Regarding the following:

If the Supreme Court rules in favor the Abortion Industry and all those pro-aborts who do not want partial-birth abortions banned, then our country is, indeed, sicker than I thought. The procedure is so gruesome that I cringe every time I describe it.

So, the pro-aborts want a health exception. How stupid do they think we pro-lifers are. You might just as well not have a ban.

A health exception would also include, doctor, this pregnancy is making me depressed, or making me nauseated. Remember it's the abortionist who will decide and they are not about to lose a $5,000 fee. It always bothers me that the pro-aborts always say that it's a decision that a woman should make with her doctor.

Well, duh, the doctor is the one who profits from killing the child.

Frank Joseph MD

---

Half-Fetus, Half-Child

By Fr. Frank Pavone

Dear Friends,

Just after I wrote to you this morning with my election reflections, I went into the Supreme Court to observe the two hours of arguments in the partial-birth abortion cases. My reflections on that are below.

First, some other practical matters.

1. Please take a look at the speeches of Senator Sam Brownback as they appear on our website (linked from the main page, www.priestsforlife.org) At a talk he gave before the election, he said that if pro-life public officials lost seats, it wouldn't be because of their principles, but because they didn't do enough about putting them into action.

2. On November 20, we are going to begin a Novena of nine weeks of prayer of repentance, leading up to January 22, on which day in 1973 the Roe vs. Wade case was handed down. Please plan to sign up for that Novena. More info to follow.

3. Speaking of January, if you're coming to Washington for the March for Life on January 22, would you join me in the United States Senate for a prayer service that morning? We always get to use a beautiful caucus room, and it's a very educational experience for young and old alike. You'll have plenty of time to get to the March itself. Let me know by email if you or your group are interested.

4. Our 2007 Priests for Life calendars are just about ready to ship. Please order yours today at orders@priestsforlife.org.

Blessings!

Fr. Frank Pavone

---

In one of his few remarks during the two hours of arguments in the Supreme Court today about partial-birth abortion, Justice Scalia responded to Justice Stevens' assertion that we should say "fetus" rather than child.. Justice Scalia said, "half-fetus, half-child."

The point was clear. This is not simply about abortion. This is a hijacking of the delivery process for the purpose of killing the child. This is infanticide. I don't know why Justice Scalia was otherwise so quiet, and Justice Alito completely silent during the arguments, but I know one reason I would be. The barbarity of partial-birth abortion is so self-evidently wrong that it is beyond dispute, beyond discussion, that it should not be legal in our country - or anywhere else, for that matter. Silence in this matter speaks volumes.

In the course of the two hours of oral arguments, the Court considered three key reasons why abortion advocates want the Court to strike down the Federal ban on partial-birth abortion: a) the ban lacks a health exception; b) the ban is too broad, that is, by its wording it actually bans most if not all second and third trimester D&E (dismemberment) abortions rather than just partial-birth abortion, and c) the ban is vague, and because the language is not clear and specific enough, doctors won't know if it really applies to them.

Having listened carefully to the oral arguments and having read all the briefs, I don't think the abortion advocates made their case, and I don't think a majority of the Justices think they did either.

One of the most important admissions made in the arguments by the pro-abortion side was that we really have no measurements about what kind of a health need is met by partial-birth abortion. Their key argument, after all, is that the procedure must be allowed for the sake of women's health. They admitted that the Court could ban this procedure if its health advantages were minimal rather than significant, yet they could not establish, by statistical measurement, the assertion that the health advantages of partial-birth abortion are significant.

In regard to safety, one of the key questions from Chief Justice Roberts was that if, as the abortionists claim, partial-birth abortion is safer because it requires fewer insertions of instruments into the woman's body, why would it not then also follow that the safest method is live birth altogether, with the killing of the child outside the womb? The pro-abortion side did not have an answer to that specific question, which proves the point that Congress and the Bush Administration make, namely, that this procedure must be banned so that society has a clear barrier against infanticide.

Isn't it just amazing that in our highest court in this great nation, this debate occurred today about the legality of "dismemberment" and "pulling the arms and legs off" a child. In the end, it's not a matter of which version of killing should be used. It's a matter of stopping the killing altogether.

Remember to support our work at www.priestsforlife.org/donate

Comments on this column? Email us at mail@priestsforlife.org, Priests for Life, PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314;
Tel: 888-PFL-3448, 718-980-4400; Fax: 718-980-6515; web: www.priestsforlife.org




Home