Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.


Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill

By David Brownlow
May 9, 2003

A politician would have a hard time finding a more loyal special interest group than with those of us who oppose the legalized child killing industry. For the last thirty years of the war on the unborn, we have worked tirelessly to elect pro-life, mostly Republican, politicians.

Our loyalty was so strong that even though the Republicans failed to deliver us a single pro-life victory, we continued to send them back to Washington year after year. For thirty years, we trusted the Republicans when they told us to be patient, because they had a plan and a party platform that said abortion was wrong.

We now know that everything they told us was a complete pack of lies.

We know that because the Senate has finally passed the long awaited "Partial Birth Abortion Ban," Senate Bill S.3. Rather than being a useful tool in the fight to stop a barbaric and indefensible method of child killing, S.3 reads more like an instruction manual for abortionists.

In what can only be described as the mildest abortion restrictions that one could possibly put into words, Sec.1531 instructs the "doctor" to make sure and kill the child before "in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother". Or "in the case of breech presentation", make sure the child is killed before "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother". (Actual text of SB S.3 in quotes)

With toothless restrictions like that, it is highly unlikely that even a single life will be saved. The only thing this will do is to make sure all the children are killed before the "entire fetal head" or the "fetal trunk past the navel" is showing. We waited thirty years for this?

Excuse me for shouting, but IF THE HEAD IS ALMOST OUT OF THE MOTHER, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KILL THE KID? Do we hate children so much that we cannot wait 10 more seconds for the child to be born? 42,000,000 children killed since 1973 and this is the best they could come up with. What kind of people have we been putting into office?

If Senate Bill S.3 was just plain bad legislation, we could almost forgive the politicians for their incompetence. But believe it or not, this bill gets even worse. It gets a lot worse.

Not content to just write a watered down, sorry excuse for an abortion ban, the Senate goes on in Sec. 4, to let us all know "The Sense on the Senate Concerning Roe. v. Wade". I am not sure what kind of sense these people have, but we have definitely found out what we get for thirty years of loyalty. The 48 Republican Senators who voted to approve S.3, pledged that,

You need to read that again. I've read it about 20 times and it still hurts to look at it.

Please understand that it was not just a few renegade Senators who voted for this. It was 48 Republican Senators, including every one of them who ever told us they were pro-life, who put their name on a bill that says; Roe v. Wade was "appropriate." This is a clear, unambiguous reaffirmation of the illegal Supreme Court decision that started this whole mess back in 1973. If I had not read it for myself I would not believe it.

The extent of their betrayal is absolutely breath taking!

So now we know why the Republicans have gone thirty years without a single pro- life victory. These guys are not even pro-life! We have been fooling ourselves that somehow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the years of partisan efforts were getting us closer to ending legalized abortion in America. But if the "sense" of the Senate is any indication, we have not even started the fight. We can now only hope that the House has enough sense to put S.3 out of it's misery.

A decades old policy of voting for the lesser of two evils has left us with a Republican Party that is a mere hollowed-out shell of its former self, broken beyond any hope of repair. The only way we are ever going to win this fight is by putting men and women of integrity into office who will not bow to the political pressures.

Clearly, the team we have in there now is not up to the task.

Partial- birth abortion ban hits snag over Roe v. Wade affirmation
"President Bush supports the ban, but there has been no indication if he would sign it into law if it included the Roe resolution."

S 3 ES


1st Session

S. 3


To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.





`Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited



Passed the Senate March 13, 2003.




1st Session

S. 3


To prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion.


Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History

Covenant News
January 11, 2002

On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion- family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning.
[end of excerpt]

U.S. Quietly OKs Fetal Stem Cell Work - Bush allows funding despite federal limits on embryo use

White House killed human-cloning ban
Although President Bush has endorsed a complete ban on human cloning sponsored by senators Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Mary Landrieu, D.- La., White House lobbyists contacted Republican senators June 18 to ask them to vote that morning for cloture (a closing of debate to bring a legislative question to a vote) on the Senate's terrorism insurance bill (S 2600), thus preventing an up-or-down vote on a human cloning amendment that Brownback wanted to attach to the bill. His amendment would have banned the patenting of human embryos – effectively destroying any economic incentive for the experimental cloning of human beings."

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; gop; pbaban2003; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 921-940 next last

1 posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:41 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
wholly crap! unbelievable! I did not know about the details. Just sickening...
2 posted on 08/02/2003 10:43:11 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill

I never did understand why conservative politicians did not address this point.

Obviously, if you can deliver the baby to kill it, you can deliver the baby!

3 posted on 08/02/2003 10:47:15 PM PDT by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; billbears; Victoria Delsoul; Fiddlstix; fporretto; Free Vulcan; Liberty Teeth; Loopy; ...
4 posted on 08/02/2003 10:53:18 PM PDT by Sir Gawain (Every Jedi has a semi-retarded twin --
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Neither party is worth a damn. I have no further loyalty to either party.
5 posted on 08/02/2003 10:53:31 PM PDT by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe
"Obviously, if you can deliver the baby to kill it, you can deliver the baby!"

Exactly. Whatever happened to for the children when it really counts?

6 posted on 08/02/2003 10:53:32 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: boycott
"Neither party is worth a damn. I have no further loyalty to either party."

Me either. Screw 'em. I'm sick of the betrayals.

7 posted on 08/02/2003 10:56:46 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
8 posted on 08/02/2003 11:01:08 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Hello sir. God bless.

Hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833)

Statement of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.
Registered Nurse

Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives

March 21, 1996

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Brenda Pratt Shafer. I am here before you, at the request of the Committee, to relate to you my experience as an eyewitness to what is now known as the partial-birth abortion procedure.

I am a registered nurse, licensed in the State of Ohio, with 14 years of experience. In 1993, I was employed by Kimberly Quality Care, a nursing agency in Dayton, Ohio. In September, 1993, Kimberly Quality Care asked me to accept assignment at the Women's Medical Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell. I readily accepted the assignment because I was at that time very pro-choice. I had even told my teenage daughters that if one of them ever got pregnant at a young age, I would make them get an abortion. They disagreed with me on this, and one of them even wrote an essay for a high school class that mentioned how we differed on the issue.

So, because of the strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.

But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor's side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure-- and what I saw is branded forever on my mind.

I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell's clinic for three days-- September 28, 29, and 30, 1993.

On the first day, we assisted in some first-trimester abortions, which is all I'd expected to be involved in. (I remember that one of the patients was a 15-year-old-girl who was having her third abortion.)

On the second day, I saw Dr. Haskell do a second-trimester procedure that is called a D & E (dilation and evacuation). He used ultrasound to examine the fetus. Then he used forceps to pull apart the baby inside the uterus, bringing it out piece by piece and piece, throwing the pieces in a pan.

Also on the first two days, we inserted laminaria to dilate the cervixes of women who were being prepared for the partial-birth abortions-- those who were past the 20 weeks point, or 4 1\2 months. (Dr. Haskell called this procedure "D & X", for dilation and extraction.) There were six or seven of these women.

On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of the procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in that clinic on assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full time, and I was being given orientation in the entire range of procedures provided at that facility.

I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail.

The mother was six months pregnant (26 1/2 weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time. On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure.

Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms-- everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby's head just inside the uterus.

The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.

Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper that President Clinton says that he is going to veto this bill. If President Clinton had been standing where I was standing at that moment, he would not veto this bill.

Dr. Haskell delivered the baby's head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he'd used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just "reflexes."

I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death-- people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.

The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, "I'm so sorry, please forgive me!" I was crying too. I couldn't take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen.

I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend that I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn't wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I never went back. These last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies.

I was very much affected by what I had seen. For a long time, sometimes still, I had nightmares about what I saw in that clinic that day.

That's why, last July, I wrote a letter to Congressman Tony Hall of Dayton, in support of the bill, telling what I had seen. And that led to me being asked to tell others what I'd seen, just as I am doing here today.

Mr. Chairman, since I wrote that letter to Congressman Tony Hall, I have been subjected to some strange attacks on my credibility, and I would like to address these briefly.

Last July 12, I sat in the audience as the full Judiciary Committee debated this legislation, and I heard Congresswoman Schroeder read a letter from Dr. Haskell to the Judiciary Committee (also dated July 12) in which he said, "I have examined our records and found no evidence of a Brenda Shafer working for us during 1993."

Fortunately, I had previously provided the Constitution Subcommittee with the pertinent payroll records from Kimberly Quality Care, including their invoice to Dr. Haskell's clinic. After these documents were circulated, Congresswoman Schroeder withdrew that particular allegation, explaining it away as resulting from confusion over my married name. But it seemed peculiar to me at the time that neither she nor her staff had contacted me, or the subcommittee staff to request documentation, before she basically called me a liar in front of everybody. But there was much more of that sort of thing to come.

In his July 12 letter, Dr. Haskell said also said that my account was "inaccurate," because "she describes procedures at 26 1/2 weeks and 25 weeks... This is contrary to my own self-imposed and established limit of 24 weeks." But in recent times I've seen an article published in American Medical News for July 5, 1993-- just a few months before I worked for him-- in which Dr. Haskell said that he performs the procedure "up until about 25 weeks," which conflicts with his letter to the Judiciary Committee.

Also, in Dr. Haskell's 1992 paper describing the partial-birth procedure, "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion," which you have all seen, he wrote,

"This author routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from last menstrual period] with certain exceptions. The author performs the procedure on selected patients 25 through 26 weeks LMP." Keep in mind that this 26 1/2 week little boy had Down syndrome, so this was a "selected patients" case.

Later, I learned another letter had been produced by Dr. Haskell's operation, dated July 17, this one signed by Christie Gallivan, a nurse. This letter was cited by opponents of the bill before and during the House and Senate floor debates, and was even entered into the Congressional Record by Senator Barbara Boxer.

In this letter, Christie Gallivan acknowledged that I had worked at the clinic for three days, but went on to claim that since I was a temporary nurse, I "would not have been present" at such a procedure-- or, then again, in the alternative, that if I did see such a procedure, then my memory must be faulty, or else that I must be deliberately "misrepresenting" what I saw.

Well, as I've said from the beginning, although I was assigned by a temporary agency, Dr. Haskell needed another surgical nurse-- I was told that he was having a hard time keeping them-- and he seemed to be interested in hiring me on a permanent basis. He wanted me to observe the procedure. Christie Gallivan was the surgical nurse and she spent those three days giving me an "orientation," as it says on the Kimberly Quality Care invoice. But what is striking to me is how blatantly inconsistent Nurse Gallivan's letter is, not only with what I saw, but with what Dr. Haskell himself has written and said elsewhere.

Christie Gallivan wrote, "Dr. Haskell does not use ultrasound in the performance of second-trimester procedures." Then she went on, regarding my account, "Therefore, her entire description of her experience with viewing the second-trimester abortion, which includes Dr. Haskell using the ultrasound while doing this procedure, is clearly questionable."

Yet, in Dr. Haskell's paper explaining how he performs the procedure, he clearly states that the surgical assistant "places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities." And a little further on, referring to the forceps, he wrote, "When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws to firmly and reliably grasp a lower extremity."

So when Christie Gallivan writes that I could not have seen a baby moving, you can evaluate-that statement in the light of her other statements on these points on which there is such a clear written record. And you should notice that she never tries to explain, in this letter, why anyone should believe that these babies supposedly don't move. I've been given a copy of a transcript of the tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell conducted by the American Medical News in June, 1993-- only three months before my time at his clinic-- in which he explicitly acknowledged that most of these babies are alive when he pulls them out.

On November 17, I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Kennedy asked me why it had been reported, in a nursing newsletter, that I was employed by the National Right to Life Committee. As replied, and I tell you know, I've never been a member of, or a donor to that organization, and certainly in no sense an employee.

Certainly, since last summer I have cooperated with National Right to Life in their efforts to make my experience more widely known, because I think it's important that people know the truth about this matter. But National Right to Life has not paid me for anything, and nobody else has paid me for anything in connection with this subject either, beyond reimbursing travel and accommodation expenses. By the way, the editor of the nursing newsletter subsequently retracted the erroneous claim.

Most recently, I got a copy of a letter sent to a constituent by Congresswoman Lynn Rivers of Michigan, written in longhand, in which this distinguished member of Congress claimed that I "was unwilling to testify under oath or submit herself to cross examination in front of Congress-- even though she was sitting in the hearing room while testimony was being taken."

Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is all pure fiction. By the time I heard of your bill and wrote my letter to Congressman Hall, on July 9, you had already concluded the hearing on your legislation. I was present for the July 12 markup, and spoke with various members of the committee and the press informally, but of course there was no opportunity for me to formally testify on that occasion, although I certainly would have welcomed the opportunity.

In November, when Senator Hatch invited me to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I accepted immediately and without qualification. During the question period, Senator Kyl asked me if I would be willing to testify to these things under oath and I replied, "Yes, sir, I would. Or under a lie detector or anything else I need to do." [Senate hearing record, p. 63] And I tell you the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me in unburdening myself on these points. It is been frustrating to hear, and hear of, these attacks on my truthfulness, and not be able to respond.

It is still amazing to me that certain individuals who hold high elective offices, offices for which I hold great respect, have been so willing to publicly spread this kind of blatant misinformation about me, without making the slightest effort to investigate or look at any of the documentation.

Mr. Chairman, these people who say I didn't see what I saw-- I wish they were right. I wish I hadn't seen it. But I did see it, and I will never be able to forget it. That baby boy was only inches, seconds away from being entirely born, when he was killed. What I saw done to that little boy, and to those other babies, should not be allowed in this country.

Thank you.
[End Of Transcript]

9 posted on 08/02/2003 11:13:31 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
10 posted on 08/02/2003 11:14:31 PM PDT by trussell (Pesky, hiding, blonde hair-causing a blonde moment!! Can't find it to pull it out!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
Thanks for the ping, Gawain. :-(
11 posted on 08/02/2003 11:17:25 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Let's see,
We were promised a ban on partial birth abortions.
This bill bans partial birth abortions.
Therefore we have been betrayed.

Got it.
12 posted on 08/02/2003 11:34:39 PM PDT by omegatoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trussell
We cannot vote for Bush anymore! We must find someone else. He is little better than the worst with a disguise. He is like the Trojan horse for us and apparently the republicans that signed the "partial birth abortion ban" are not better. Also his roadmap to peace is a roadmap from hell. What's going on with him considering he suppose to be a Christian???
13 posted on 08/02/2003 11:49:00 PM PDT by Bellflower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
How does INTSUM translate into this?

I don't believe I am able to read the President's mind about what he is doing. But I do support most of his decisions. I believe if he supports this, it is because he believes this is the right, first step to a total ban.

I could be wrong, and this is just my opinion, but at this time I choose to trust the President I helped to put in office.
14 posted on 08/02/2003 11:59:09 PM PDT by trussell (Pesky, hiding, blonde hair-causing a blonde moment!! Can't find it to pull it out!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
Yea, this whole thread has gone over my head too. They wanted a PBA ban, they got a PBA ban, and now they are bitching that Bush didn't ban ALL late term abortions.

Hey, I want abortion banned too, but let's quit moving the goalposts. This would have never passed if it banned something other than PBA.

15 posted on 08/03/2003 12:07:38 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
"He is like the Trojan horse for us and apparently the republicans that signed the "partial birth abortion ban" are not better."

Given the 'close' numbers of the Congress and Senate; particularly those Repubs who are in fact Liberal by ANY other qualification. . .perhaps; this was the best we could do this year. . .

The fact is, we need more and 'better' Republicans on board to help pull the boat here and get it to 'safe harbor'.

I hope no one makes the mistake of thinking Bush et al. . .is no better than any Democrat. Give the 'new Left Democrat Party' an inch. . .and the miles we walk afterward will be truly regretable.

16 posted on 08/03/2003 12:18:12 AM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: omegatoo
Uncle Bill figured out a long time ago that most people are idiots, and that they will believe the dealine, and his missinformation without ever bothering to actually think for themselves.

Bill is an anarchist, his goal is to create chaos under any sort of administration.

Bush promised a ban on partial birth abortions, and it has been delivered, yet you see people in here yelling tyhat they will not vote GOP again...I want to see the sort of anti-abortion bill the Dems will pass to please these single-issue voters.
17 posted on 08/03/2003 12:18:59 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I applaud any sort of restriction on abortion, but I won't be happy until abortion of any sort is illegal. This bill is probably the best we're going to get for a while, though, and it's a start.
18 posted on 08/03/2003 12:24:47 AM PDT by gsrinok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gsrinok
Quit playing into Bill's sleight of hand, and figure out that all that text that he used to get a knee-jerk emotional reaction no longer applies as all partial birth abortions have been banned.
19 posted on 08/03/2003 12:28:15 AM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Who the heck are "women" that they feel their lives are more important than other lives??? If "women" feel that way, then I don't want to be any part of them!!! All human lives are valuable unless they have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer deserve the privilege G-d gave them.
20 posted on 08/03/2003 12:30:51 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 921-940 next last

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