Putting a stop to innocents lost

On Feb. 14, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, a bill that President Bush strongly supports, was introduced into the Senate. After a second reading on Feb. 24, the Senate is expected to vote in March. \nThe House of Representatives might take initial action on the bill by mid-April, according to House Republicans. The bill would ban partial-birth abortions, occurring most commonly in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, but also sometimes in the third trimester.\nIn his phone call broadcast to anti-abortion protesters in Washington on Jan. 22, Bush described the act as "an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity." The baby's legs are pulled out of the womb and into the birth canal using forceps. As the National Right to Life Committee describes the procedure, the abortionist then delivers all but the baby's head, which remains in the cervix. Scissors puncture the base of the baby's skull and are opened to enlarge the hole. A suction catheter is inserted to remove the baby's brain, causing the skull to collapse. The deceased baby is then fully delivered.\nForty-three senators, including Richard Lugar (R) of Indiana, co-sponsored the bill banning this brutal act. The bill was vetoed twice by President Clinton and still faces opposition from some senators, but Republican leaders in the Senate are still attempting to push the bill through.\nBush called on Congress to pass the bill and vowed, "to protect the lives of innocent children waiting to be born." His remarks came on the 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion in the Roe v. Wade case. Bush reiterated his stance in his State of the Union address. \nThe American people agree with the president. In a January 2003 Gallup poll, 70 percent favored "a law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as 'partial-birth abortion,' except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother."\nPartial-birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times annually, according to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, in 1997. "In a vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother of a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along," he said.\nEven the late Dr. James McMahon, who is accredited with developing the procedure, acknowledged that he performed these abortions on babies for reasons such as the youth of the mother or for "psychiatric" difficulties.\nFormer Surgeon General C. Everett Koop said, "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both."\nWith such a horrifying reality of how an abortionist can take the life of an innocent fetus, it is hard to believe that there are still supporters of partial-birth abortion. Cases in which the mother's life is endangered would still be protected under the bill, but cases involving healthy mothers and irresponsible reasoning would not. \nPartial-birth abortions may not be morally worse than the 99-plus percent of abortions performed using other methods, but it brings into question just what "choice" the pro-choice advocates are arguing for: brutally killing innocent fetuses for convenience. \nThe brain-sucking, skull-collapsing reality of partial-birth abortion is strong stuff to read about over your morning coffee. If you felt queasy hearing it described, then imagine your reaction when you hear it defended.