National Right to Life hopes fetal pain bill will trigger US Supreme Court ruling

I wrote this in my January 27 WorldNetDaily.com column about a new bill introduced in NE:

tiny feet, abortion, fetal pain, nebraska, national right to life, pain awareness act.jpg

The Abortion Pain Prevention Act takes us into a whole new world of abortion law, banning all abortions after 20 gestational weeks on the basis of a preborn baby's capacity to feel the pain of it all. At this age a baby anatomically "has the physical structures necessary to experience pain," states the bill, based on scientific evidence....

Watch this legislation. It has the potential to be as explosive in the 2000s as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was in the 1990s, and just as damaging to the abortion movement. Meanwhile, if passed, it would save exponentially more lives.

The Omaha World-Herald reported in a February 21 article entitled, "State could reshape abortion policy," that the National Right to Life Committee has become quite forthcoming in its hope this legislation will find its way to the US Supreme Court.

I find this quite exciting. NRLC usually plays its cards very close to the vest. That it is so willing to openly hope this legislation comes before the Supremes indicates confidence it would pass muster.

pree.jpgDon't forget, this bill comes at a time when medicine is saving younger and younger babies, and fetal surgery of wanted babies requires fetal pain relief.

If this legislation is determined to be constitutional, US abortion law would drastically change. And the debate along the way will be devastating to the other side.

Pro-aborts should be very afraid, and I'm sure they are. Here's the piece:

Now abortion opponents are looking for opportunities to push the court even further in restricting abortion.

"I think National Right to Life wants to see something go to the Supreme Court that would provide more protection to the unborn child," said Mary Spaulding Balch, a lobbyist for the organization.

A new NE legislative proposal could provide that opportunity.

Legislative Bill 1103 would ban abortions after 20 weeks unless the procedure would save a woman's life or "avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."...

The bill would break new legal ground in 2 areas:

  • It redraws the line after which abortions would be restricted.
  • It narrows the cases in which abortions would be allowed after the line is reached.

Abortion law now is based on fetal viability - the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Typically, a fetus is viable at about 24 weeks.

In the landmark 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood case, the Supreme Court said a woman has a right to an abortion without "undue interference" from the government before her fetus is viable....

NE law now follows the Casey prescription: Abortions are banned after viability except to protect the life or health of the woman.

Balch, the Right to Life lobbyist, argues for redrawing the line based on new information about fetal development.

She contends, and some experts agree, that a fetus can experience pain at 20 weeks.

"What I would like to bring to the attention of the court is, there is another line," Balch said. "This new knowledge is something the court has not looked at before and should look at."...

Balch draws hope from the 2007 ruling on the federal ban on intact dilation and extraction [Partial Birth Abortion Ban]. The court majority upheld the ban on the D&X procedure's use even before a fetus is viable, marking a break from its previous rulings.

But Crepps, the abortion rights advocate, called such arguments "wishful thinking."

The 2007 ruling found the ban on intact dilation and extraction procedures constitutional, in part because women seeking abortions had alternative methods available, she said.

[Janet] Crepps [of the Center for Reproductive Rights] finds comfort in the position of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing vote on the court....

Kennedy co-wrote the Casey decision affirming the viability standard and is unlikely to overrule himself, she said.

In Casey, the court held that the balance of rights shifts when a fetus can live independent of a woman. At that point, the state's interest in protecting the fetus can override the woman's right to choose abortion....

Even if the court changed course and accepted the 20-week standard, the bill could be doomed by a second major matter, said Laurel Marsh, executive director of ACLU NE.

"Our contention is that it still is unconstitutional because it has no mental health exception," she said....

But the SC has never specifically been asked to rule on whether a health exception must include mental health.

The SC ruled in 2007 that the federal "partial-birth" abortion ban did not need to have a health exception.>/p>

[HT: Twitter friend mmccrum; photo via Rock for Life]


Comments:

Yay! Now we just need to hear the response from the groups who are against it because it doesn't save OMGALLZTEHBABIEZ!!!111!!1! and we'll have all sides!

I hope this passes. It would be nice to have some kind of restrictions on abortion after 35+ years.

Posted by: Nate Sheets at February 23, 2010 6:05 PM


Right with ya' Nate.

And I'm proud to serve in the PL Army at your side.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 6:28 PM


What's to keep the pro-aborts from just start using anesthesia on the babies?

Posted by: Peg at February 23, 2010 6:35 PM


You go, Nate.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 6:56 PM


They probably will start using anesthesia if laws like this take off. But it will make abortion supporters uncomfortable, because it reminds them that abortions kill a living being.

Somehow I doubt that anesthesia will be a huge expense for these doctors. Anyone who makes a fuss over this is in denial. Deep down they know their morals are on shaky ground, but they don't want to admit it.

Posted by: Chris at February 23, 2010 7:08 PM


Peg, no, they can't do that. Abortion would be banned, period, after 20 weeks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 23, 2010 8:04 PM


Oops, sorry for the double post. Computer hiccup!

Posted by: Peg at February 23, 2010 8:36 PM


I was under the impression that unborn babies can feel pain much earlier than 20 weeks...hmm...

Posted by: Becca at February 23, 2010 8:52 PM


Think about it Peg.

If we care enough about the little guy or girl that we don't want them to feel pain, shouldn't we care enough to let them live?

And then if we care enough to let them live at this gestational age, why not at 19 weeks, or 18?

We're driving the debate towards the recognition of personhood by keeping the atrocity of abortion in the minds of the American people. Like CBR, we are making the genocide impossible to ignore. And we're personalizing the fetus by showing the horrors of PBA and making sure everyone knows that these little children being dismembered alive, in the womb, are suffering excruciating pain.

If I had an opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court, I would show pictures of the Justices in a "this is your life" type of presentation. We'd go backwards, SCOTUS appointment pictures, anniversaries, weddings, graduation photos, childhood. I would show a Powerpoint slide with an array of 9 baby pictures, 1 of each of the justices.

And then, after a warm, intimate, very personal review of the justices photo albums, I would show a .ppt slide of 9 zygotes and say, "And this is what you all looked like at your earliest beginning."

Personhood is the end game, but it's like chess, strategic. Somehow the "Personhood Movement" got it in their heads that it's been "incrementalism" that has limited Pro-life progress.

Incrementalism has not been the problem. The problem has been a sleepy, selfish, powerless, self-indulgent, lethargic, luke warm Church.

But the fires of Revival are beginning to burn.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:07 PM


Is that cherry or raspberry flavored gummy feet? Stores around here only carry the raspberry flavor. :\

Posted by: MissE at February 23, 2010 9:11 PM


"Our contention is that it still is unconstitutional because it has no mental health exception," she said....

That shows their true colors.

Posted by: Nulono at February 23, 2010 9:15 PM


MissE,

You have no idea the danger you are in.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:19 PM


Is that a threat?

Posted by: MissE at February 23, 2010 9:21 PM


I'll take that as a yes?

Posted by: MissE at February 23, 2010 9:25 PM


"Our contention is that it still is unconstitutional because it has no mental health exception," she said....

That shows their true colors.
Posted by: Nulono at February 23, 2010 9:15 PM

She meant to say "Our contention is that it has no easily-abused loophole included so that we don't have to actually follow it. Usually when we encounter something like this, we just have them throw in the 'mental health' clause, get a couple more doctors to sign a few additional papers, and then give the girls their abortions anyway. We won't be happy until this happens here."

Also, MissE, Ed is speaking spiritually. If I weren't an atheist, I'd be inclined to agree. Personally, I just would've said, "Get bent, ignorant troll."

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 9:33 PM


Read Jonathan Edwards, Sinners In The Hands of an Angry God

Or don't.

I pray though that God in His Love and Mercy will chasten you, and bring you to your senses, before the Day you stand before Him in Judgment.

You might find this video interesting as well.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:36 PM


I really stepped on God's toes with that joke, huh?

Posted by: MissE at February 23, 2010 9:42 PM


MissE,

For some reason, this blog has been double posting.

I'm not threatening you. I don't want any harm to come to you.

You're just obviously a young person out to have fun and live life to its fullest. There's nothing wrong with enjoying life, you should enjoy your life.

But not at the expense of others.

What if those little feet belonged to a 20 week old (gestation) baby that was killed because his mother was driving and got slammed by a drunk driver.

Would you make a wise crack like that to the little guy's mother?

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:46 PM


That is how God feels about every one of His children that are killed in the womb.

And we would be fighting just as passionately for you if it was your mother that wanted to kill you before you were born.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:50 PM


MissE...your feet were once tiny and translucent like that.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 9:54 PM


It's all a matter of perspective MissE.

A lot of young people look at an unwanted pregnancy as a huge, life-changing obstacle that might keep them from reaching "their potential" academically, vocationally, whatever.

For a young Mom that desperately wants to have children, that perhaps has had 1 or two miscarriages before, those precious feet represent an incredible gift, highly cherished, and deeply mourned when lost.

You are young MissE.

Life will teach you these things.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 9:58 PM


Would we have approved of sedating slaves before beating them
or giving Jews valium before gassing?

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at February 23, 2010 10:55 PM


Exactly Leslie.

The absurdity becomes obvious once you make it a part of the national debate, just like PBA.

Did the PBA ban directly save many babies from abortion? No. Did it help drive American public opinion to a Pro-Life majority for the first time since Roe v. Wade? Absolutely

And were some babies saved as a direct result of the PBA depictions that received lots of air time in the MSM and national news? Certainly

So too will this debate drive home into the American conscious the personhood of the unborn child.

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 11:07 PM


We get everyone in the country (well, not everyone, but a strong majority) agreeing that we shouldn't be hurting these little ones.

And then we ask them, "If we shouldn't be hurting them, is it right to kill them?"

Posted by: Ed at February 23, 2010 11:20 PM


Mental health? The irony. They're really grasping at straws here. They don't seem to be at all concerned with the mental health effects of abortion. *sigh*

Posted by: Deborah at February 24, 2010 3:37 AM


MissE,
Actually if you looked at the full post, you would see that those are the feet of a much wanted preemie in a neonatal intensive care unit. Would you make such a insentive wise crack like this to the face of this little guy's mother or guardian?

Posted by: Rachael C. at February 24, 2010 4:03 AM


*I ment to say, "insensitive" instead of "insentive"

Posted by: Rachael C. at February 24, 2010 4:57 AM


I think Miss E is post abortive. Most people who make comments like that are.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at February 24, 2010 7:25 AM


Ed,

From Gonzales v Carhart"

-PBA Ruling: the abortionist can pull "a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus." p. 21
- PBA Ruling: "the removal of a small portion [such as "say, an arm or leg"] of the fetus is not prohibited. p. 22
- PBA Ruling: "The fatal overt act must occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark [the belly button]" p. 23

Focus on the Family wrote, "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." -Dr. James Dobson

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at February 24, 2010 8:14 AM


Those preemie pictures are just precious! :) How sweet!

Posted by: army_wife at February 24, 2010 8:51 AM


Hey Leslie,

I'm not sure what you're implying.

I understand what Dobson meant, the killers just execute the child higher up in the mother's anatomy.

Dobson wasn't refering to all of the air time the MSM used to graphically depict the horrors of PBA, and the subsequent huge negative swing in our country's attitude toward abortion. Polls showed approximately 33 million people changed their minds and felt that abortion should no longer be legal in all circumstances. Dobson was not saying there wasn't one pregnant mother in that group planning to abort that changed her mind.

There had to have been thousands, right Leslie?

"Ethicists George Annas, a health law professor at Boston University, and Carol A. Tauer, PhD, a philosophy professor at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, Minn., say they think the public's intense reaction to the "partial birth" abortion issue is probably due more to the public's discomfort with late abortions in general, whether they occur in the second or third trimesters, rather than to just discomfort with a particular technique."
-- AMA (American Medical Association)

"The debate we’ve had in this country about partial-birth abortion in the last decade is probably the biggest success the pro-life movement has ever had. Why? Because we finally got the discussion from the subjective arguments about “choice” to the objective facts of what abortion does to a baby. That kind of discussion makes people much more uncomfortable about abortion. During the debate about partial-birth abortion, the percentage of those who thought abortion should be legal under any circumstances dropped from 33 percent to 22 percent. In a way, the graphic imagery used in the Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortion works toward our side, because when pro-aborts read about these horrific procedures, it makes their stomach turn.

Just as William Wilberforce took the members of parliament on tours of the revolting slave ships, the pro-life movement has taken the Supreme Court on a tour of late-term abortions. Just as Wilberforce’s visits to the slave ship were incremental steps that didn’t save one slave that year but eventually made a difference, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is an incremental step that will one day lead to the end of legal abortion in America.
-- Georgia Right to Life

Your not suggesting that our side didn't benefit from the PBA debate and ultimate ban, are you?

Posted by: Ed at February 24, 2010 9:36 AM


Perhaps we didn't save thousands of babies. Maybe it was just hundreds. Maybe it was just one.

One would have been worth it.

Posted by: Ed at February 24, 2010 9:43 AM


Leslie, I think you may be misreading the bill. It does not advocate giving pain relief to babies past a certain age before aborting. It advocates banning all abortions past 20 weeks because we are confident babies feel pain at that point. I spoke with Judie Brown about this, and for the record she said she would support this bill if there were no exceptions, those being a very strongly worded, tight health exception and a life of the mother exception.

Becca, yes, it is likely babies feel pain way before 20 weeks. But this is what science/medicine can agree on at this point.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at February 24, 2010 10:13 AM


Leslie,

I think I see now what you were driving at. Yes, regrettably there is a lot of gruesome language in the PBA Ban detailing what the abortionist is permitted to do.

In fact, what the proposed Abortion Pain Prevention Act will do is make much of that illegal. As you cited:

- PBA Ruling: "the removal of a small portion [such as "say, an arm or leg"] of the fetus is not prohibited. p. 22

Under the new act, this would be prohibited. Unless, as some have suggested, they give the baby medication for pain.

Which then begs the question, "If we're concerned enough about these unborn children to ensure that they don't feel pain, why are we killing them?"

The important thing is that abortion is discussed and debated, sketched, diagrammed and computer-simulated, in all its gory detail - on the 6 PM and 11 PM news, morning shows, 60 minutes...

Let the stomachs turn.

Let the battle rage.

Posted by: Ed at February 24, 2010 10:44 AM


unborn children to ensure that they don't feel pain, why are we killing them?"

The important thing is that abortion is discussed and debated, sketched, diagrammed and computer-simulated, in all its gory detail - on the 6 PM and 11 PM news, morning shows, 60 minutes...

Let the stomachs turn.

Let the battle rage.

Posted by: Ed at February 24, 2010 10:44 AM


Yes, that is the point, keep the gruesome details front and center. Don't let the deathers hide behind euphemisms like "choice". The PBA testimony is what motivated me to get off the sofa and do something.

Posted by: hippie at February 24, 2010 10:50 AM


The mental health exception is ridiculous because post abortive women have statistically worse mental health than those who have not had an abortion.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any research exploring whether there is a causal relationship to this correlation or which way the arrow of cause points. There is way too much risk in such an investigation, even though the data already exist and need only be compiled.

Posted by: hippie at February 24, 2010 10:58 AM


I support this bill 100%! If you want to tear down a wall you don't just run at it full force. You'd break your bones! Instead you quietly approach and begin to chip at it, little by little, till the wall is weakened and falls on its own.

The pro-aborts realize this which is why they fight ANY legislation governing abortion WHATSOEVER.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 24, 2010 11:01 AM


It makes me so sad to think that right now, at 21 weeks pregnant, I could walk down the street to the local Planned Parenthood and have my child murdered for absolutely no reason.

If this bill will stop this, I am all for it.

Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2010 11:24 AM


I think Ed is 100% right. This bill is genius, and actually has the potential to pass and make a real difference for late-term babies, even though our current Supreme Court won't overturn Roe. (Not to mention the AMAZING public debate it will cause. Once again we'll be forcing the public to stop talking about choice and start talking about what abortion does to a preborn baby.)

This isn't even technically incrementalism. It's graduated absolutism. You go as far as you can go, as soon as possible. That's what National Right to Life is doing, and I tip my hat off to them.

An interesting thought experiment for those in the personhood crowd: (whom I respect, but just disagree with strategically.) If given the chance to vote yay or nay for this bill, what would your vote be?

According to the logic of Bob Enyart, Keith Mason, and I thought Judie Brown, this bill is immoral because it implicitly endorses the killing of babies younger than 20 weeks. If that's really true, then we should not vote for it. I believe that is an incorrect way of viewing this bill, which is why I will wholeheartedly support it. Is there anyone out there that thinks this bill is so bad that they would vote "no" on it?

Posted by: Josh Brahm at February 24, 2010 1:18 PM


Hey Josh,

No input (yet anyway) from the personhood side.

Maybe we've converted them!

Or else perhaps we're all just realizing our efforts are better invested in our respective Pro-life endeavors rather than bickering amongst ourselves.

I say let's race. Whoever gets Roe v. Wade overturned first means we both win.

I'm not an attorney so I'm not familiar with legal strategy but I was wondering, let's say the Abortion Pain Prevention Act passes and is challenged up to the SCOTUS. Is there any reason why we couldn't, or wouldn't, as part of our defense of the constitutionality of the Act, argue personhood?

Just spitballin' here but it could come down to how strong we feel about the Pain Act and whether arguing personhood could jeapordize the Pain Act decision. If they felt personhood might be too much of a stretch, they may work to get the Pain Act passed and then go after personhood in a subsequent case.

Posted by: Ed at February 24, 2010 3:15 PM


It is immoral to save some lives if you legislate the rest to death, even if it's a painless death. God says, "Do no murder". That includes murder that eases our consciences. We are called to follow Jesus Christ to victory, not to follow politicians in the ways of the world. I don't expect those who hate Christ to understand a word I just said. But if you are a Christian and you don't understand, SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by: Jo Scott at February 24, 2010 8:24 PM


Jo,

First of all, I just want to say I appreciate your passion to protect unborn babies from abortion. We have good solid ground there in terms of agreement so if we differ on strategy or tactics we can still at least respect each other's heart for the unborn.

"It is immoral to save some lives if you legislate the rest to death..."

I'm sorry Jo, but this statement is inaccurate. The Abortion Pain Prevention Act does not legislate any children to death. In fact, it is silent with respect to abortion other than those performed after 20 weeks which it bans . By redrawing the timeline after which babies are protected from abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks the bill will rescue approximately 20,000 children from the bloody hands of child killers every year. It will thrust abortion with all its macabre evil and death, once again into the public square, where millions more will learn to condemn it. It will cause thousands of young mothers to reconsider their planned abortions. And it will cast a spotlight on the untold suffering caused by unborn children, creating an emotional connection, an empathy that will bring us one step closer to their widespread recognition as persons with the right to Life.

It’s a great bill.

But even if the bill had some things we didn't like, we must recognize that while we Christians are called to perform our civic duties, vote and pay taxes, be responsible citizens, etc., that is not our primary calling. Our first obligation is to be good citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. A small part of that responsibility is our civic obligations. More importantly however, we are to love God and get to know Him through His Word. We are to get and stay filled with His Spirit, and then endeavor to please Him and serve our fellow man. Having good laws is important but as was demonstrated with the children of Israel under the Old Covenant, laws are insufficient. God has something much better for us - changed hearts - hearts that allow us to become partakers of His divine nature (2Pe 1.4). We are to be filled with His Joy, which is our strength; His Peace, which comforts us and guards our hearts; and His Love, which never fails.

So as God's children, as representatives of His Kingdom in the Earth, we have so much more in terms of resources and many more ways to impact the world than mere political activism. We have the resources of Heaven. We have the Holy Spirit. We have His Word. We have angels. We can implore mothers to choose life for their children. We can encourage fathers to step up, to man up, and to take care of their children and more importantly, their child's mother.

We have crisis pregnancy centers, we have ultra-sounds, we have 40 Days for Life, we have CBR, we have Jill, we have Carla and the rest of the mods, we have the X-girl (who posted something so cute earlier, I hardly recognized her, I'm used to reading her posts written with her sword drawn, fully clothed in battle armor) we've got Gerard and all of the regular posters too numerous to list, we've got all of the other Pro-Life groups, there is so much we can do.

Let's say Jo that we did get all the right laws in place. You would still have mothers seeking abortions. They would try to abort illegally. They may try to kill their child themselves. They may travel to another country.

We need to change hearts, through the Love of Christ.

This is our calling.

This is what pleases God.

Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 12:40 AM


Jill, you are sorely mistaken when it comes to actual science. JAMA the Journal of the American Medical Association has this to say about fetal pain:

A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
Susan J. Lee, JD; Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD; Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdM; John Colin Partridge, MD, MPH; Mark A. Rosen, MD


JAMA. 2005;294:947-954.

Context Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus feels pain and to offer anesthesia administered directly to the fetus. This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia in the context of therapeutic procedures or abortion.

Evidence Acquisition Systematic search of PubMed for English-language articles focusing on human studies related to fetal pain, anesthesia, and analgesia. Included articles studied fetuses of less than 30 weeks’ gestational age or specifically addressed fetal pain perception or nociception. Articles were reviewed for additional references. The search was performed without date limitations and was current as of June 6, 2005.

Evidence Synthesis Pain perception requires conscious recognition or awareness of a noxious stimulus. Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processing. Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks. For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony.

Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.


Author Affiliations: School of Medicine (Ms Lee), Department of Anatomy and W. M. Keck Foundation for Integrative Neuroscience (Dr Ralston), and Departments of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences (Drs Drey and Rosen), Pediatrics (Dr Partridge), and Anesthesia and Perioperative Care (Dr Rosen), University of California, San Francisco.

Posted by: wouldn't you like to know at February 25, 2010 1:52 AM


Ed,
We are to walk by faith and not by sight. We have good laws, they come from God. He says, "Do no murder", not murder only the ones you can't save. God's law is not silent on murder of any kind, before or after 20 weeks. It is immoral for us to put an age limit on killing unborn children. This law will make pain the deciding factor in whether a child lives or dies. Therefore, it is not silent about children before twenty weeks, it screams that they can't feel pain so it OK to kill them. God says that He hates the hands that shed innocent blood. Do you have no compassion on those in the abortion industry? Do they not have souls that need to be saved? Will killing only babies under 20 weeks soften an abortionist's heart? God's Law is the tutor that leads men to Christ, not man's law.

Christians have spent four decades chasing publicity and expecting our prayers to be answered by politicians, lawyers and legislation. You are right Ed, we have lots of resources but it's not nearly enough. It's high time we learn to walk by faith, understanding that we can do all thing through Christ. When we learn that lesson, abortion will end.
God Bless

Posted by: Jo Scott at February 25, 2010 1:53 AM


Jo,

Thank you for your comments. While I don't understand them fully, I appreciate them nonetheless. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to correct for you the fallacies that I do see in your post.

I don't think I can explain my position any better than I already did.

Suffice it to say that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which your camp (personhood extremists) condemns, was a tremendous Pro-life victory saving tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of babies lives. More importantly, it changed the hearts of approximately 30 million people who no longer think that abortion should be legal in all cases. With the debate that will surround the Abortion Pain Prevention Act, we are confident that millions more will realize the horrible injustice of abortion and that perhaps, one day soon, we will see the unborn recognized as persons entitled to the right to life.

Frankly Jo, some of your camp's arguments are well-intended but irrational, keeping you on the fringe of the Pro-life movement. It's a shame because we could use your help. We would be that much more effective in our efforts.

We will pray for you and wish you success in your pursuit of God's will in this war.

Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 7:04 AM


Jo,

Since Moses' mother could not save ALL The Hebrew baby boys from Pharaoh's murderous wrath was it then immoral and not walking by faith to hide her son from those seeking his death? Should she have said "Well, I won't hide my son in the reeds because I didn't change Pharaoh's law and stop the death of all the other baby Hebrew boys." No, God used that ONE SAVED BABY BOY TO SAVE THE REST OF HIS PEOPLE.

Maybe ONE baby saved from late-term abortion will grow up to help turn this nation back to God. YOU don't know.

Your comments just don't make any sense to me. So until we can save ALL children from abortion we shouldn't try to save ANY children? HUH? Is it then wrong when we stand outside clinics and talk a few mother's out of aborting because we didn't convince EVERY mother going in for an abortion to turn around?

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 25, 2010 8:44 AM


Ed,
The way to end abortion is by standing squarely and uncompromisingly on the Truth. Our actions should reflect our allegiance to the King of Kings. Sadly, they don't. The pro life movement as a whole does not unashamedly proclaim God's Word. The movement believes that it's better to leave His name out of what we are doing because it doesn't play well in the political arena. Christians have forgotten how to walk in faith. We are weak and the world is paying the price for our sin. Our job is to lead the lost to Christ, but how can we do that if we don't know him ourselves?

Am I irrational because I refuse hide Christ under a bushel or because I will not be deceived by the vain philosophies of men? Then so be it. I know that Jesus is King. I know that when He leads no innocent child is left to the butchers knife, so as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.

Posted by: Jo Scott at February 25, 2010 9:15 AM


Jo, I will work to protect any and all babies that I can when I can. I am uncompromisingly pro-life and love the Lord.

My ultimate goal is to make abortion completely illegal, but it is insanity not to save the ones you can because you can't save them all. Every baby is worth saving.

If there were 3 babies trapped in a burning building, I would do what I could to save those I could- if I was only able to get 2 out of the fire, I would get those babies. I would not stay away from the fire if I knew I couldn't get them all. It would be very, very wrong.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at February 25, 2010 9:19 AM


The pro life movement as a whole does not unashamedly proclaim God's Word.

What's more important, Jo? Proclaiming in word or proclaiming in deed? If the only deeds we can do are incremental changes instead of the ideal changes we'd like to see, should we sit back and do nothing until timing is right for ideal change? Consider Mt 10:42. Would you tell a thirsty little one that the only water you have is room temp, so he can't have it because it isn't chilled?

And what about those whose hearts are hardened to the Word? Should we not try to find other ways to reach them? Then there are those who are not Christians, be they atheists or people of other faith traditions. Are they to be excluded from the prolife movement?

Posted by: Fed Up at February 25, 2010 9:46 AM


Bethany,
I believe that you are sincere and that you truly love the Lord. I have little time now, I'm leaving to go to the burning building, an abortion mill as I do 5 days a week. Of course you'd save every child that you can from a burning building, it is an insult to say that we would not. Abortion on the other hand is not an accident it's a crime that must be completely outlawed on the grounds that it violates God enduring command, do not murder. By saving some, you unwittingly legislate others to death. Our fight is not against flesh and blood Bethany, we should understand that by now. God will lead us to victory, our ways are not His ways. Follow in faith.

Posted by: Jo Scott at February 25, 2010 9:50 AM


Jo,

I truly appreciate your passion for the unborn, Our Lord and His Word. I must admit, I'm having some trouble trying to figure out exactly what it is that you're saying. It's almost like we're on a slightly different wavelength or something.

But that's Ok. The important thing is that you are zealously pursuing the race that God has called you to run and you are executing the plan you believe He's given you to the best of your ability. That is all I am doing and that is all any of us can hope to do.

We get in trouble I think when I start comparing the plan I feel God has called me to execute with someone else's God-given plan.

So instead of analyzing or criticizing your plan, or you criticizing mine, we should just run the race that God sets before us to the best of our ability.

You are a precious servant of our Lord. I'm sure you have plenty of prayer partners but if you ever need someone to agree with you in prayer, give me a shout out here. I'm usually hanging around.

Peace

Posted by: Ed at February 25, 2010 9:52 AM


"I was under the impression that unborn babies can feel pain much earlier than 20 weeks...hmm..."
Posted by: Becca at February 23, 2010 8:52 PM

Ingenius, isn't it? If it can be proven that children feel pain at, say, nine weeks, this could be expanded, and there'd be no solid argument against it.

And you can bet that won't be an argument against this bill the pro-child-murder crowd will pull out....

"It makes me so sad to think that right now, at 21 weeks pregnant, I could walk down the street to the local Planned Parenthood and have my child murdered for absolutely no reason.

If this bill will stop this, I am all for it."
Posted by: Lauren at February 24, 2010 11:24 AM

Lauren, congratulations! I know I was having similar thoughts when I was pregnant with my son. Are you still blogging?

Posted by: ycw at February 26, 2010 3:37 PM


"It is immoral to save some lives if you legislate the rest to death, even if it's a painless death. God says, "Do no murder". "That includes murder that eases our consciences. We are called to follow Jesus Christ to victory, not to follow politicians in the ways of the world. I don't expect those who hate Christ to understand a word I just said. But if you are a Christian and you don't understand, SHAME ON YOU!"

Posted by: Jo Scott at February 24, 2010 8:24 PM


I may be all over the place with my comment but I hope it makes some sense to you, Jo. With all due respect to your religious beliefs, I don't follow your attitude that preventing abortions cannot be accomplished by incremental laws just because some people have not been "saved" yet. Those pro-choicers who don't believe in God will never be be convinced to save a baby because that's what Jesus would have them do. They simply don't care about Jesus. Did Jesus not say, few are chosen? How can we let babies die if it is known absolutely some of these people will never be converted to a pro-life stance?

You must agree with me, as a fellow Christian, that Jesus' greatest commandment is "to love one another". The other ten commandments (including "Thou shalt not kill") fall in line after this one. When we want to lead a person to Christ, do we knock them over the head with the bible? No. Or do we teach them more effectively by our words and actions, slowly integrating the message of Jesus so that they are more apt to be receptive to the message?

If we can convince a person that a fetus feels pain at a certain point in in time in the womb, why should we withhold that information from being put into law when knowledge of that would be conveyed by that law could be the deciding factor in changing their mind about abortion? Scientific advances, such as ultrasound, have saved countless lives. By not supporting a fetal pain bill, are you not keeping this potential light of this knowledge under the bushel you spoke of, instead of letting the light shine?

Posted by: Janet at February 26, 2010 4:57 PM


Lauren, I echo the congrats. Prayers for a safe healthy rest of pregnancy. Give your belly a rub from every pro lifer here. ;) :)

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 26, 2010 8:33 PM


I can never seem to get my posts to "take" here. It keeps coming up saying submission didn't work. Anyway, great hearing in Nebraska on Thursday. We had Pro-Life Legislative Day, a press conference with Mary Spaulding Balch from NRLC and the four docs and const. law prof that came in for our side. Pray for continued success and for LB 1103 to come out of committee relatively unscathed.

Posted by: Julie Schmit-Albin at February 27, 2010 1:29 PM


Its time to stop the barbarism in medical care and enforce the prohibition against cruel and degrading treatment- outlaw all painful procedures taht are done without adequate pain medication. We cannot trust the medical profession to act humanely in this regard- for too many decades they have discounted, dismissed and denied the pain of others- and now chronic pain is the most expensive condition in the U.S. and too many infants receive painful procedures without analgesia-and pain of our citizens in the womb is treated as unimportant by medicine. Lets require all physicians to obtain education in pain care and remove the licenses of physicians who fail to provide adequate pain relief.

Posted by: david at February 27, 2010 4:39 PM


If people would just use their God given common sense then we would not even have to argue about these type of issues as it is obvious.

Posted by: Abortion Pros and Cons at February 28, 2010 12:53 PM