The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so they can slander us and say we are for infanticide. That's why I voted for it in committee, and that's why we will vote for it on the floor.

Political reality is that this kind of thing happens all the time. There are conflicts for many politicians on many bills.

On Bill 1082, the committee vote for 6 against, 4 for, as far as the "Do Pass as Amended."

It's silly to say that all 6 "no" votes were because those people were against caring for born babies. Was this just one political party against the other?

No one has yet showed us the Illinois law that was supposedly on the books already, protecting infants born alive. I'd like to see that...

Okay, I see that the vote split right along party lines. I'd like to hear the 6 Democrats that voted against it say why, exactly, they did vote against it.

And we've seen the irreversible damage the Federal Bill has done to Roe v Wade, right? C'mon, don't y'all see it?!?! Obama does! After just a few years it's already on the verge of collapse!!

"clearly threatening roe" ...morons. My vision's going bad because it doesn't look clear to me.

MK, the guy from National Review on a prior thread said the law had loopholes that didn't require the care of babies that were not sustainable, i.e. I guess not going to live.

I still don't understand this - that regardless of that law, once the baby is out then it's not a matter of the woman's rights, and even if the baby is going to die, why not give it care to relieve suffering?

Now or then, what's the counter-argument against caring for it? I really don't understand this one.

MK,
Good question. I had the same thought. Hopefully we will get an answer. Probably just some random distraction with no validity they hope nobody will research.

Doug,

Now or then, what's the counter-argument against caring for it? I really don't understand this one.

Welcome to our world.

This is the point we have been trying to make. You can't just go around placing value on human lives depending on external circumstances.

In the womb, not a child. Out of the womb, child.
Nonviable, not a child. Viable, child.
Disabled, not a child. Healthy, child.
Born alive but won't live long, not a child.
Born alive but will live, child.
Born alive but meant to be aborted, not a child.
Born alive and wanted, child.

Don't you see that we cannot, cannot, cannot, place value on people according to our own subjective iinterpretations?

The child has not changed. Only our views have.
Again, this is what subjective morality does. It changes with the whims of the people making the judgements.

The babies are objectives. They don't change. That is a fact. Something we can all agree on...right? The disagreement comes in when you try to subjectively dictate which of those babies deserves or has the right to live.

They all do. That is objective moral truth. Unfortunately our laws are subjective. But they shouldn't be, because they are based on objective truths...that the baby is the baby is the baby and that does not change. Only it's location or wantedness changes...only it's value changes. Which is all well and good when discussing a couch, but NOT people!

Doug,

I still don't understand this - that regardless of that law, once the baby is out then it's not a matter of the woman's rights, and even if the baby is going to die, why not give it care to relieve suffering?

After a certain point in a pregnancy it is NEVER necessary to kill the child. And yet it is done all the time. If a baby can be delivered dead, it can be delivered whole.

Doctors testifed that there is NEVER a reason to perform a late term abortion to save a mothers life.

So why would a late term abortion EVER be performed? It is the same principal as letting a born infant die. Because the child is deemed unwanted, without value.

Killing a 28 week old fetus and calling it abortion, or letting a born 28 week old fetus die in a utility room...what's the difference? You tell me!

Sandy,

I know right? Where is a copy of this law. It seems much of his argument rests on that. Yet if that law was in place then why wasn't Jills hospital called to task for what it did to that baby and others?????

Long term, large scale study shows abortion has no causation to increased risk of mental health problems:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2579229/Abortion-does-not-increase-risk-of-mental-health-problems-says-study.html

"Now or then, what's the counter-argument against caring for it? I really don't understand this one."

Welcome to our world. This is the point we have been trying to make. You can't just go around placing value on human lives depending on external circumstances.

MK, that's not it. The abortion argument involves caring for the woman. I realize you care about the baby too, but the argument for pro-choicers is that the woman should be allowed to choose.

Once the baby is born then that's all changed, and the pro-choice argument is not against caring for born babies.

Doug,

Once the baby is born then that's all changed, and the pro-choice argument is not against caring for born babies.

Apparently it is.

As I said, there is NO NEED to perform a late term abortion...EVER! Except that there is money to be made. There is no need to let a living baby die...EVER. Except that there is money to be made.

YOU might care about the mother, but you are being duped. Carhart, SoMG, Tiller...they care about one thing and one thing only...$$$$$$$$.

You want to know the reason they leave born babies unattended...and I'm telling you. For the same reason they abort viable children. Money, selfishness, and subjective morality.

More Prolife Groups Condemn APA Report Denying Abortion Risks

http://www.lifenews.com/nb153.html

Of course they condemn it... they don't like it when facts get in the way of their agenda. The same reason posting facts on a blog that get in the way of an agenda get deleted.

Or let me guess, they're now going to assert that somehow the APA is profiting from abortion too. heh.

Amanda,

It sounded to me like all that report said was that there was "NO EVIDENCE"...which is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist. It also acknowledges that there ARE mental problems AFTER abortion, but no evidence that it is BECAUSE of the abortion.
Two very different things. So it hasn't ruled it out, just says it is still undetermined...

But the American Psychological Association found 'no credible evidence' that an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy causes mental health problems.

The task force found that some studies indicate that some women do experience sadness, grief and feelings of loss following an abortion, and some may experience "clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety", but there was no evidence that this was caused by the abortion per se.

And here they contradict themselves...

They also found that women terminating a wanted pregnancy, maybe due to abnormalities with the foetus, and those who were pressured into a termination or who wanted to keep their abortion secret from their family and friends because of stigma were more likely to experience psychological problems.

So this long term study does not show that there is no negative mental ramifications from abortion and actually shows that in certain circumstances there IS, in fact psychological problems.

How many abortions ARE done under duress and how many are done for fetal abnormalities? What if we find that 80% of women have abortions because they felt pressured to, and 10% have them for fetal abnormalities. That would mean that a whole lot of women WERE having negative psychological problems due directly to having had an abortion...your study says so.

I asked questions about comfort care and as distateful as it sounds, euthanizing the infant in utero on another post yesterday.

I'm pro life. I'm post abortive and non partisan, okay?

Again, I fail to comprehend the following:

If these clinics and hospitals are so opposed to medical and comfort care for these babies, then why don't they simply ensure that there is no live birth (living homosapien) in which to provide care for?

That looks AWFUL on screen and yes, I realize this.

It seems to me however, this would alleviate the need for these much heated and sadly, NEEDED arguments.

The idea of these children, these HUMAN BEINGS, suffering and how to avoid it, is at the heart of my questions. (Forgive my ignorance. I am hear to learn and seek legitimate answers)

I do not wish anyone to think I AGREE with late term abortion...I don't agree with abortion, period.

It is, however, part of our society. I was raised thinking it was my right, to "choose." Like it or not, Washington says we can do this. Our parents, clergy, friends, boyfriends, husbands and counselors say so too. We all say so. (I said so too, lest anyone think I am blame casting or denying my own accountability.)

I cannot help but wonder, why not either ENFORCE laws providing medical treatment and/or comfort care to born alive infants or assure that there was not a situation in the room, with the medical staff on hand, (in that moment)over which to cause the dilemma..."hmm, do we provide treatment or not?"

We should really work towards backing up the gestational limits, but, I'm guessing, that takes much longer.

I'm going to post this anyway but, I think I've semi answered my own question:

If we assure there is no baby left to suffer the inhumane circumstances of being born alive, left alone, without treatment or comfort...it simply allows more room for late term abortions.????

(Then, society becomes even more numb, because no child "suffers")

Is that it?

Gosh, how sickening our "civilized" society has become.

Off to work.

Have a good day folks! :-)

"(Then, society becomes even more numb, because no child "suffers") "

You've hit on a good point which is that our society embraces a utilitarian outlook on life where what is right and wrong is determined by maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering. It leads to the kinds of thinking you've described above where as long as the "fetus" doesn't suffer, all is well.

BTW, you are NOT a nobody.

Bobby,

BTW, you are NOT a nobody.

You beat me to it!

Thank you both! You are very kind, indeed.

So what next then? Is this a situation where, these tiny children have to suffer until laws change? That's pretty twisted. I know there is a Federal Law, I've read it. (i'm glad it exists, but it doesn't seem to have enough "teeth") Is anyone enforcing it? Or can they? Doesn't federal law supercede state law? If so, why does this continue?

I apologize for all the questions.

Doctors testifed that there is NEVER a reason to perform a late term abortion to save a mothers life.

MK, the reasons I've read about include a woman who had heart trouble, diabetes, and high blood pressure. The position of the baby in the womb made delivery an option that the doctors ruled out, versus having an abortion.

"In states where such exceptions (for health of the woman) are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed."

Sometimes there are indeed reasons why late-term abortions are performed due to risk to the woman. The "never a reason" stuff is more like the doctors can't say for certain that not having an abortion will absolutely be sure to have the woman die. Maybe it's not "absolutely necessary" to have the abortion, but the risk in not doing so is enough that doctors sometimes recommend it.
.....

Killing a 28 week old fetus and calling it abortion, or letting a born 28 week old fetus die in a utility room...what's the difference? You tell me!

Caring for the born baby is one thing - no arguments on it.

The argument over late-term abortions is a separate thing. If there's not significant danger to the woman, then no argument either - if the pregnancy must be ended then I say induce delivery. So I guess the debate is over whether there is sufficient danger at times to the woman to warrant abortion.

SSSSHHHHHH, Amanda. You are getting in the way of my agenda.

tehehe, Carla, you and your baby-saving agenda. Darn you. :)

MK,

Jill explained that Illinois Law here below, Janet found it yesterday. Jill may want to re-post it

For Jill's comments on the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 that you referenced, go to:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/obama_relevant.html

Doug,

What difference to the life of the woman could delivering a dead baby possibly make. Same baby, same birth canal, same process, only difference is the babies brains get sucked out...

No...it's simply not true. Delivering a dead baby does nothing to save the mom. At that point in gestation the question of how to deliver the baby is moot. C-section or vaginal are the only choices. Not dead or alive...

when is Obama going to apoligize to pro-lifers for calling us outright liars?

What difference to the life of the woman could delivering a dead baby possibly make. Same baby, same birth canal, same process, only difference is the babies brains get sucked out...

MK, it's not the same - the cases I'm talking about are where inducing delivery presents what the doctors feel is too much risk.

Amanda at August 20, 2008 8:55 AM
Of course they condemn it... they don't like it when facts get in the way of their agenda.

It appears the APA is the one that doesn't want the facts to get in the way of their political agenda.

For more complete analysis of the APA report:

Thanks Jasper,

I think it SHOULD be provided again. And again, and again. He's using that as an excuse and it it's taking away from the real issue. It needs to be taken off the table. Every time it's placed there!

Sorry, the links didn't post.

Analyses of APA report at:

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4131.html.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081805.html

"He's using that as an excuse and it it's taking away from the real issue."

..and he's contradicting himself in the process. For 4 years now, the excuse was that the Fed and State bill weren't the same, and he would have voted for it if they were.

The Obama campaign is spinning in circles now...

Thanks DeeL.

Hi Elizabeth! :)

Doug,

MK, it's not the same - the cases I'm talking about are where inducing delivery presents what the doctors feel is too much risk.

You're killin' me here. They ARE inducing labor in these abortions. What am saying wrong that is confusing you.

Induce labor/deliver live baby.
Induce labor/deliver dead baby.

Doug,

How do you think they are getting the "dead" baby out of the mother? Through a straw? Is Scottie gonna beam it out???

"MK, it's not the same - the cases I'm talking about are where inducing delivery presents what the doctors feel is too much risk."

You're killin' me here. They ARE inducing labor in these abortions. What am saying wrong that is confusing you.

Oy, I'm not tryin' to kill ya. No, there are cases where delivery (as opposed to abortion) is too dangerous for the mother, in the opinion of the doctors.

I would think that D & E would be then chosen, because you're right - there are abortion procedures where delivery is partially induced - but those would be contraindicated in these cases. Anyway - D & X now being prohibited would mean that it wouldn't be done in the first place.

The fetus is cut up inside the womb, rather than "partially born."

Doug,

The fetus is cut up inside the womb, rather than "partially born."

Oh well, that okay then. I mean if you're going to slice 'em up first, then no problem!

YOU were the one talking about induced abortions resulting in a live baby. If you cut them up like chickens that would'nt exactly apply, now would it.

The point is, that there is NO reason to induce labor and kill the baby to save the mothers life.

That's what we were talking about. You said you were surprised that induced labor was used as an abortion method. I said it is, in partial birth abortions, and has been for years, and that there is NEVER a medical reason to do it that way. The child Jill held was killed BEFORE the partial birth abortion ban. Had they cut the baby up first we wouldn't be having this conversation!

(i) Nebraska does not deny that the statute imposes an “undue burden” if it applies to the more commonly used D&E procedure as well as to D&X. This Court agrees with the Eighth Circuit that the D&E procedure falls within the statutory prohibition of intentionally delivering into the vagina a living fetus, or “a substantial portion thereof,” for the purpose of performing a procedure that the perpetrator knows will kill the fetus. Because the evidence makes clear that D&E will often involve a physician pulling an arm, leg, or other “substantial portion” of a still living fetus into the vagina prior to the fetus’ death, the statutory terms do not to distinguish between D&X and D&E. The statute’s language does not track the medical differences between D&E and D&X, but covers both. Using the law’s statutory terms, it is impossible to distinguish between D&E (where a foot or arm is drawn through the cervix) and D&X (where the body up to the head is drawn through the cervix). Both procedures can involve the introduction of a “substantial portion” of a still living fetus, through the cervix, into the vagina–the very feature of an abortion that leads to characterizing such a procedure as involving “partial birth.” Pp. 20—21.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html

In BOTH abortions, the child is partially delivered. In one (partial birth D and E) the child's skull is puntured. In the other (D & X) the child's limbs are torn off...both bring the baby into the birth canal...

Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the fetus intact?

Carhart: Yes, sir.

Question: Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?

Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the oz. I think most...statistically the most common presentation, we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it’s what they world call a transverse lie, so really you’re looking at a side profile of a curved fetus. When the patient...the uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.

Question: What do you do then?

Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes

Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

Question: And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?

Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

Question: At what point is the fetus...does the fetus die during that process?

Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

The Court: Counsel, for what it’s worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D&E when fetal demise occurs.

Question: Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.

Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know, what the arm is, you know, what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the fetus out. I don’t know where this...all the controversy about rotating the fetus comes from. I don’t attempt to do that. I just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the fetus.

Question: At the time that you bring out the feet in this example, is the fetus still alive?

Carhart: Yes.

Question: Then what’s the next step you do?

Carhart: I didn’t mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.

Question: What is the cord?

Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the fetus to the back to the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don’t think anyone really knows.

Question: Are there situations where you don’t divide the cord?

Carhart: There are situations when I can’t.

Question: What are those?

Carhart: I just can’t get to the cord. It’s either high above the fetus and structures where you can’t reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.

Question: Let’s take the situation where you haven’t divided the cord because you couldn’t, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax came through the cavity. At that point, I would try ... you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal ... the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

Question: What do you do next?

Carhart: And you can reach that, and that’s where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.

Question: At what point in that process does fetal demise occur between initial remove...removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I’m sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I’m not sure what fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don’t think it has any brain function, so it’s brain dead at that point.

Question: So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?

Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and the don’t die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

Later under cross examination from the AG’S counsel, Carhart stated:

"My intent in every abortion I have ever done is to kill the fetus and terminate the pregnancy."

http://www.mttu.com/Articles/The%20Abortionist%20Speaks.htm

Carla, 10:12 LOL!

Hi Bethany.
I am so sad.
I just read what Carhart said and am sitting here in tears. Lord, have mercy.

"The fetus is cut up inside the womb, rather than "partially born."

Oh well, that okay then. I mean if you're going to slice 'em up first, then no problem!

MK, you asked how the dead baby was gotten out. I know you don't think the procedure is "okay," but that's happening more since D & X isn't allowed.
.....

YOU were the one talking about induced abortions resulting in a live baby. If you cut them up like chickens that would'nt exactly apply, now would it.

There are two different things here. One is that D & X abortions are no longer allowed, so there's not going to be any "partial birth" or live baby outside the womb when an abortion is done.

The second is that as far as live babies outside the womb, there is a difference between a D & X abortion being done in the past, with the baby coming out too fast, and the intent being to deliver the baby and have it die outside the womb.

The same language in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, etc., has been there for a long time, and in the US the born are citizens, right away, so that's why I was suprised that viable babies would be delivered and then simply allowed to die.

Prior to the ban, the legality of D & X to viability wasn't questioned, just as now under the ban the illegality of it isn't questioned.

But I sure as heck would question the situation where a woman, rather than having an abortion, goes to a hospital or medical clinic and the intent all along is to deliver a live, viable baby and than just let it die.

I understand your objections to abortion, and I really was just saying that I wouldn't think the latter would be legal.
.....

The point is, that there is NO reason to induce labor and kill the baby to save the mothers life.

Well, sometimes there are - "In states where such exceptions (for health of the woman) are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed."

That's what we were talking about. You said you were surprised that induced labor was used as an abortion method. I said it is, in partial birth abortions, and has been for years, and that there is NEVER a medical reason to do it that way. The child Jill held was killed BEFORE the partial birth abortion ban. Had they cut the baby up first we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Again, there's at least a legal difference, IMO, between a D & X abortion where the baby came out too fast for the procedure, and the intent all along being to deliver the baby and let it die. I know you hate the idea of both, but prior to the ban on D & X, the intent was legal, while I thought the "delivery" method would have been illegal.

D & X has the fetus coming partway out, and that's not the same as being "born." Even the BAIPA law says "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother."

In BOTH abortions, the child is partially delivered. In one (partial birth D and E) the child's skull is puntured. In the other (D & X) the child's limbs are torn off...both bring the baby into the birth canal...

MK, I'd heard that before, but where you say "partial birth D and E," that's "intact D & E" versus just plain "D and E."

The non-intact procedure is basically: "forceps are inserted into the uterus through the vagina and used to separate the fetus into pieces, which are removed one at a time."

The description you gave makes it sound like both procedures you described would now be prohibited under the "PBA" ban. I hadn't heard that but I'd think that'd be the way it is.

I'd heard that D & X abortions are no longer being done (obviously) under the ban, but had not heard that of D & E's. If they both are not being done, then what procedure is used for later-term abortions? Perhaps SoMG would comment..?

The child Jill held was killed BEFORE the partial birth abortion ban.

I understand that too, MK, but isn't it true that the baby was going to die anyway, and the question was palliative care or not?

I do want all such babies cared for, and I'm not saying any of this is "good" - I'm really just asking.

Well, reading that transcript just ruined my day. Time to go cry.

mk said:The child Jill held was killed BEFORE the partial birth abortion ban.

Doug @ 3:19 said: I understand that too, MK, but isn't it true that the baby was going to die anyway, and the question was palliative care or not?

I do want all such babies cared for, and I'm not saying any of this is "good" - I'm really just asking.

No, the baby was NOT going to die anyway. The reason for the partial birth abortion was "unwantedness".

Janet, Ii thought when Jill was holding the baby, it was going to die anyway.

The rightness/wrongness of abortion is a separate argument. Here we had (as far as I know) a baby that was outside the womb, and not going to live...?

Doug @ 6:45,

I'll see if I can find more info in Jill's archives. It's late, so I'll try tomorrow.

Doug, not being a medical professional, I can't say if the baby Jill held would have died and I haven't come across a definite answer on Google. The baby was 21-22 weeks. I haven't had a chance to check Jill's archives.

This link is Jill's testimony to Congress along with the testimony of another nurse at the same hospital. The other nurse named Baker testified that she witnessed three additional babies die in a similarly inhumane way in the soiled utility closet. It shouldn't happen that way. These babies should be afforded the care in NICU like any premature baby would.

https://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/stanekbakercongress.htm

Janet!

Wow - thanks, after all this time. I figured we'd both just left off of this one.

You know what - I totally agree with you - "These babies should be afforded the care in NICU like any premature baby would."

I see no good reason not to do that.

21 to 22 weeks means very probable death but still - I say give care to alleviate suffering.