: Sally at August 23, 2008 9:21 PM


Sally, there was no risk to my life or my future gestational abilities. You can be sure that I found no reward in watching my baby die. I am not a sadist or a masochist. KB made a very good point -- abortion is hardly any less painful for the baby. You worry about inflicting cruel and unusual punishment by forcing women to carry to term yet you seem to want to ignore those people who suffer even more after the fact of having aborted. I'm not judging anyone -- I just don't want to see anyone making a painful situation even worse. We were fortunate because we received a lot of love and moral support. We were also coming from a spiritual perspective that sustained us. I realize that not everyone has that support so it is important for those who support life to do what they can materially and spiritually. Unfortunately we live in a society today that views life in a utilitarian way -- if we are going to be inconvenienced or made to suffer in any way then dispose of the problem.

Cleft palate can be surgically corrected -- anencephaly can not.
...........................................................................

Every pregnancy carries a risk to a woman's life and damage to her future gestational abilities. That is absolute fact. You chose to take that risk for what you perceive to be your reward. You knew that your baby would not feel pain either delivered on time or prematurely. It was never capable. It's possible suffering and what it might be like to witness that was never a part of your decision. What do you really perceive to be painful about your decision? Perhaps you really needed to witness your baby's inability to live. I can't see anything wrong with your choice. Nothing.
On the other hand, I find it sad that you would wish the same on other's when they might find the health risk too high or the emotional aspect too much.
That you got a lot of sympathy for making your choice isn't a good reason for forcing the same choice upon anyone else.


Posted by: Sally at August 23, 2008 9:38 PM


Eileen, thank you for your prayers. I will pray for you as well and pray that you can have another chance to become the wonderful and loving mom God has meant you to be. If you want to see the article I mentioned, you can go on-line to www.omsoul.com and the newsletter will come up. It's volume 13, issue 1 the summer 2008 edition.

Posted by: One who's been there at August 23, 2008 9:50 PM


Sally,
It is with much love I tell you to hush.

Posted by: Carla at August 24, 2008 1:30 PM


Sally,
It is with much love I tell you to hush.

Posted by: Carla at August 24, 2008 1:30 PM
.......................

Carla, there is no love in stifling a voice. I would think you would know that.

Posted by: Sally at August 25, 2008 12:24 AM


Oh but there is, Sally. I would expect you to tell me to hush if I kept raggin on someone who told their personal story.

Posted by: Carla at August 25, 2008 6:55 AM


Sally, let's put it this way -- you are not going to persuade anyone over to your side of an argument by making ugly, personal remarks. I thought that I would let it go because it occurred to me that maybe something happened in your life that caused some bitterness. If that is the case, I hope that you find the healing that you need someday. God bless.

Posted by: Eileen at August 25, 2008 2:28 PM


Carla, thanks for you kindness.

Posted by: Eileen at August 25, 2008 2:29 PM