Dismemberment abortion supporters try to deceive public
14 week unborn baby
An article Monday about the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act ran under the fear-mongering headline, "Kansas Senate Votes to Ban Procedure Critical to Miscarriage Management, Abortion."
That headline is wrong in two respects: miscarriage is not affected by the bill, and "critical" (i.e. true emergency) abortions are not banned.First, the bill (in Kansas, SB 95) does not prevent medical assistance for a miscarriage. Opponents know this but send up a smokescreen anyway.
The D&E/dismemberment procedure to be banned is specified as that done to living unborn children under a very specific statutory definition of abortion. Second, SB 95 includes an exception for situations involving a threat of death or severe physical injury to the mother.
However, because dismemberment abortion ordinarily requires several days of preparatory "ripening" of the birth canal (so that it is wide enough for access by sharp metal tools) it would not be an option in an emergency.
On the actual issue of SB 95-the barbarity of dismemberment- we have heard mostly silence from abortion supporters, with an implicit (or explicit) denial that a baby could feel pain at having his or her body demolished one piece at a time.
Do abortion supporters expect that the same public that wholeheartedly supports humane treatment for animals will excuse what happens to a human baby in this kind of abortion?SB 95 focuses our attention on the inhumanity of the act of shredding a small human being with sharp-edged instruments, and then finishing the act by reassembling all the bloody pieces onto a tray to insure that the no piece of the baby remains in the mother. How is this act any part of dignified 21st century medicine? Read carefully the attempted justifications for D&E/ dismemberment abortions in this Huffington Post story:
"It is more convenient...[because] a D&E procedure [can] be scheduled with precision. D&E abortions [are] less painful than labor-and-delivery or an abdominal operation...D&E shifts the emotional burden of the procedure from the woman to the physician, and that is entirely appropriate. One of our most important roles as physicians is to ease suffering, both physical and emotional." There's a glaring omission in the sentence about the noble medical role of easing physical suffering-the little unborn human patient has been completely overlooked!
The article's closing underscores this blindness in a graphic way:
"D and E abortion is not a problem, any more than a mastectomy is a problem. Both are solutions to a problem."
How deluded must one be to equate diseased breast tissue with living, unique children made in the image of God!