Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Among the Butchers ^ | 1.22.03 | Phil Brennan

Posted on 01/23/2003 8:14:42 PM PST by victim soul

A lot of people are to blame for the butchery of 40 million unborn American babies over the past 30 years since the a majority of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court took leave of their senses and declared that it was just fine and dandy for women to snuff out the lives of the tots in their wombs.

For 30 years, 40 million unborn babies have been wantonly chopped up in tiny pieces, had their brains sucked out, been vacuumed from their mother's wombs, been scalded to death, and had their body parts marketed like meat in a butcher shop. No nation in all history, not Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union nor any other tyrannical regime has allowed such a criminal enterprise as the abortion industry to carve up little babies with full government protection.

First among those responsible are, of course, the justices of the High Court who committed this atrocity which has resulted in a super holocaust. Then there are the greedy death merchants in the abortion industry and their supporters in such aberrations as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. And we must not forget the Democratic Party without whose fervent support the abortion industry could not have survived all these years to do its grisly work, nor that handful of wimpy Republicans who follow their lead.

But most of all, there is the media which has steadfastly refused to tell the hideous truth about a procedure so soaked in innocent blood and so revolting that were the real facts widely known abortion would be instantly outlawed and its practitioners driven from the chambers of horrors they dare to call "clinics."

Over the years, the mainstream media has ignored such damning evidence as the now well-established connection between a woman having an abortion and later suffering from breast cancer, the nature of the object of abortion, the unborn infant which they allow in their ignorance to be described not as a baby but as a fetus (unaware that "fetus" is the Latin word for baby), the horrific details of the various methods of abortion, and the fact that the motive behind the abortion industry is not so-called "women's rights" about which they couldn't care less, but the almighty buck, billions of which blood-soaked currency the industry has raked in over the past 30 years.

It's not that the truth isn't out there for anyone who cares to look for it. There is the testimony of such abortion pioneers as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL who finally turned away from the industry he helped create and became an ardent defender of the lives he once callously snuffed out. How much of his testimony have you read in the mainstream press or heard about on television news broadcasts.

Time and again, whenever the media mentions the horror of late term abortions , they take great pain to refer to it as something pro-lifers - they call them anti-abortion crusaders or such - prefer to call "partial birth abortion" - accepting at face value the lie promoted by the abortion industry that the medically correct term is "Dilation and Extraction" (D&E). The fact the media ignores is that the doctor who pioneered the proceedure, one Dr. Martin Haskell named the monstrosity ... guess what?.. "Partial Birth Abortion." as distinguished from another procedure Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) in which the child is dismembered with forceps.

When the abortion industry - always the masters of semantics - realized that the Partial Birth Abortion term was too descriptive, they came up with the D&E deception. But you'd never know that from reading the mainstream media.

The abortion industry has coined any number of names for the procedure, claiming each new coinage is a proper medical term. Advocates for the procedure cannot agree even among themselves as to just what the "proper medical name" for the procedure is.

Says PHact (PHysicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, "There is a reason for this: there is no proper medical name for partial-birth abortion, only medically sounding ones. What all these names share in common is that none of them can be found in any of the standard medical textbooks or databases. Indeed, the procedure itself is not recognized by the medical community, nor is it taught as a formally recognized medical procedure.

"The term partial-birth abortion, on the other hand, according to maternal-fetal specialist and PHACT member Watson Bowes, M.D. 'is accurate as applied to the procedure described by Dr. Martin Haskell in his 1992 paper entitled 'Dilation and Extraction For Late Second Trimester Abortion,' distributed by the National Abortion Federation.' Dr. Pamela Smith, a founding member of PHACT and former director of medical education, ob/gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, calls both the name partial-birth abortion and its legal definition "straightforward" and notes that "this definition covers this procedure and no other."

The very variety of names that have been coined for it are proof that there is no single, standard, medical term for partial-birth abortion. Claims that there is such a medically recognized name are false. The only purpose for medically-sounding coinages is to give the general public the impression that the partial-birth abortion procedure possesses a degree of medical legitimacy, which it does not.

The media has bought the abortion industry line that Partial Birth abortions are performed to save the lives or health of the mother. Not so, said Haskell . In 1992, Dr. Haskell presented his paper on Partial Birth Abortion at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claimed to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and pointed out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with pro-life advocate Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony).

Last Sunday, the very liberal Boston Globe ran an Associated Press story that was nothing less than sheer propaganda obviously designed to obscure the demonstrated fact that thousands of women who had abortions have suffered severe psychological problems in the aftermath.

The story revolved around exactly five ... count 'em ... five ... women who had abortions - two regretted the experience, two were wildly enthusiastic, even to the extent of working in some way with the abortion industry such as escorting women to abortuaries or serving on Planned Parenthood chapter boards. Of the two women who regretted the decision to kill their unborn infants, one works with pro-life groups and the other one doesn't think it's time to reverse Roe v. Wade.

The thrust of the story tends to be that the after-effects of abortion aren't as horrible as might be imagined and viewed differently by women who have had them about equally.

"The courts can make abortion legal, but neither they nor doctors have been able to make it safe," said David Reardon, Ph.D., director of the Elliot Institute, a post-abortion research organization..

"Most people—even involved in the pro-life movement—are not aware of the extensive research showing that abortion is harmful to women, their families and society as a whole," Reardon said. "Though abortion advocates continue to deny that abortion can be harmful to women's physical and emotional well-being, a close examination of the literature shows that the risks of abortion are both serious and numerous."

Last year, the prestigious British Medical Journal reported that women who abort a first pregnancy are at greater risk of subsequent long term clinical depression compared to women who carry an unintended first pregnancy to term. Publication of the study coincides with anniversary events related to the Supreme Court's January 22, 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Data from a national study of American youths, begun in 1979, was used to conduct the research. In 1992, a subset of 4,463 women were surveyed about depression, intendedness of pregnancy, and pregnancy outcome. A total of 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery between 1980 and 1992.

An average of eight years after their abortions, married women were 138 percent more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared to similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term. Among women who were unmarried in 1992, rates of high risk depression were not significantly different. The authors suggest that the lack of significance in unmarried women may be explained by the higher rate of nonreporting of abortions among unmarried women. Compared with national averages, unmarried women in this study report only 30 percent of the expected abortions compared with married women, who report 74 percent of the expected abortions. This may make the results for married women more reliable, say the authors. Another explanation is that unmarried women who are raising a child without the support of a husband experience significantly more depression than their married counterparts.

That's the truth, but the media isn't interested in the truth - like the Democrats, they're too deep in the pockets of the abortion industry to report the facts. There is blood on their hands - gallons of it.

Agnus Dei Qui Tolle Peccata Mundi, Miserere Nobis

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; de; dx; media; radicalfeminists; roevwade; supremecourt

1 posted on 01/23/2003 8:14:42 PM PST by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: victim soul
I'd say the media are giving people what they want to hear. Many people want (or think they might sometime want) abortions, so they look for evidence that this is a responsible choice, perhaps difficult but not too difficult to live with. It's no different than any of the other justifications we hear these days for behavior that would have been considered deviant in the days before the Lifestyle Revolution of the '60s and '70s. Just check out what our FreeRepublicans think about shacking up.
2 posted on 01/24/2003 7:20:20 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson