Feminists Exclude Truth From Anti-Ban Arguments

Where are the feminists? They are off claiming to stand for women’s health and bemoaning the recently upheld Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Somehow they gloss over all the severe consequences partial-birth abortion can have for women.

This week the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. While heralded by many as a landmark decision, the victory was in fact a hollow one for pro-life advocates but still enough leverage to send pro-abortionists into a frenzy.

Passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act holds physicians criminally responsible if they intentionally kill a human fetus through the partial-birth procedure. Providers can be sentenced for up to two years in jail.

The procedure involves pulling the baby half-way through the birth canal before stabbing it in the back of his head and vacuuming out the brain so as to collapse the skull and fully birth the dead baby.

Immediately after the passage of the act, four abortionist physicians filed a complaint in Nebraska challenging the constitutionality of the act and sought to prevent its enforcement. Planned Parenthood filed similar complaints.

The Supreme Court heard the case last November and released their decision on Wednesday to uphold the ban.

Justices Thomas and Scalia went a step further to note their opinion that abortion is not a right to be included in or protected by the Constitution. Not surprisingly, Justice Ginsberg dissented, decrying the “state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices.”

Indeed the ban does limit women’s reproductive choices in that a physician cannot legally partially deliver her baby and then vacuum out its brains. The Supreme Court upheld this decision only because it believed this method to be so obviously barbaric and unnecessary because of the many other methods available to dispose of unborn children.

Children will not be saved through this ban; they will simply be aborted through purportedly more “humane” methods.

Doctors can still vacuum fetuses from their mother’s womb, inject them with chemicals to poison them, and give their mothers pills to induce early labor. These are deemed less barbaric and more acceptable to some.

As noted by pro-life advocate and commentator Bay Buchanan, “It is excellent news that this practice, which is nothing short of infanticide, has been outlawed in this nation. It is also good news that the Supreme Court is looking at the travesty of what we call Roe v. Wade and beginning to examine the legal and moral implications of it. However, this does not save the lives of any unborn children but it is a helpful first step.”

It should be noted that partial-birth abortions are not synonymous with late-term abortions. The Act does not specify a trimester or week after which a baby cannot be aborted. Late-term abortions, right up until the mother goes into labor and delivers her baby, are still legal through other means.

Women can still abort their babies at any time. Yet feminist organizations are outraged at this one restriction. Feminist Majority says the decision “fundamentally undermines women’s health protection” and that the Supreme Court “does not care about the health, well-being, and safety of American women.”

NOW calls the ban the “most political decision since Bush v. Gore” and “a clarion call for feminists, progressives and everyone who cares about justice, equality and democracy” and women’s health.

NARAL laments that the Court “could further undermine protections for women’s health.”

Appropriately, the act goes into credible detail on this: “The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.”

Indeed this procedure itself is not necessary, because other procedures will achieve the same result: an empty womb and a dead baby.

As for women’s health, these same feminist groups should also take into consideration the proven risks for women who do have the procedure. The evidence reviewed by Congress in 2003 shows that partial-birth abortion has severe risks for women. As listed in the act, these risks include “cervical incompetence…making it difficult or impossible for a woman to successfully carry a subsequent pregnancy to term; an increased risk of uterine rupture…; and a risk of lacerations and secondary hemorrhaging due to the doctor blindly forcing a sharp instrument into the base of the unborn child’s skull…, an act which could result in severe bleeding, brings with it the threat of shock, and could ultimately result in maternal death.”

Where are those feminists and pro-abortionists who shout so loudly about women’s health? Why are they not citing these risks? The procedure itself is more likely to cause health problems than prevent them.

At least in this, there is victory in the Court’s decision. Despite feminists’ fuss, women are actually healthier for not having partial-birth abortions readily available. America’s babies, however, will still suffer.