Saturday

Guns and Scissors - Weapons of Choice



It is predictable, I guess, that the same week we mourn the death of innocents (VA Tech, Columbine), certain politicos and media outlets are, on the one hand, expressing their outrage that such a massacre (i.e. the violent murder of innocent life) should occur in a safe-haven (a school) which is designed to ensure the blossoming and maturation of the living human being into the next stage on the life continuum, yet on the other hand, these very same charlatans are, at the same time, condemning the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Gonzales v. Carhart, thus denying that “other” human beings are to be ensured their chance to blossom and mature into the next stage of their life continuum. The irony here can only make one cynical. Either we will have a “culture of life” or a “culture of death.” Read it . . . Gonazles v. Carhart -- April 18, 2007

Since the horror of the the D&X abortion procedure (sometimes called D&E or Partial-Birth Abortion) was first devised by Dr. Martin Haskell (the famed abortionist) in 1992, those of us in the pro-life movement have been working and contributing greatly to the overthrow of this barbaric practice, utilized by Haskell and any unconsciounable abortionist who was willing to learn and implement the procedure with regard to late-term abortions. (Note, this was after the abortion blockades and rescues of the 1980s.) Simply put, it was a matter of ousting the existing Democrat regime in Congress, putting in place "social conservatives" who would see this horror for what it truly was - and after numerous "congressional hearings" on the matter (see below), the consensus (including the majority of the American populace) agreed that such barbarism, bordering infantide, had to be done away with. This occurred in 1994 with the so-called Republican revolution. (Note: This sentiment does not advocate the policies of the Bush administration, i.e. apart from the expected appointment of two critical justices on the bench of the Supreme Court).

Now, of course I know that "Jesus is not a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Whig, a No-Nothing, a Marxist, a Puerto Rican Socialist, a Green, a Pharisee or a Sadducee or a member of any political party." He is the theanthropic person Jesus Christ, "God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God" plain and simple. Those who use such idiotic slogans (e.g. "Jesus is not a Republican" - Jim Wallis comes to mind) are not telling us anything. Those who want to remind us with their bumper stickers that "Jesus is not a Republican" are pure imbeciles.) Now certainly there are numerous issues where grave injustice occurs in society, not only in America but also throughout the world. Christians "must" give their whole being in trying to be "salt and light" and a refuge for those who are among the least fortunate in this world. And as far as I can see, Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches have been doing just that. At the same time, however, these same Christian groups, in accord with the teachings of the Didache (c. 100) -- "Thou shalt not slay a child by abortion" -- along with Canon Law, have set the standard that killing a fetus (Lat. for "child") is an extenstion of biblical law (Exo 20:13 - "Thou shalt not murder.") NOTE: see the article below called "Abortion: Child Sacrifice in the Modern Age" (and also see below Naomi Wolf's admission regarding "abortion" in another article -- Mrs. Wolf, of course, is pro-choice, yet the interview is quite revealing).

Since Haskell, however, in 1992, it became evident that the late-term surgical abortion practice was becoming "so brutal and horrific" (not that other abortions are any more humane), that it was time. Even pro-choice moderates who would allow for abortion in the first trimester were horrified when they heard the gruesome testimony regarding Haskell's 'partial-birth abortion' procedure, where he, himself, admitted that 80% of these late-term abortions were done for "elective" reasons. Anyway, the Democrat regime was voted out of congress in 1994, the "social conservatives" were voted in; however, the trouble was President Bill Clinton, who like most Democrats, are faithful to the hyper-utilitarian left and the pro-abortion lobby - $$, would not sign a "ban on the 'partial-birth abortion procedure,'" despite the congressional testimonies of medical professionals and ethicists who deemed it a case of barbarism second to none.

However, now the landscape has changed. The "Carhart Case" (which has been swimming around Washington for several years now) -- by the way, Leroy Carhart was a Nebraskan abortionist who worked with the infamous George Tiller of Witchita -- a child killer extraordinaire who even has an incinerator on his premises -- anyway, it was now the turn of pro-lifers, with a "socially conservative congress" and a "socially conservative president" (George W. Bush) to reintroduce the "Carhart Case" to the Supreme Court, the court being tilted slightly to the "right" with Bush's appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

The decision below speaks for itself . . . Either read it and rejoice, or read it and weep. But to mourn the Virginia Tech and Columbine "murdered," and at the same time condemn the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the killing of late-term fetuses (Lat. "children"), i.e. at least the killing of 3,000 to 5,000 pre-born babies a year (according to figures provided by Ron Fitzsimmons, once director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers -- you do the math over the years) is simply a contradiction which demonstrates that many politicos (including, Hillary, Obama, Edwards, ad nauseum) along with their media partners (too many to mention) are so disgusting, vile and abhorrent, bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARrAL, NCAP, etc.), that I would have to seriously restrain myself from using language which is truly fitting for such people.

I have provided numerous links below to demonstrate that it isn't just conservative Christians who abhor "Abortion," but other faith communities, physicians, feminists, "liberals," atheists, and so on. Pope John Paul II simply called it a "culture of life." Yes, we have a long way to go. But the more and more "science" teaches us about the embryo and the fetus, through sonograms and fetoscopy, perhaps we'll see the decency of the American populace come to the fight!

First, though, do yourself a favor as an American citizen and read the Supreme Court opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart. Also, read below some of the excerpts which I have isolated from the document. Gonzales v. Carhart - April 18, 2007

Some excerpts from Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion - 4/18/07

"Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. Dilation and Extraction 110–111. In the usual intact D&E the fetus’ head lodges in the cervix, and dilation is insufficient to allow it to pass. See, e.g., ibid.; App. in No. 05–380, at 577; App. in No. 05–1382, at 74, 282. Haskell explained the next step as follows:

“ ‘At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down).

“ ‘While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.

“ ‘[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.

“ ‘The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 108–58, p. 3 (2003). This is an abortion doctor’s clinical description.

"Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“ ‘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 head right inside the uterus… .

“ ‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to 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 went completely limp…

“ ‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’ ” Ibid.

"The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process. Congress stated as follows: “Implicitly approving such a brutal and inhumane procedure by choosing not to prohibit it will further coarsen society to the humanity of not only newborns, but all vulnerable and innocent human life, making it increasingly difficult to protect such life.” Congressional Findings (14)(N), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769. The Act expresses respect for the dignity of human life.

"The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.

"Congress determined no medical schools provide instruction on the prohibited procedure . . . Congress also found there existed a medical consensus that the prohibited procedure is never medically necessary."

Posted by William J Tsamis at 8:08 AM