Baby Parts for Profit

Why don't you head over to DU or something? You're preaching to the choir here.

When will the choir start singing?

thanks Khepera, it's so easy to get distracted with the humdrum of everyday life. We need to be reminded often.

I hope this is seen by those who will benefit most. Show it around to whoever you think needs to see it.

Bookmark it, too...it's really neat now that you get to NAME your own bookmarks!

FYI

Keep posting these threads, Khepera. For even more important than fighting the faithless is fortifying the faithful for the great battles which lies just ahead, battles which are the forefront of a war for the very soul of the human race.

***Bookmark it, too...it's really neat now that you get to NAME your own bookmarks! ***

Okay...I'm computer challenged. How does one bookmark???

"Typically when I read something this extreme, I'll follow a couple threads toward the original source of the story and find something that puts some doubt into the picuture. I did exactly that with this very difficult to read and believe story and am very sad to say that it checks out. Obviously, I can't vouch for "Kelly", but there is enough proof available to make any reasonable person sick."

Mark Crutcher at Life Dynamics published the Baby Parts Marketing Guide, complete with photocopied price lists and order forms. Follow the link and look at a PDF file of one.

They've redesigned their website, and I had to get this from Google's cache, so I'll include it for posterity:

Baby Parts Marketing

20/20 & The House Hearing

In response to information released by Life Dynamics, on March 8, 2000, the ABC News program 20/20 aired a segment about the marketing of baby parts from children killed during abortions. On the following day there was a Congressional hearing on the same issue. The following are our observations about these two events.

20/20

After we first met with a producer from the ABC program 20/20, many in the pro-life movement warned us that you can't trust the media and that no major media outlet will ever do a story which is fair to our movement.

Of course, we have been involved in the pro-life battle long enough to know that this is undeniably true. However, the 20/20 story is about as close as the pro-life movement is going to get to a story which condemns even one aspect of the abortion industry's daily atrocities. By focusing on and condemning those who profit from the sale of baby body parts, 20/20 turned a national spotlight on this barbaric practice. The story may not have been all that we wanted, and 20/20's focus on the money trail is like pointing out that smoke from the ovens at Auschwitz violated Germany's Clean Air Act. But the bottom line is that millions of Americans who could have never dreamed that there are people in this country who traffic in the bodies of children killed by abortion, were stunned and horrified by what they saw in their living rooms that night. At Life Dynamics, the effort to bring this issue to the public is only just beginning and we believe that this was a great starting point.

Having said that, 20/20 was negligent in several aspects of this story which would have otherwise moved the American people from shock to outrage. For example:

When the issue of baby parts was being discussed, the visual on the screen was a petri dish containing a pea-sized fragment of unidentifiable white tissue. We are sympathetic to the explanation offered by the ABC producer who told us after the show that the network could not broadcast footage of dismembered babies, baggies full of tiny human eyes or any other accurate footage of the "commodity" being sold by the baby parts merchants. But this should have been stated during the program or in the banter which follows each story. Showing scientists poking at slivers of flesh in a petri dish through a microscope was deceptive and it dehumanizes this debate.
Hearing Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt's pious condemnation of the baby parts traders was sickening. It was like hearing the president of Phillip Morris condemn smoking. 20/20 was completely irresponsible in not making the viewer aware that all of the wrongdoing described in this broadcast occurred at Planned Parenthood facilities, and that Planned Parenthood is responsible for the national network that supports the trafficking of baby body parts. Ms. Feldt was clearly wanting to disguise this in her interview and 20/20, by its silence, went right along with her. The result is that the viewer was left with the false impression that Planned Parenthood was outraged at these practices rather than a participant in them.
The people involved in the trafficking of baby parts were constantly referred to by the narrator as "businessmen" instead of by some more accurate description which would identify them as being part of the abortion industry. This was done despite the fact that we provided documentation to 20/20 proving that all the people involved had links with both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. It was clear that 20/20 wanted the viewer to perceive that this was not something which occurred within the abortion industry, but that some evil profit-driven outsiders had infiltrated and taken advantage of the abortion industry. It was as if 20/20 was trying to portray the abortion industry as an unwitting victim of the baby parts business.

An interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that each time 20/20 mentioned the issue of "businessmen" getting into the trafficking of baby parts, there was this not-so-subtle suggestion that to be a businessman is, by its nature, evil. This is, of course, a recurring theme throughout the American left of which the media-ABC included-is an integral part. In this case, this bias caused 20/20 to overlook the fact that the greatest scandal of the baby body parts trafficking is not just that people are profiting from it, but that it even exists in a society which claims to be civilized. If a bunch of socialists or non-profit sleaze were aborting children, chopping them up, then selling them and donating the proceeds to their favorite left-wing cause, the babies would be just as dead and just as dismembered. Apparently, the media just doesn't get it: it's not about bucks, it's about babies.

There was never any mention of the researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities who buy baby parts. It was like a story about the evils of prostitution which concentrated solely on the women involved and never the customers. The reality is that if baby parts are being marketed, that means there are not only sellers, but buyers as well. For 20/20 to target one and ignore the other was unfair and deceptive.

The Congressional Hearing

Unlike the 20/20 situation, there was little to celebrate here. Congressional hearings are about three things: politics, media coverage and more politics. The Republicans on the committee demonstrated that the only thing they knew less about than the marketing of baby parts was how to conduct a successful hearing. To say it was a trainwreck is an understatement. This was, however, not unanticipated. Weeks before the hearing took place, those of us at Life Dynamics were convinced it was a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, about fifteen minutes before the hearing began, the president of Life Dynamics, Mark Crutcher, gave an interview to Greta Kreuz, a reporter for the Washington, DC, area affiliate of ABC Television, in which he emphatically made that very point.

The Prelude

The responsibility of organizing the hearing was given to three lawyers on the House Commerce Committee's Republican staff, Marc Wheat, Brent Delmonte, and Mark Paoletta. Almost from the start, we could see that the hearing was doomed, mainly because these three individuals embraced some utterly disastrous philosophies.

First, due to their self-serving obsession with beating the Senate to hearings, speed, not quality, was their guiding principle. Early in our relationship with them, it became apparent that their insatiable desire to have a political victory over the pro-lifers in the Senate was going to come back to haunt us all. On several occasions we complained that their willingness to put their political agenda ahead of the pro-life cause was jeopardizing the hearing. However, each time we expressed this concern they assured us that the hearing would be a good one, while at the same time making it abundantly clear that the primary objective was to be first.

Another problem was that there was little if any commitment by these staffers to ensure that the House members who would be conducting the hearing were informed, educated, or engaged. Despite the fact that Life Dynamics had spent almost three years investigating and researching this issue, and arguably knows more about it than anyone else in the country, our repeated offers to come to Washington-at our expense-and train Committee members and staff were inexplicably ignored.

As time went on, we began to get the uneasy feeling that the Committee's staff had not developed a game plan. It was also becoming increasingly apparent that, for them, this was not an opportunity to advance the pro-life cause but an opportunity to advance political careers. Evidence of that was seen a few weeks prior to the hearing when we learned that somewhere in the bowels of the Commerce Committee, the decision had been made that radical pro-abortion Congressman Fred Upton (R-Michigan) was going to chair the hearing. Obviously, this was totally unacceptable. We were not naive enough to think that some pro-abort is going to conduct a honest hearing into whether the abortion industry is trafficking in dead baby parts. We suspected that a cover-up was in the making.

If a cover-up was underway, we had no way of knowing whether the Committee staff was oblivious to it or involved in it. In either event, our attitude was that if someone was going to sabotage the hearing, they were going to have to do it without the help of Life Dynamics. We informed the Commerce Committee staff that we would not provide any further data or assistance as long as the hearing was assigned to a sub-committee chaired by a pro-abort. As we had done many times in the past, we again pointed out that our only goal was to educate the American people about this barbaric practice, and toward that end we would rather have no hearing at all than a bad one. A few days later, the hearing was reassigned to a sub-committee chaired by semi-pro-lifer Michael Bilirakis (R-Florida) and we resumed the flow of information.

We provided them with orders for baby parts, price lists for baby parts, brochures and advertising materials for baby parts, internal abortion industry financial records related to the sale of baby parts, abortion clinic protocols for the harvesting of baby parts, and much more. Then we spent hours and hours going over each of these documents with them to make certain they understood their significance.

Moreover, we repeatedly warned them that using our abortion industry infiltrator, Dean Alberty, as the centerpiece of the hearing was courting disaster. We were constantly trying to make them understand that the hearing must focus on the documentation and not Alberty. On several occasions, we pointed out that Alberty had two major things going against him. First, he remains pro-choice, and to embrace that position requires a certain level of intellectual dishonesty. Second, he's a spy and by their nature spies are disloyal. Our suggestion was that they relate to Alberty in the same way we always had. From day one, we simply considered him a kind of birddog. He might point us in a particular direction, but we didn't rely on anything he told us until, and unless, we had documentation or independent verification. For over two years, we never made public any of the things Alberty told us, and only did so after we acquired a substantial body of documentation to back it up.

Again, our warning was that if they tried to make their case on what Alberty might do or say, rather than on the documentation, the hearing could blow up in their faces. Unfortunately, we sensed at the time and the hearing would later prove, that this warning was falling on deaf ears. They were so committed to this idea of making Alberty the focal point of the hearing, they blew-off issuing subpoenas for other witnesses who could support his testimony. These guys displayed a kind of underlying arrogance that apparently rendered them incapable of even considering the possibility that they were headed in the wrong direction. To our dismay and frustration, almost every discussion we had with them was a one-way conversation. It was always made crystal clear that our only role was to tell them about every detail of our investigation, then quietly fade into the background and not pester them with questions or advice.

As the date for the hearing approached, we learned that three Republicans, Bilirakis, Upton, and Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania had joined with Committee Democrats in calling for a closed hearing. They intended to bar both the media and members of the public from being admitted. At this point, the possibility that there was an organized cover-up underway seemed quite plausible. When the media began to circulate stories that the Committee was contemplating secret hearings, it became obvious that doing so was going to be a public relations nightmare. With that, the Democrats withdrew their request.

While this part of the cover-up was being sunk, another was about to surface. In the days immediately preceding that hearing, witnesses who were scheduled to testify reported that they began receiving intimidating phone calls from lawyers associated with the targets of the investigation and one of the leading Committee Democrats.

When this was reported to the Committee Republican staff, they were incensed at this obvious attempt at witness tampering. Despite the fact that an attorney for the Republican staff made calls to the offending parties and warned them to stop, the calls continued. The last one was made the day before the hearing began. Republican members of the Committee were steamed and vowed to begin the hearing with questions about witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

D-Day

Within the first few minutes of the hearing, it became obvious that we were right to suspect that the pro-life Republicans had no plan. They didn't. Unfortunately, the same couldn't be said about the pro-aborts. They immediately launched into a vicious and well-designed personal attack against Alberty. Throughout the afternoon and into the night, he was badgered, bullied and beaten without mercy by the Democrats. The inquisition conducted by Anna Eshoo (D-California) and Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) was more ranting and raving than information-gathering.

With the exception of Representatives Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Barbara Cubin (R-Wyoming), Charles Norwood (R-Georgia), Nathan Deal (R-Georgia) and Ed Bryant (R-Tennessee), the Republicans either sat on their hands or joined in the feeding frenzy. One of the most savage attacks was by Fred Upton-the very same Congressman that the Committee staff had originally wanted to chair the hearing. Meanwhile, shell-shocked Commerce Committee staffers were frozen in place with absolutely no idea what to do next.

One of the oddest aspects of the hearing was that we knew more about the investigation into this issue than anyone else, yet were not called to testify. In fact, even when it was clear to every person in the room that the hearing was spinning out of control, and even though we were sitting in the second row of the audience, we were never asked for our input or advise.

The Post Mortem

The Republicans surrendered moments after the opening gavel was sounded, and it is simply undeniable that this was due to the arrogance and incompetence of the House Commerce Committee staff. Because they completely failed to prepare their members, they allowed them to be blindsided by issues which we told them were coming and which were easily manageable.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats totally dominated the hearing. They got Alberty to admit that he had embellished details of the story he told Life Dynamics, but never gave him an opportunity to say exactly what he had embellished. They skillfully directed the hearing away from questions about the illegal marketing of baby parts, and instead spent the entire hearing intimidating Alberty. Their plan was so well executed that pro-life Republicans on the Committee never mentioned witness tampering, never introduced one single document provided by Life Dynamics, and most bizarre of all, never discussed the marketing of baby parts. You heard right: a Congressional hearing that was specifically created to examine the marketing of baby parts, lasted all day and well into the night and never discussed the marketing of baby parts.

For those of us at Life Dynamics, these developments were especially frustrating. After almost three years of blood, sweat and tears, we had to sit through this sham hearing as the distortions, innuendos, and outright lies of the Democrats were left unchallenged by these befuddled Republicans and their confused staff. Worst of all, a pro-life opportunity of immense potential was squandered for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

Today, the House is saying that there will be additional hearings and the Senate is also planning to take up the issue. Unless both have learned from the bitter experience of March 9th, our hope is that they not bother. Like we said before, no hearing at all is much better than a bad hearing.

Fact Check

Following the 20/20 broadcast and the House hearings, representatives of the abortion industry have made many false, misleading and outlandish claims related to the issues raised during these events. We have addressed a few of the ones we know about.

1) Dean Alberty was paid $20,000 by Life Dynamics for the "Kelly" interview.

FACT: At the hearing, Alberty testified under oath that he was actually paid only $400 to compensate him for the time he spent traveling to Texas, conducting the interview, and returning home. The $20,000 figure being deceptively thrown about by the abortion industry represents the entire amount paid to Alberty over a two-and-one-half-year period of time. (The actual amount was $21,426.04) Less than half of this money was compensation. From the beginning of this project until the end, Alberty's personal earnings from Life Dynamics averaged less than $310 per month. The majority of the money paid to him was reimbursement for actual expenses he incurred while attending abortion industry conferences and seminars on our behalf. This included, airline tickets, hotels, food, registration fees, association dues, tapes and books, etc.

2) Alberty has now accused Life Dynamics of altering the "Kelly" interview.

FACT: Alberty did no such thing. He had never seen the tape until being shown it by attorneys representing the Anatomic Gift Foundation almost a year after it was recorded. Alberty stated that since he did not remember the entire interview, he couldn't state for sure whether Life Dynamics altered it or not. The most he agreed to was that it was possible Life Dynamics may have altered some of his answers. In reality, Life Dynamics has released the raw unedited footage of the original interview showing that absolutely no such alterations occurred.

3) Alberty has recanted his testimony in the "Kelly" interview.

FACT: Again, Alberty did no such thing. He only admitted that he had no personal knowledge of, and could not prove that some of the things he told Life Dynamics were true.

However, almost all the allegations he said he could no longer stand behind with certainty were actually proven by documentation provided by Life Dynamics. For example, on the "Kelly" tape Alberty claimed to know that his employer was profiting from the marketing of baby parts. When pressed by the pro-aborts at the hearing, he admitted that he had no personal knowledge or proof of this and had, therefore, lied to Life Dynamics. He did not "recant" as some have claimed and say that his employer was not profiting from the marketing of baby parts.

Of course, Life Dynamics has provided written documentation showing that his employer was indeed profiting from the marketing of baby parts. Although Alberty's admission that he lied to Life Dynamics clearly undermines his credibility, the documentation we supplied to the Committee proves that his assertion was correct whether he had personal knowledge of it or not.

The above is a typical example of what the abortion industry is claiming to be a recantation. In no case was it a matter of Alberty saying that something he told us wasn't true. What he admitted was that there were instances in which he told us certain things were true, when the reality was that he had no personal knowledge or proof they were true. An analogy would be a situation in which the body of a murder victim has been found and someone steps forward to say they witnessed the crime. If it is later determined that this person didn't really witness the murder, it is still true that a murder was committed. Moreover, if details given by this discredited witness are supported by other evidence, the authorities would probably conclude that what this person is saying may have validity, even if he lied about actually seeing the crime. One thing is for certain: if details given by this witness are indeed supported by other evidence, be assured that the people investigating this crime will not ignore what he is saying simply because he lied about having personally witnessed it.

That is, however, precisely what the abortion industry wants the American people to do regarding Alberty and the marketing of baby parts. Since the hearing, their strategy has been to try and make people believe that because Alberty misled Life Dynamics about having personally witnessed certain aspects of the baby parts marketing scandal, then the marketing of baby parts is not occurring. Of course, they know this isn't true. They are apparently hoping that because Alberty lied to us, they can get away with lying to the public.

The truth is that in each circumstance where Alberty admitted that he lied to Life Dynamics, the allegation he was making can be supported through other witnesses, evidence or documentation. It should also be noted that Alberty stood firm behind other claims he had previously made. For example, even under a brutal assault by Committee pro-aborts, he never wavered in his statement that living children who had survived their abortions-including the twins he described in the "Kelly" interview-were sometimes brought to him to be chopped up for parts.

4) The documents being used to support the claim that baby parts are being marketed were stolen by burglars working for Life Dynamics.

FACT: Life Dynamics has never participated in, nor caused anyone else to participate in, a burglary or any other criminal activity. Every single document in question was provided to Life Dynamics by Alberty and other whistle-blowers employed in the abortion industry.

5) Miles Jones, the baby parts broker featured in the 20/20 piece, is in reality an actor hired by Life Dynamics to appear in the 20/20 broadcast.

FACT: This assertion is so outrageous it's difficult to respond to. To suggest that Life Dynamics would be stupid enough to try such a stunt, or that ABC News would be stupid enough to fall for it, or that the US Congress would be stupid enough to issue a subpoena for someone who didn't exist, or that the Federal Marshals Office would be stupid enough to report that they had served a subpoena to someone who didn't exist, is absolutely preposterous.

6) House Commerce Committee staffers say that the hearing failed partially because Life Dynamics didn't turn over all the documents it promised to them.

FACT: This is absolute nonsense. Considering the fact that Life Dynamics had been trying to get this hearing since the day this project began, what possible reason would we have for holding back information? The reality is that not only did we turn over every thing we had, but we spent dozens of hours going over these documents with Committee staffers. And since they never actually used any of our documents in the hearing, how credible is this bizarre self-serving claim they didn't have enough of them? This is obviously nothing more than a panic-driven attempt by these people to cover-up their own incompetence.

Preaching to the choir? Hah! The ones making such flip remarks never sing, even when the work, the letters are already written for them; they still won't copy and send locally ... might be too open, don'tcha know!

Letter #1 - baby seals and aborted babies, can you imagine?

Letter to the Editor (Any Newspaper, USA) (Current date)

In the year 2000, America is assumed to be more enlightened than three decades ago. Is it? I can remember when Americans were outraged by TV coverage of newborn seal pup fur harvesting.

Can you imagine?... Men clubbed newborns in the head and skinned the pitiful things, alive or dead, while the mothers looked on, then left the bloody carcass at the mother's wailing side and moved to the next one! Can you imagine such inhumane behavior?

Can you imagine, three decades later enlightened society now condones and promotes as a woman's right to choose the procedure known as partial birth abortion? How is it more enlightened to yank a 16 week or older prenatal infant feet-first from its mother's body, except the head, which remains lodged inside, then jam blunt-tipped scissors into the struggling infant's soft skull and suck out its brains so the remains pop out of the woman's body into the waiting hands of the aborticutionist. [Brain-body connections start working quite efficiently by week 16 from conception!] Is it enlightened to profit then from the baby's remains, by sending all or part of the *harvested* prenatal infant off to research departments?

The only difference is that now the behavior murders human babies and harvests the remains, instead of seal babies. Can you imagine? Right here in America, more than 10,000 times a year, this inhuman behavior and worse occurs. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, NOW, NARAL, and the DNC call it a woman's right to choose, and they're proud to promote it in order to get votes! Can you imagine?

Letter # 2 - Fetal Psychology article in Psychology Today Magazine

Letter to the Editor

Scientific studies prove womb-bound children are sensing and feeling much earlier than most people think it occurs. [Fetal Psychology, Psychology Today Magazine, Oct'98. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html ] A recently delivered woman can tell you they notice movement in their baby, usually around the fifth month from conception, but studies are now confirming that the feelings and sensing of the womb-bound begin around the fourth month (16 to 18 week period) from conception, when the brain and body have made the vast majority of nerve connections necessary for hearing, taste, sense of touch.

This is a startling thing which Americans need to know, since current policy allows abortions all the way through to term (40 weeks) and the assaulted child is not even given medication to block the pain! Pain? Yes, excruciating pain.

Can you imagine having an ankle crushed and leg dislocated in pulling your body from a car wreck or from out of a collapsed building?… Partial birth abortion accomplishes this quite often, pulling the infant almost all the way from the woman's body before killing for removal. There are other excruciating methods used for abortion. A super concentrated saline solution gets injected into the amniotic fluid, which scalds the child to death, causing the kidney's to fail and the heart to eventually stop. There is a long needle with poison, jabbed through the woman's abdomen and into the chest of the prenatal infant. Sadly, Ultrasound technicians often have to watch this as the doomed child struggles to avoid painful jabs.

Most Americans are not aware of the excruciating assaults being made on the womb-bound, sensing, feeling children killed in abortion clinics. Sensing, feeling, conscious children are being murdered in the womb … and it is painful for them.

Letter # 3 - Pro-choice and the misuse of the term 'life'

Letter to the Editor

Pro choice ... a woman's right to choose ...? Such phrases have been chosen to obscure reality, because the alternate ways to say it --choice to abort ... a woman's right to choose murder-- are loaded with negative connotations.

Science has proven that individual humans come to consciousness in the womb (wake up, if you will), along about the fourth month (16 to 18 week period) following conception. Those on the left in our country wish this to remain obscured. They don't want us to see that most abortions are infanticide.

The current debate has lost America's attention with simplistic catch-alls like 'pro choice' and 'pro life' and 'a woman's right to choose'. The word 'life' is parsed ambiguously. Consider two uses: 1) cellular level life; 2) consciousness in the individual life. One need only look at organ transplants to understand the ambiguity of cellular level life as contrasted with consciousness of the individual organism ... the whole has consciousness, the part, such as the heart or kidney, does not. Should human life be parsed that way? I don't think so, but that's how arguments regarding human stem-cells are framed.

Early stages of pregnancy have been framed with terms such as zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, that have lifeless connotation for average Americans. Try perceiving it this way: would our rule of law allow a woman to murder one of two infants, if she claimed that she could not adequately care for more than one child, or wanted to care for only one child? A prenatal becomes conscious while still in the womb. Shouldn't our rule of law protect these helpless souls? Americans should have an answer for this last question. It is a fundamental issue of our humanity!

Letter #4 - Supreme Court not rejecting the definition of abortion as murder

Letter to the Editor

The Supreme Court is getting a bum wrap. In a recent discussion with my cousin, he told me to stop spitting against the wind trying to change abortion policy, that the Supreme Court has declared abortion legally right even if I think it's morally wrong. Could that be? I looked up the rulings from 1973 to the present, to find out.

One thing came through like a sledge hammer: the Supreme Court has never set aside a state's statute by taking issue with the defined behavior, never overturned a state law by saying that abortion is not murder; the Court rulings have set aside state laws based on some technicality … a technical escape clause, not a cancellation of the defined criminal wrong doing.

If you witnessed a cold-blooded murder, were called to testify in court, the conviction was made, a verdict of guilty rendered, then some lawyer got the conviction set aside because the murderer was not read his Miranda rights, or because the arresting officer's prints were on the gun barrel, would you still have witnessed a murder? Yes, and the victim is still dead. The perp got away with murder, based on a technicality! Is murder legally right but morally wrong?… Murder is always wrong.

In the recent Stenberg v Carhart ruling, the Nebraska definition of partial birth abortion as murder of a human being was not rejected. The statute was set aside because the current Court requires a technically broader exception to allow the abortionist profiting from the killing to define a nebulous health need for killing of the living child. The Court accepts that it's murder, but wants wider technical outs. Abortion is murder, sometimes technically legal, but always wrong, even by the Supreme Court's rulings.

Letter #5 - Something terrible, killing conscious womb-bound infants

Letter to the Editor

Something so terrible is happening in America, to wrap the mind around the horror we must illustrate with an analogy.

Socio-economic conditions for some new mothers are so unbearable that a significant number are withholding life support, allowing their crib-bound infants to starve to death or die of infections due to poor sanitation. The pitiful state of the crib-bound infants has led some mothers to kill their crib-bound infants, thereby putting a quicker end to the infants' suffering.

Too horrible to contemplate?... Substitute the term womb-bound where you read crib-bound and this analogy fits for abortion policy in America. "Oh," you say, "This analogy is stupid. Crib-bound infants have started to sense their environment and it's murder to kill these babies by withholding life support." Here is the horror so hard to wrap the mind around: infants are sensing and feeling and aware and conscious by half-way in the 40 weeks development of pregnancy. Babies of 20 and 21 weeks from conception have been born prematurely and been saved to become thriving toddlers now.

Partial birth brain suction, saline scaldings, prostaglandin poisonings, and abandonment abortions (forced premature delivery then withholding care) are purposely killing babies just like these preemies, in the name of a woman's right to choose. That is the terrible thing happening too often in America.

It's far easier and less enslaving to give life support to a womb-bound infant than it is a crib-bound infant. Can't society welcome these babies at delivery? We must stop this womb-bound murder, or this nation will crumble in raging inhumanity. Once individual consciousness is in the womb, no matter what your religion, you can be sure it is murder to abort that child.

Letter #6 - Letter from future immigrant to House Judiciary Committee

Letter to the Editor

Dear United States House Judiciary Legislators: (Originally sent in 1998)

I look forward to immigrating to America, very soon, as would my many friends. We are very apprehensive that we will not be allowed to live in America. We have been listening to your music for the last few weeks. I prefer the classical music, and would like to spend my life adding to such music.

Some of my friends would like to be farmers, others would prefer teaching or engineering, and a few would like to become scientists. We understand that the sun shines warmly in America, that birds sing, cats meow, and cows moo in America. Where we live, we have been feeling this sunshine and hearing these wonderful sounds, and we look forward to seeing for ourselves the things that make this marvelous music of life in America. (Is it true that you have laws protecting the animals making these wonderful sounds? What a country you must have!)

I am writing because we have also heard disturbing words spoken by men and women debating our minority's right to immigrate. This letter is to request laws that will protect us, for we are disenfranchised. We understand that there are no laws granting us the unalienable rights in your Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We respectfully request that you address this inequity. Because we are conscious beings, we wish lawful immigration to your country with the simple expectation that our consciousness will be protected. Please address your debates to the minority of conscious prenatals. I look forward to soon being an American and thanking you in person.

Sincerely, Future immigrant.

Letter #7 - 'safe as a babe in mother's womb?'

Letter to the Editor

Recently a friend observed, "Maybe some day, with God's help, we can make the term, 'safe as a baby in it's mother's womb', something more than a sick joke."

Abortion advocates would take multiple issue with the above, first stating the 'thing' in the womb is not a baby … they will allow fetus (Latin for child), or any other term, but to say baby is off limits--it conveys too much reality!… Odd how a newly delivered mother knows when her baby was aware in her womb. Just ask her.

These same aborticution advocates will argue over the word 'safe', citing statistics of how many women die due to pregnancy, though the word obviously refers to babies not the women ('mothers' seems a bit of a stretch).

That brings the final disallowed notion, 'mother's womb'. Characterizing pregnancy thusly is 'unfair' to females seeking aborticution … an extension of the 'undue burden' argument used successfully before the Supreme Court to prevent Pennsylvania from forcing a woman, whose life is not threatened by pregnancy, to wait two or three days, to peruse literature which will allow her to make an informed decision before being complicit in murdering a conscious, aware, albeit womb-bound, child.

If any other class of humans besides womb-bounds were in such foreseeable danger of being murdered, it's a good bet the same aborticution advocates would be marching in the streets, demanding that the government do something to protect endangered human beings. Obviously, these advocates don't consider womb-bound children, human beings. But they're wrong, and We the People have been letting these wrong-headed people drive abortion policy in OUR nation, creating a holocaust numbering millions of victims!

(Your name)

(Your phone/address)

The child surgically treated for spina bifida was Samuel Armas and he was operated on in Nashville, TN. Below is a link to the photo Matt wanted to use, that got him fired by the supporters of institutionalized serial killing, the 'big' media.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/babysamuel.htm

Matt Drudge recently lost his job on the Fox News Channel. As I understand it, the reason was that he had footage he wanted to show on the air that was about a quite amazing medical procedure. It was a procedure that allowed doctors to rectify pre-natal problems by doing surgery on the unborn before it was delivered. They could actually go in and do spina bifida surgery to rectify this problem. To be more precise, they didn't exactly go in, they brought the baby out. That is, they incised the mother's abdomen and moved her uterus out in a sense onto her belly, opened her uterus just enough to do the surgery, did the microsurgery on the little developing child inside, repaired the problem, sewed up the uterus, replaced it inside the woman, stitched her up, and then she continued with a normal pregnancy.
That is pretty amazing. What a story!
But you see, it is not just a story about technology, is it? It is also a story about little precious unborn human persons. There is also a problem with showing this on T.V. because it gives a much more graphic window into the womb. But there's more in this particular case because, not only was this a remarkable medical feat that obviously and visibly bore testimony to the humanity of the unborn, but in the course of these films being taken, that little baby that was being operated on while it was being filmed, reached up its little hand, and took hold of the finger of the surgeon. That was on film. Don't you wish you could have seen that?

Well, you can't because it won't be aired.

Does anyone have this picture? I used to have it and the article about the little boy with spina bifida whose hand was reaching for the surgeon's finger. I will look.

What every American needs to know about abortion.

Does anyone have this picture? The link I posted above has the picture Matt wanted to use.

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Body_Parts, click below:
	click here >>>	Body_Parts	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

Is there an age limit on this procedure (sacrifice)?

I mean like I happen on an adult (who may or may not be an abortionist/murderer)with his or her head stuck in a plastic bag, is it legal for me to use my drill and shop vac on this obviously non living person?

Or do I need a license to sell body parts.

I ask this in an educational sense only..........

I think You answered your own question in #7.

why did you send that to me? i already agree that abortion of anykind is taking a life! by skimming this, it seems you are showing the same feelings i am, but you seem to be angry at me... WE AGREE! abortion stops a life.

You can't "practise" a belief whithout adhering to its tenents. The Cahtolic Church, along with fundamentalist Proestants, Orthodox Jews and even Muslims - of all people - recognizes that life begins at the moment of conception. Ergo, taking that life constitutes a form of murder.