After fighting abortion for 30 years I
thought I had seen and heard it all, but not so. Here is a new
development, a coordinated high-tech industry functioning for the
specific purpose of obtaining and selling high-quality fetal organs
for research.
Partial-Birth abortions seemed to be so horrible that most of us wondered how such procedures could be defended. Many of us chalked it up to the fact that the pro-abortion advocates and the abortion industry didn't want to give one inch for fear that their whole house of cards will fold.
I, among others, felt that their resistance to forbidding this gruesome procedure was a fear of a domino effect. If we stopped this one, then we'd stop the next and the next and the next and they didn't want it to start. But now we have evidence of a very clear additional reason why they want these late-term abortions to continue. The reason is that this is the one method that gives them intact fetal bodies from which they can obtain organs for research.
The other method of late-term abortion, D&E (Dilatation and Evacuation), involves reaching up into the uterus and dismembering the live baby. This delivers pieces of macerated organs that are usually unsuitable for fetal research, transplantation etc. This may be the main reason for their vehement defense of the practice of Partial-Birth abortion.
The story was broken recently by Life Dynamics under the guidance of its director, Mark Crutcher. A lady came to him with a story, which he has verified. The name of the informant cannot be revealed, as she is still involved in the work that she has exposed. Her story is dramatically recorded in a video just released by Life Dynamics. In it, this woman under the pseudonym, Kelly, tells her story. Her back is to the camera and her voice is electronically altered to prevent her identification. She worked for “an outside source, hired with a team to go in [to late term abortion clinics] to dissect and procure fetal tissue for high-quality sales.” Read on as Kelly describes her macabre profession. “What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We would screen out the ones we didn't want.
We did not use specimens that had STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] or fetal abnormalities. We only wanted the most perfect specimens that we could give to the researchers.” And the age of these babies? The victims were up to and over 30-weeks gestation. “We were looking for eyes, livers, brains, thymuses [lymphoid tissue], cardiac blood, cord blood, blood from the liver, even blood from the limbs.”
Only an estimated 2% of the late-term aborted babies had abnormalities. “The rest were very healthy. 95% of the time, she was just there to get rid of the baby.” How many of the late-term – the ones around 30 weeks – would you see? “Probably 30 or 40 babies a week.”
Kelly stated, “We would sell the tissue to private contractors. They in turn would sell to other universities and researchers. There was a high demand every week to buy such fetal tissues. It was shipped by UPS, FedEx, Airborne and sometimes by special couriers. Sometimes we would take the specimen in a box to the airport and put it on as regular cargo, to be picked up at the destination.” And did these shipping companies know they were transporting baby parts? “No. All they knew was that it was just human cells. But it could be a completely intact fetus. It might be a batch of eyes, or 30 or 40 livers going out that day, or thymuses.
And the leftover parts? “We would usually put this down the garbage disposal along with the placenta and the leftover blood material. If it was too large to go down the drain, they had a special freezer and when they accumulated 60 or 70 fetuses in one box, it would be picked up for incineration.”
And then the obvious question. Kelly is still working for this company, so why did she come and tell this story to a pro-life group? One day when she was working, “A set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, `Got you some good specimens, twins.' I looked at him and said, `There's something wrong here. They are moving. I don't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this.” But she did go back and dissect them after they were dead. She said, “That's when I decided it was wrong. I did not want to be there when that happened.” And then it happened again and again. “At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, and we had live births come back to us.” And then? “Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.”
Did the abortionist ever alter the procedures to get you the type of specimens you needed that day? Her answer was “Yes, before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The [abortionist] would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating.” She was asked if the type of abortion procedure was intentionally altered to deliver to you an intact specimen, even if that meant giving you a live baby? Her answer was, “Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue, so that our company would make more money. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.”
The Partial-Birth abortion procedure involves inserting seaweed laminaria into the cervix. This swells up, dilating the cervix. In 24 hours, new laminaria are inserted. This produces more swelling and dilatation so that by the third day the baby can be extracted. During the dilatation procedure she is sent to a nearby motel. Sometimes the laminaria would fall out and she would go into labor and deliver the baby. And then? “They would call the nurse, and the nurse would call the doctor who would go to the motel room and pick up the woman and the fetus. That's when they would call us and say, `Okay, we've got a couple of specimens here,' or `We've got one specimen.' We would go [to the clinic] and the specimen [the baby] would be in a bucket, sometimes alive. When we opened the chest cavity the heart would still be beating. Sometimes we could see movement in the bucket. These babies had to come out alive. There's no way for them to be coming out dead. They were all alive. How they killed them is anyone's guess. My guess is that they had to kill them in
the bucket or put them in a corner and let them die slowly.” And that was because the abortionist had seen how strongly you reacted to seeing them killed in front of you? “That's correct. And he did not want to repeat those instances but they kept happening anyway, and that's how I came to call you guys [Life Dynamics].”
Finally, Kelly related how sometimes a woman, halfway through the dilatation procedure, would change her mind and say she did not want the abortion. In such a case they would tell her that it's too late now. “You're going to have the abortion.” Kelly said, “All of the staff would gather around pressuring her to have the abortion. On the second day, they're given an IV sedation, which kind of puts them into what I call a Nyquil nap. They're just basically drowsy, not thinking for themselves and that's basically how they are coerced into continuing the procedure.”
Finally, in the interview, she notes that many of the employees of the clinics were lesbians. When the mother was unconscious these women would discuss her genitalia with degrading remarks and on occasion even take the phone number off of her chart. Then they would “call her weeks down the road and ask her out for a date. It was not uncommon for women or men at the clinic to hit on these women for dates.”
Now We Know Why
Now we know one of the major reasons why the abortion industry is fighting so intensely to prevent a ban on Partial-Birth abortion from being enacted. It's more than not giving any ground on abortion for any reason. It's also because selling fetal parts is a very lucrative part of the abortion business. These mothers pay large sums of money for late-term abortions and the abortionists in turn are given big money for these intact organs. The model specimens have to be: the bigger - the better; the older - the better; the more alive - the better.
The above dialogue is from a video that has been produced by Life Dynamics. If any of our readers would like a free copy of this interview, while quantities last, feel free to contact us and we will send you a copy. Send your request to: Life Issues Institute, 1721 W. Galbraith Rd, Cincinnati, OH 45239. Phone (513) 729-3600. Fax (513) 729-3636.
Human Life Amendment – Realistic or Not?
Is the goal of a federal Human Life Amendment still a realistic expectation of the pro-life movement, or are we to listen to the media, which has consistently stated that all hope is lost? We're being told that the pro-life movement has abandoned the goal of a Human Life Amendment, while being praised by the media for re-evaluating and taking a more realistic stand in terms of our expectations. Paul Weyrich, a leading pro-life conservative, has given up. Others have joined the chorus of those who are pessimistic.
Much is being said of how Republican candidates for president are no longer backing an amendment to ban abortions. If you read the fine print they are not denying their theoretical support for it, but they are saying that it's hopeless, it's not capable of being achieved and that we should content ourselves with lesser steps along the way.
Leslie Stahl, in May on 60 Minutes, sounded the party line of the liberals. She said, “A funny thing is happening these days to the Christian right, and it sounds like a defeat... Twenty years and many political victories later, abortion is still legal, school prayer is still banned, there's more tolerance of sexuality, and even the dreaded National Endowment for the Arts, attacked as purveyor of pornography, has survived.”
Sadly, the two major Democrat candidates for president are solidly pro-abortion and oppose a Human Life Amendment. Still, of all the Republican candidates, only one, Lamar Alexander, has specifically stated that he doesn't support a Human Life Amendment. Bush, Dole and McCain speak of support but push it off into the unforeseeable future. Forbes, Quayle and Kasich would support one with a rape-incest amendment. Only Bauer, Smith and Keyes would hold out for a comprehensive federal amendment with only a life of the mother exception.
To gain a good perspective, let's review a bit of history. The decisions to legalize abortion were in January 1973. Immediately after that, the fledgling pro-life movement brought together attorneys, physicians and others who asked themselves the question, what are we to do? At that stage the judgment was that the court would not reverse itself for perhaps another half-century. The only answer then was an amendment to the Constitution. This was critically studied and debated over the next year. The pro-life movement finally settled on two sets of wording. One did not have an exception for the life of the mother. The other had the wording, “to prevent the death of the mother.” That was the stated specific goal of the movement in 1974.
The rubber met the road when Reagan was elected and it was presumed that there were pro-life majorities in the House and Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee held extensive hearings on versions of a Human Life Amendment. One was a sweeping federal amendment. The other simply reversed Roe vs. Wade (Hatch Amendment) and returned the judgment to the states. The third was the original “Paramount” without a life of the mother exception. After extensive hearings, when the Hatch Amendment finally came to a vote, it failed. The others were not voted on.
Through the 80's it was evident that the pro-life movement did not have enough strength in the Congress to vote out a federal Human Life Amendment, but we were gaining strength on the US Supreme Court. Optimism ran high as Supreme Court Justices were slowly replaced. It peaked with the Casey decision and plummeted when this not only failed to reverse Roe, but also in certain ways reinforced it. It did, of course, allow gradual restrictions, and that part of it was a victory.
Through the 90's, these restrictions have multiplied throughout the states and continue to be attempted at the federal level. These include parental notification and consent, informed consent, waiting periods, clinic regulations and others. The one achievement at the federal level, slowly accomplished during the 80's and largely maintained in the 90's, was the banning of federal funding for abortion.
Attention must be drawn to Bob Dole's rejection of the Republican Party plank in 1996, which called for such an amendment. Many believe his comment that he hadn't read it cost him the election. Minimally, it cost him the votes of millions of crossover Democrats whose major motivation for voting for a Republican president was the abortion issue. When Dole caustically stated that that was not on his agenda, these folks saw no reason to vote other than Democrat and went ahead and elected Clinton.
At first glance, in the presidential election of 2000, we have a near triumph when we consider the Republican candidates. Remember the 3 W's during last presidential election – Wilson, Weld and Whitman? They were strongly pro-abortion Republicans and got nowhere. This time we have no pro-abortion Republicans like them. Even Lamar Alexander, the only one who does not support a Human Life Amendment, nevertheless has spoken in support of literally every one of the steps along the way.
Clearly, if there is a choice of candidates at this time who are truly contenders, the public media has chosen George W. Bush. Let's look at his actual words and those of Elizabeth Dole, the other top Republican contender.
Elizabeth Dole says she supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, but apparently not enough to do anything about it. In late April, she told reporters that the debate over such an amendment was “divisive and irrelevant...the amendment is not going to pass...rather than engage in dead-end debate, let's move forward to get some positive things done for this country.”
The decisions are not all in on George W. Bush. He has certainly worked hard in this session of the Texas legislature for pro-life legislation, particularly parental notification. He has also appointed a solid, dynamic pro-life physician, Reyn Archer, to head the Texas Department of Health. But some of his actions have also gone the other way. As for a Human Life Amendment, he's not quite as pessimistic as Elizabeth Dole above, but nevertheless sounds the same note. When nailed down on the amendment, he was asked, “Does this mean if it were up to you, that all abortions would be constitutionally banned?” “Yes” he said, “except for the life of the mother, rape or incest.” That being said, there are many voices who question how vigorously he would push for this, and, far more important, what his appointments would be like.
It is quite clear that the secular media is trying everything possible to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., that the pro-life movement has abandoned an amendment as impossible. They have also found a few pro-life voices to agree to such a prognosis. Quite to the contrary, however, there is little evidence to confirm this wish of the pro-abortion media. Rather, as we look at the movement, we see two commonalties: 1) Most now agree that we will not get a Human Life Amendment in the next few years. 2) Such an amendment, however, has not been abandoned or rejected but remains the very heart of the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement.
For some, perhaps at this time it remains only a symbol. But even if only that, it is of crucial importance. The Republican platform comes to mind immediately. It would be devastating to the pro-life movement if the Republicans change it and indicate that they will ultimately settle for something less. It would cut the very heart out of the efforts of millions of people who have stood solidly behind this as an ultimate goal. For people who in their hearts are totally convinced that abortion is the killing of an innocent child and that abortion must be stopped, this is an absolute. They will ultimately settle for nothing less.
There is of course another option, and that is a total reversal by the Supreme Court. With the prospect of the possible election of a president in 2000 who will be supportive, this president could replace several Supreme Court Justices. But assuming the Court even reverses Roe, that only returns the situation to status quo ante. That would simply allow the many states, which now have pro-abortion laws, to continue the slaughter. It is possible that the Supreme Court could not merely reverse Roe, but move beyond. It could some day interpret the Constitution as protecting the unborn. In such case, the Supreme Court could do the same job that an amendment would be designed to accomplish. However, this remains but a dream at this time.
Realistically, pro-lifers acquainted with the mood of this country would share a judgment that a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult to obtain. In all pragmatism, one has to understand that it will not happen until a strong, super majority of people in this country support it. Happily, we are slowly moving in that direction and against all odds. However, we are certainly not there yet. The road ahead is very long, but that does not mean that we should take our eyes off our ultimate goal. To those candidates who say that we do not have a chance for an amendment this year, we must ask the following question. “Yes, we understand that, but do you agree that the ultimate goal of this movement is to protect all babies' lives from conception, while at the same time providing generously whatever help these mothers need in that troubled time of their life?”
This is the position of the vast majority of people in the pro-life movement. It should be the policy of the candidates we support. END
LIFE ISSUES TODAY
with Dr. J.C. Willke
Stem Cell Research Backed and Opposed in Polls
Gannett News gave wide publicity to a poll done by the Patient Coalition for Urgent Research. In May, it surveyed 1000 adults by telephone. Those polled were first given a definition of a stem cell. Then they were told these cells could be grown from 1) “excess human embryos” or 2) “fetal tissue donated to research.” Following this was a long list of possible beneficial uses for such cells. In response to this, 69% either strongly or somewhat favored research using stem cells, while 26% were somewhat or strongly opposed.
Now let's look at a second poll also done recently. It was by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The wording of this question was different from the wording above. This poll asked whether people opposed or supported research “in which live human embryos would be destroyed or discarded.” In this poll 74% opposed such use of stem cells.
As we have said time and time again, when judging the results of polls, do not look at the results reported. Rather, first examine the wording of the questions, then decide whether the poll results have legitimacy. Clearly, both polls asked for essentially the same information. The wording of the questions was different. The bishop's poll was more realistic and accurate, and it brought a totally different answer.
Also in May, a presidential advisory commission judged that it was ethical for the government to pay for such controversial research, “as long as the embryos are not created solely for research purposes.” This defies logic. These either are or are not living human embryos. Their lives are either respected or they are directly killed in this procedure. Why does it make a difference whether they were created for this specific purpose or whether they were created for some other purpose before they were killed? The point is they are being killed, and the pro-life movement objects to killing innocent human embryos.
It is recalled that a major justification for Nazi doctors experimenting on humans sounded strangely similar. It went like this. “Well, these Jews (or Gypsies etc.) are going to be killed anyway, so we might as well make use of these human bodies rather than let them go to waste.” And so, certain Nazi doctors collected brains, made lampshades out of skin and did many experiments on their victims, both before as well as after killing them. This was all in the name of what they called science. After all, the end result was to be the betterment of mankind.
The Nuremberg trials considered these arguments put forth as justification for what the Nazi doctors did. The judges totally rejected such, and some of the doctors who did these experiments were hanged. Enough said.
Since everything today coming out of Washington seems to be predicated on the most recent poll on the subject, it's good to look at wordings of other questions, to emphasize the fact that we should not accept, out of hand, the headline trumpeting the results of a specific poll. As our readers know, the wording of the question leads the answer. But, let's look at the results of a few polling questions to reemphasize this fact.
Apropos the question above on stem cells, let's look at another example of two questions asked of the same people in the same poll. Here are the questions.
In general do you think a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion? Yes – 67% No – 29%
In general do you think the lives of unborn babies should be protected? Yes – 79% No – 19%
Clearly, this was the same question, but worded differently. The difference in wording completely reversed the answers. It might be noted that 37% of the respondents said yes to both questions.
Let's look at another poll, again asked of the same people in the same poll.
Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment which would guarantee a woman's right to have an abortion? Favor – 53% Oppose – 41% Don't Know – 6%
Now let's go down and ask the second one.
Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment which would guarantee a woman's right to make a choice to have an abortion? Favor – 63% Oppose – 32% Don't Know – 3%
Notice the very slight difference in wording. The second question used the identical wording, except that it added “to make a choice” to the wording. But this addition added 10% to the approval and subtracted 9% from disapproval.
So let's repeat. Never swallow what the headline reports or the network tells you. First examine the wording of the question. Only then render your judgment. END
STATES EXCHANGE
Effective Tools to Counter Partial-Birth Abortion
Have you found yourself looking for effective visual tools to help educate others about Partial-Birth abortion? If so, you will be pleased to know that some effective new tools exist.
Heather's Place, a pro-life educational entity, was started by Dr. Tony Levatino and his wife Ceil. Dr. Levatino used to perform abortions, but is now a pro-life physician. They commissioned five very detailed and lifelike illustrations depicting the Partial-Birth abortion procedure. These color pictures are available on a 14” x 20” laminated flip chart. It includes an instructional book describing the procedure as well as a corresponding set of slides. The chart is designed for small discussion groups, while the slide set is effective for larger audiences. The cost is $49.95 plus $6.95 for shipping and handling.
Pro-life congressmen Henry Hyde and Charles Canady have used the chart on the House floor during debate. Senator Rick Santorum has used it on the Senate floor. Several State Attorney Generals have used the pictures in court.
In addition, 8 _” x 3 _” color leaflets are available that depict the illustrations and a brief description of each. There is also a black-and white-postcard showing the pictured illustration – great for educating elected officials and others.
The best quantity price for either the leaflet or postcard is 20 cents each plus shipping, depending upon the number ordered. 100% of the proceeds from these educational materials goes to Crisis Pregnancy Centers by way of annual grants. For more information contact: Heather's Place, 67 Capitol Place, Rensselaer, NY 12144. Phone (518) 449-4828.
“Campaign Reform” Suppresses Free Speech
It seems increasingly obvious that the so-called “campaign reform” bills before the US Congress are squarely aimed at cutting the pro-life movement off at the knees. The Shays-Meehan bill (HR419) will effectively suppress most of the activities of the pro-life movement that have made it an influence in the United States.
To understand the basic mechanism of the damage that will be done by this bill, we must understand the difference between issue advocacy and express advocacy. Issue advocacy is commonly known as lobbying. The pro-life movement is a perfect example of issue advocacy. Our issue is the ultimate protection of the unborn child. Anything that we do in speech or in print that promotes this ultimate goal is issue advocacy. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and hence guarantees every citizen the right to discuss such issues.
Express Advocacy has been clearly defined on many occasions by the US Supreme Court in cases such as: FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life 1986 and Buckley v. Valeo 1976. The Court has stated that it extends only to communications “containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as....vote for, elect, support, cast your ballot for, Smith for Congress, Vote Against, defeat, reject.” The Supreme Court calls express advocacy a “bright line.” It has stated that it cannot be removed or changed by an act of congress, because it is basically rooted in the First Amendment itself.
Let's take two candidates. One favors a ban on Partial-Birth abortion, the other opposes. If a particular pro-life group publicizes the fact that the one candidate opposes such a ban, this can influence some people's votes for or against this candidate. The Federal Election Commission's argument has been that such an effort would be express advocacy. The Supreme Court, however, has repeatedly struck this kind of reasoning down, ruling that such candidate-specific issue advocacy enjoys the highest degree of First Amendment protection. The court has specifically rejected the idea that such a communication should be evaluated on a third party's judgment regarding the motivation or intent of the communication, or on the basis of somebody's judgment about how the message was understood by some who receive it. Nevertheless, such reasoning permeates the Shays-Meehan bill.
Using such subjective judgment, relating to the “intent” of some communication, this bill would generally prohibit pro-life groups from paying for communications to the public at any time of the year when a federal regulator might judge it to be “for the purpose of influencing a federal election.”
A pro-life group typically will publish, prior to an election in its newsletter, the results of candidate surveys. These typically involve a listing of candidates, their voting records and a series of questions which candidates answer. Such newsletters are not considered by the Supreme Court to be express advocacy. Shays-Meehan, if adopted and enforced, would completely wipe out a pro-life group's ability to publish such records of political candidates.
The Supreme Court has said, “So long as persons and groups avoid expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.” Under Shays-Meehan, however, they are not free to do this. In fact, a typical pro-life group may not pay for an ad that even mentions the candidate's name on the radio or TV for sixty days before a primary or a general election.
But for sixty days? Actually, it extends through any time of the year. Such a publication dealing with voting records or positions of candidates would be an illegal corporate campaign expenditure at any time of the year, unless a complex of interlocking conditions would be met – conditions simply impossible for the overwhelming majority of pro-life groups to meet.
Political Action Committees would still be allowed some latitude, but the Supreme Court has enumerated at length the very substantial limitations and burdens that apply to raising and spending political action committee funds under the Federal Election Campaign Act. PAC restrictions on fundraising and expenditures would be tightened still further. The effect on PAC's would sharply reduce any type of commentary by them on candidates. Issue Advocacy, e.g. campaigning for a Partial-Birth abortion ban, would be literally impossible under Shays-Meehan, even if no candidate's name would be mentioned. The reason is the bill says that “anything of value, provided by a person...for the purpose of influencing a federal election...is express advocacy.” Therefore, merely taking out an ad discussing partial-birth abortion could be construed by the pro-abortion candidate to be of value to the pro-life candidate and hence a violation of federal law.
Shays-Meehan sharply forbids “coordination with a candidate.” If a pro-life group called a senatorial candidate within sixty days of election to ask him when his birthday was, that would be a violation of federal law, because it would be communication with the candidate and that is forbidden by Shays-Meehan.
A section of this bill would also force Right to Life groups to forfeit their right to freely associate with legitimate providers of services if the candidate also was using the provider. This would include: professional services, polling, media advice, fundraising, campaign research, direct mail, etc., even though there was no connection between the candidate's use and the pro-life group's use of such a provider.
Summary
Shays-Meehan would obliterate the distinction between issue advocacy and express advocacy. It would effectively nullify the rights of pro-life groups to communicate to the public any information about candidates' activities, statements and votes. The people who are still allowed to publicize such actions would be political parties and candidates, the sharply limited and regulated PAC's and all of the liberal media. It wouldn't just handicap the pro-life movement. It would go a long way toward completely destroying any influence that our groups have in the public arena. Clearly, the pro-life movement is squarely in its crosshairs. END
