I know some people who claim to be pro-life, but remain pro-Obama. I have no doubt that they have their reasons, and I have no doubt that they are truly pro-life. But I must confess that I don’t believe that they have put a great deal of thought into reconciling their pro-life stance with their support for Barack Obama, who is undoubtedly the most radical pro-abortion proponent that a major party has put forth, probably ever. This is not just conservatives saying this, either. Liberals love him for it. All you really must do is look at his record.
Why do I care, you ask? Well, for one thing, my heart aches and my soul cries for the victims of abortion—both babies and mothers. It keeps me awake at night. This is not some “pet” issue for me. It rends me to the core. I cry about it. I pray about it. And I cannot help but feel it my duty to speak out against a great evil that exists in our world. For me, to be silent is not enough. To remain silent is to be complicit in the act itself.
So, what am I to think of others who might cast a vote for a candidate such as this? It means that I am scared for them. It means that I care about them so much that I WILL say something, I WILL challenge them on it. I’ll probably lose friends over it, though I hope not. In short, I care so much that I can’t but help talk about it, because it’s the least that I can do.
Please, I implore you, watch the video posted here and watch the video posted here. If it breaks your heart, then be glad, because it means you have a conscience. If it does not, pray that God will help you open up your eyes again. And then, by all means, cast your vote accordingly.
Another must-see clip for all of us, and especially the Catholic “undecideds.”
Some more help in forming your conscience:
After President Bush signed a law banning partial-birth abortion last year, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry sued to have the law overturned. This past spring, several doctors who have performed such abortions testified before judges in various parts of the nation. The following is an excerpt of their remarks.
April 5, 2004: Excerpts from cross-examination of Dr. Carolyn Westhoff:
Q. And at that point the fetus’ body is below the cervix and the neck is in the cervix with the head still in the uterus, right?
Q. And it’s at that point that you take a scissors and insert it into the woman and place an incision in the base of the fetus’ skull, right?
Q. Now the contents of the fetus’ skull, just like the contents of my skull and your skull is liquid, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And sometimes after you’ve made the incision the fetus’ brain will drain out on its own, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Other times you must insert a suction tube to drain the skull, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And then the skull will collapse immediately after its liquid contents have been removed and the head will pass easily through the dilated cervix, right?
A. That’s right.
April 2, 2004: Testimony of Dr. Carolyn Westhoff:
Q. Do you tell her [the mother] that you are going to then, ultimately, suck the brain out of the skull?
A. In all of our D&E’s the head is collapsed or crushed and the brains are definitely out of the skull but those are—
Q. Do you tell them that?
A. Those are details that would be distressing to my patients and would not—information about that is not directly relevant to their safety.
April 1, 2004: Judge Richard C. Casey and Dr. Timothy Johnson, plaintiff:
Casey asked Johnson if doctors tell a woman that an abortion procedure they might use includes “sucking the brain out of the skull.”
“I don’t think we would use those terms,” Johnson said. “I think we would probably use a term like ‘decompression of the skull’ or ‘reducing the contents of the skull.'”
The judge responded, “Make it nice and palatable so that they wouldn’t understand what it’s all about?”
“We try to do it in a way that’s not offensive or gruesome or overly graphic for patients,” Johnson said.
April 6, 2004: Excerpts from Government’s cross-examination of Dr. Mitchell Creinin:
Q. If the fetus were close to 24 weeks, and you were performing a transvaginal surgical abortion, you would be concerned about delivering the fetus entirely intact because that might result in a live baby that may survive, correct?
A. You said I was performing an abortion, so since the objective of an abortion is to not have a live fetus, then that would be correct.
Q. In your opinion, if you were performing a surgical abortion at 23 or 24 weeks and the cervix was so dilated that the head could pass through without compression, you would do whatever you needed to do in order to make sure that the live baby was not delivered, wouldn’t you?
A. Whatever I needed, meaning whatever surgical procedure I needed to do as part of the procedure? Yes. Then, the answer would be: Yes.
Q. And one step you would take to avoid delivery of a live baby would be to deliver or hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the cervical os in order to collapse the skull; is that right?
A. Yes, because the objective of my procedure is to perform an abortion.
Q. And that would ensure you did not deliver a live baby?
How the Baby Reacts
April 5, 2004: Excerpts from direct examination of Dr. Marilynn Fredriksen:
The Court: Do you tell [the woman] whether or not it will hurt the fetus?
Fredriksen: The intent of an [abortion is] that the fetus will die during the process of uterine evacuation.
The Court: Ma’am, I didn’t ask you that. Very simply I asked you whether or not do you tell the mother that one of the ways she may do this is that you will deliver the baby partially and then insert a pair of scissors in the base of the fetus’ skull?
Fredriksen: I have not done that.
The Court: Do you ever tell them that after that is done you are going to suction or suck the brain out of the skull?
Fredriksen: I don’t use suction.
The Court: Then how do you remove the brain from the skull?
Fredriksen: I use my finger to disrupt the central nervous system, thereby the skull collapses and I can easily deliver the remainder of the fetus through the cervix.
The Court: Do you tell them that you are going to collapse a skull?
The Court: The mother?
The Court: Do you tell them whether or not that hurts the fetus?
Fredriksen: I have never talked to a fetus about whether or not they experience pain.
April 1, 2004: Judge Richard C. Casey, Dr. Timothy Johnson, plaintiff:
“Does the fetus feel pain?” Judge Richard C. Casey asked Johnson, saying he had been told that studies of a type of abortion usually performed in the second trimester had concluded they do.
Johnson said he did not know, adding he knew of no scientific research on the subject.
The judge then pressed Johnson on whether he ever thought about fetal pain while he performs the abortion procedure that involves dismemberment. Another doctor a day earlier had testified that a fetus sometimes does not immediately die after limbs are pulled off.
“I guess whenever I…” Johnson began before the judge interrupted.
“Simple question, doctor. Does it cross your mind?” Casey pressed.
Johnson said that it did not.
“Never crossed your mind?” the judge asked again.
“No,” Johnson answered.
Proof that the Baby is Alive
March 29, 2004: Testimony of Dr. Maureen Paul:
Q. And when you begin the evacuation, is the fetus ever alive?
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because I do many of my procedures especially at 16 weeks under an ultrasound guidance, so I will see a heartbeat.
Q. Do you pay attention to that while you are doing the abortion?
A. Not particularly. I just notice sometimes.
April 2, 2004: Testimony of Dr. Cassing Hammond:
Q. And you have observed signs of life in the fetus, didn’t you?
A. That is correct.
Q. You have seen spontaneous respiratory activity, right?
Q. Spontaneous movements?
March 31, 2004: Dr. Amos Grunebaum:
Grunebaum said doctors used to hide the fetus from women after an abortion before studies in the late 1970s and early 1980s showed that women grieved less after a failed pregnancy if they get to see the fetus.
“It is the same as any baby dying. People want to hold the fetus,” he said, adding that he goes so far as to put a cap on the head of the fetus just as he would for a newborn.
April 5, 2004: Excerpts from cross-examination of Dr. Fredrik Broekhuizen:
Q. Doctor, you testified earlier that sometimes parents want an intact fetus for blessing or burial. Have you ever had the parent express that desire where you had compressed the head of the fetus to complete the delivery?
Q. Was anything done in those instances, doctor, to improve the appearance of the fetus’ head after decompression?
Q. What was done?
A. The fetus was—just like a newborn—it was dressed and kind of had a little hat placed on it so only the face was visible.
Q. You have seen the fetus’ leg move before crushing the head, haven’t you?
A. I have seen that before compressing/decompressing the head.
April 2, 2004: Testimony of Dr. Carolyn Westhoff:
A. Because it is the back of the skull that collapsed, since this is not disfiguring, and the face, for instance, is intact. Several of my patients have wished to hold the fetus after the procedure and have expressed gratitude that they were able to do so…. We have arrangements to permit burial of the fetus if the patients want…. Because the hospital also has small coffins present, both for stillbirths or for fetuses after a termination, and in the case of our D&E patients we actually have little hats available so we could in fact cover the back of the head where the incision had been made.
And a bit more, if you’re still not convinced…
THE TRIUMPH OF THE BANALITY OF EVIL
If you haven’t read pages 8-9 yet, please do so before reading this article; it will facilitate what I’m about to say.
The late philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote brilliantly on the causes of totalitarianism, especially as it occurred in Nazi Germany. Perhaps her most memorable phrase—used to describe the way in which Germans became almost immune to human suffering—was the “banality of evil.”
That phrase applies equally well today to describe what is happening in America.
To intentionally kill an innocent child who is 80 percent born is not only evil; it is Satanic. The American Medical Association, which is steadfastly in favor of abortion rights, has admitted that partial-birth abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother. Yet thousands of these abortions take place every year in the United States.
The late senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was “pro-choice,” but he drew the line at partial-birth abortion: he properly called it infanticide. Ditto for Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City. So why is it that so many other abortion-rights public figures continue to defend a procedure that is so barbaric that it rivals anything done by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein?
While it is true that most Americans are opposed to partial-birth abortions, it is also true that most give it little attention. One reason for this is media bias: it has been well established that the media elite are almost unanimous in their support for abortion-on-demand. So much so that media insiders like Bernie Goldberg and others have admitted that it is extremely difficult for a pro-life person to get hired in any position of influence in journalism or the broadcast industry. Given this monopoly of thought, it is no wonder why “60 Minutes,” or any of the other TV magazine-type shows, will ever do a segment on partial-birth abortion. Wouldn’t it be great to learn what the hospitals and clinics do with the “remains”?
If that’s too gruesome, wouldn’t it be great if “Dateline” interviewed the very same doctors who are mentioned on pages 8-9? Or how about ABC’s Diane Sawyer? Would she bring that same pained look on her face—you know, the one she flashed when interviewing Mel Gibson—to work when asking the doctors what kind of scissors they like best? Wouldn’t it be instructive to learn how these monsters manage to sleep at night?
The banality of evil really shines through when these doctors are asked about the pain that the baby feels. Not only do they not have a clue—they don’t want to know. That’s because it’s not their job. Their job is to deliver a dead baby—and maybe put a cap on the kid’s head before slipping him into one of their little coffins.
Their answers are so icily cold as to be scary. These are well-educated men and women who were trained to help the sick. And what they do for a living is to kill the kids. Is it because the money is good? Maybe it is, but surely they could make lots of money treating people’s feet. No, what they elect to do tells us something about the way they see the world: they are servants, trained to deliver a service. Just like prostitutes, only the ladies of the night don’t have to learn how to use a suction tube.
This may come as a surprise to you: not one nation in the world has more liberal laws governing abortion than the United States. Every European nation—including the sexually liberated Scandinavian countries—has some restrictions on abortion. We have none. We know this because a few decades ago a member of the Catholic League’s board of advisors, Mary Ann Glendon, revealed this dirty little secret in a book she did on the subject. The Harvard law professor was herself surprised to learn that the U.S. has the most promiscuous laws on abortion of any nation on the face of the earth.
There are plenty of issues in this election season for voters to consider, and it makes no sense to focus on one to the exclusion of others. But it also makes no sense to treat issues like the environment, housing and the minimum wage as the moral equal of infanticide. Yet that is what many Catholics, including members of the clergy, are urging us to do. It is important that their quest for moral equivalency be resisted.
All of this is very troubling, and not simply because it is immoral to jam a scissors into a little baby’s head and then suck out the boy or girl’s brain. It is troubling because of what it does to the rest of us. It allows us to retreat—to escape into ourselves. It coarsens us. It promotes the fiction that we can each carve out our own universe, complete with our own morality. In short, such nihilism is deadly in more ways than one.