I was happily in the middle of breakfast when I heard that the Supreme Court had upheld Congress and President Bush’s aversion to the practice of partial-birth abortion.
There are rarely "no opinions" on the subject of abortion and it usually draws the proverbial line in the sand along with raising blood pressures.
However, this Supreme Court ruling is probably the most significant ruling since Roe v. Wade back in 1973. It is so unusual because for the first time in eons, the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court agree on a single issue: partial-birth abortion is "gruesome and inhumane."
I am pretty sure this is because Congress did their homework, gathering hours and hours of "testimony from extensive legislative hearings from the 104th, 105th, 107th, and 108th Congresses."
They found there is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. A medical association states that it has never been an accepted medical practice. There has never been a documented case where partial birth abortion was required to save the life of the mother or preserve her health.
Congress also found, as stated in paragraph I, that the fetus is killed outside the womb and that gives the fetus an autonomy which separates it from the right of women to choose treatments of her own body. At last, some intelligent Congressional thinking. In paragraph J, Congress states that the partial-birth abortion confuses the medical, legal and ethical duties of physicians who are sworn to preserve and promote life. And this is why I find it so hard to understand why physicians would perform any type of abortions.
Paragraph K expresses concern that the killing of an infant after the birth has begun, undermines the public’s perception of the appropriate role of a physician and perverts the process in which life is brought into this world.
I’m inclined to believe this is most likely why the love of man is growing so cold and there is less and less regard for the sanctity of life regardless of age.
Congress calls this a process of "gruesome and inhumane nature", and it has "disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant", and that the prohibition of partial-birth abortion is the only way to counter that disregard for human life.
"(M) The vast majority of babies killed during partial-birth abortions are alive until the end of the procedure. It is a medical fact, however, that unborn infants at this stage can feel pain when subjected to painful stimuli and that their perception of this pain is even more intense than that of newborn infants and older children when subjected to the same stimuli. Thus, during a partial-birth abortion procedure, the child will fully experience the pain associated with piercing his or her skull and sucking out his or her brain.
(N) 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. Thus Congress has a compelling interest in acting --indeed it must act--to prohibit this inhumane procedure."
This is purely my own opinion, of course, but since all this is worded with the "health of the mother" in mind as the only reason for abortion, what possible reason could the death of the infant be good for the health of the mother? I’ve got a really good imagination, and I have rummaged around in my cerebral sphere, but can’t fathom that one. Paragraph M states chilling truth.
'Refreshment in Refuge' Copyright 2019 © Gina Burgess. 'Refreshment in Refuge' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with their complete bio and a link to https://www.liveasif.org/ 2) 'Refreshment in Refuge' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.
"'Christ in You...'" from