Okay, so here is the million dollar question. What type of a brain would even conceptualize the very idea of partial birth abortion? Where does that mess even come from? Who’s creation?  And quite frankly, what’s next?  I envision some Frankenstein-ish type doctor coming up with a new “procedure” that says that the baby can be “aborted” after leaving the womb—as long as you kill it before it starts to cry of course. After all, it’s not truly alive until it makes a sound, right?  Yes, I know it sounds crazy, but liberals tend to suffer that malady.  I am 100% positive that the FemiGals over at the National Organization for Women would defend such a proposal, as would many other leftist types who suffer the Anarchy Syndrome.Partial birth abortion—which is actually a fancy name for infanticide, is the brain child of Dr. Martin Haskell and the late Dr. James McMahon.  I wonder where Dr. McMahon’s soul is right now and when he arrived at the Judgment Seat—whether or not he boldly defended his gruesome practice to the Lord the way he did to us mere mortals?

Read Dr. McMahon’s views for yourself:

After 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, ‘Gee, it’s too bad that this child couldn’t be adopted.’ On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: ‘Who owns the child?’ It’s got to be the mother. Link Mothers own children? That’s a scary thought, isn’t it?  And do fathers come into play at all—or are they simply sperm donors? Do fathers not matter?  Following the ridiculous and frightening thought that mothers “own” children—as though children are property, one could also argue that since mothers own children, it’s not illegal for mothers to offer their “property” up to pedophiles as prostitutes to support their drug habits. Let’s face it. That sort of thing happens every day. And if mothers own children, then it would not be illegal for a mother to take her infant and throw her into a microwave oven (happened recently).  Likewise, wouldn’t her “ownership” allow her to blow her child’s brains out or drown him/her?

The truth of the matter is that mothers do not “own” children. Mothers are blessed with the right to rear their own children and they have guardianship over their children until their children are old enough to fend for themselves.  One can certainly own an animal (sorry, PETA) or a car but never can one “own” a human being. That smacks of slavery…chattel. Let’s not even go there!

 My skin crawls at the thought that although Dr. McMahon clearly admitted that he knew he was taking the life of a real and viable child, he did so anyway because of the mother’s desire. After all, she “owns” this thing called a child. Wow! 

His pal, Dr. Haskell shares the same gruesome thoughts:

Dr. Martin Haskell, of Cincinnati, told U.S. District Judge John Shabaz that the intact dilation and extraction procedure (D&X) he pioneered and introduced at a National Abortion Federation conference in 1992 is the safest way to perform abortions on women who are 20 to 24 weeks pregnant.  Haskell said he has done about 2,000 D&X abortions in which he maneuvers the nonviable fetus so he can pull all but its head, feet first, from the uterus. He said he then cuts the umbilical cord and collapses the head so it can fit through the cervical opening. Link

Now if you believe the hype about women aborting late term babies due to emergency health issues, check out what the good doctor himself has to say about that myth:

I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective. Link

You know what? I’m not even going to sit here and play with this nonsense because I find nothing cute about a politically correct climate which tries to find just the right word to cover up bile.  Bile is bile, folks.  As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name is still a rose.  And murder is still murder and abortion is still infanticide.  Let’s just pull the cover off this nonsense and expose it for what it is.

I underlined two words in Dr. Haskell’s quote:  genetic and elective

Basically he was saying that 20% of the abortions he performs are because some woman decided that the Down Syndrome—or other type of imperfect, child she was carrying did not deserve life.  Note that none of the abortions he performs are due to a risk to the woman’s life.

By no means am I a fan of George Bush, but I must give credit where credit is due. During his two terms in office he made one great achievement. He appointed the right men to the Supreme Court. Those men are sensible and have just enough conservative morals to see through the abortion lies. Thank God that they are young enough to be around for awhile.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions. For the first time since the court established a woman’s right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents. The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman’s health, Kennedy said. “The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice,” he wrote in the majority opinion. Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.  Kennedy’s opinion, joined by Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench. The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide. Reacting to the ruling, Bush said that it affirms the progress his administration has made to defend the “sanctity of life.”Link

And so the fight continues…

File under: Health Watch & Infanticide