file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0316.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 16 July, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve or the assistant editor Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) "Butcher of New York" faces 29 years Dr. Abu Hyat, the Manhattan abortionist who severed the arm of a baby girl later born alive, was sentenced on June 14th. Facing up to 29 years in prison, Hayat is reportedly the first physician in the United States to be jailed for an illegal third-trimester abortion since the infamous 1973 _Roe v. Wade_ decision. The 63-year-old Hayat was convicted of having knowingly performed an abortion on Rosa Rodrigues in October, 1991. Fortunately for the 7-8 month old in her womb, baby Ana Rosa Rodriguez was born the next day, having lost one arm at the shoulder to Hayat's botched abortion. Hayat was also convicted of assault on a woman who, in the middle of the abortion, he stopped to demand an additional $500. When the woman's husband couldn't come up with the additional money, she was sent home semi-conscious and still bleeding. It should be noted that if the current versions of the Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA] H.25 were federal law, the little-enforced New-York state law prohibiting the abortion of a viable fetus (except to save the life of the mother) would have have been overturned, and Hayat would have gotten away with his misdeeds. Sponsor's of H.25 have admitted that although the bill's language seems to allow the states to limit abortion after "viability," this determination would be left up to the individual abortionists. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Editorial: Paternal Rights and The Magic of Birth Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a long-time abortion advocate on the bench, stated that the Michigan high court acted correctly in taking an adopted child "Baby Jessica" away from her adoptive parents (the DeBoers) and giving her back to her birth parents (the Schmidt's). The Michigan High Court was agreeing with the Iowa High Court, the state where "Baby Jessica" was born. The case may still be appealed to the Supreme Court, and evidently Supreme Court Justice Blackmun has referred the case to the full court. In the midst of this sad case, the Iowa court was supported by the Michigan and Steven's decisions. The Iowa decision to return Jessica to her birth parents was strongly supported by the fact that _the rights of the natural father had not been terminated_ by the original adoption agreement -- therefore the DeBoers could not permanently adopt the child. I find this particularly odd, when, in the view of Justice Stevens, a longtime _Roe_ supporter, Baby Jessica could have been killed by her mother Cara before she was born, and, had that occurred or even been contemplated, Jessica's father (Daniel) would be permitted absolutely no say in the matter. After all, even requiring a woman to _inform_ the father (when the couple is married) is too onerous a burden to place on a woman's right to kill her unborn child. But, if the child is born, then the Father does have a say in the matter -- and in cases like this, and the father's rights can help convince two state supreme courts that the Schmidt's birth-child is rightfully theirs. Birth is truly a magical moment - one moment, a small human has no rights, and is not a person - a _something_ to whom one may not have paternal rights. The next moment *poof!* -- those rights exist. One moment, the mother has complete and uncontestable say in the life (or death) of the unique human being within her, and the next moment *poof!* she has paternal rights to deal with, or in this case, rely on. One minute, no person, the next minute *poof!* a person. I guess the denial of fetal personhood is just another of those magical semantic gymnastics necessary to justify abortion. After all, the very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. - Steve Frezza ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) A Grotesque, Obscene Exploitation of Human Life by the Most Rev. Charles V. Grahmann, Bishop of Dallas In the May 1993 issue of _YOU_, a magazine for youth, there was a story entitled "Insanity". It seems that in Sept. 1992 there was a National Abortion Federation meeting in Dallas. The media here obviously didn't cover the meeting. Perhaps it was excluded because of the nature of the content discussed. Abortionist Martin Haskell of Cincinnati presented a paper detailing the new "D&X" (Dilation and Extraction) procedure for late second to mid-third trimester abortions. In contrast to the standard "D&E" (dilation and evacuation) procedure late-term abortions - in which the unborn child is chemically "softened" with an urea solution and then dismembered in the uterus - through the D&X method, the child is removed "nearly intact," Dr. Haskell reported. After guiding the living, viable child, feet first through the birth canal, the abortionist kills the child by jamming a pair of scissors into its skull and suctioning the brain matter out. Dr. Haskell described this clinical detail: "The surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand," he explained in his paper. "He carefully advances the tip curve down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the child's skull under the tip of his middle finger. The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the brain. He spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull's contents." While Dr. Haskell performs this "procedure" only up to 26 weeks, (6 months) he reported that James McMahon of the McMahon Medical Center and Eve Surgical Centers in Los Angeles has used D&X technique to kill children up to 32 weeks (eight months) "or more". By developing their crude "technique" now, abortionists can say that suctioning brain matter out of living unborn children in the sixth or eighth month is simply standard operation procedure. And wouldn't it be a crime to let all that nice fetal brain tissue go to waste? Which brings up an even more interesting and disgusting project: Will women soon be selling their unborn children's body parts to make thousands of dollars? All of this is called "fetal harvesting". This brain suctioning technique is being deliberately hidden from the public. If ordinary Americans knew just what is being done in the name of fetal research, they would be as outraged as they were by Nazi medical experiments - or by the experiments in the 1970's in which doctors cut the heads of third trimester babies and attempted to keep these heads alive artificially. Or, would ordinary Americans even bother? President Clinton signed the executive order allowing this "fetal research". The American government began its descent into a grotesque and obscene exploitation of human life in the name of medical research unlike the world has known since the barbarism of Hitler's Germany. [ It is useful to note that to date, there are no documented cures from any form of fetal tissue harvesting. Despite this fact, _Newsweek_ still ran the Feb. 22nd cover story "Cures from the Womb." -Ed.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) A Village Voice of Moral Outrage Nat Hentoff, a syndicated columnist for the _Village Voice_, shares a couple of things with Becky Mattson and Bishop Grahmann: he has also read the blithe National Abortion Federation descriptions of D&X, and is also outraged. In his column he mentioned: Dr. James MacMahon of Los Angeles --one of the relatively few physicians who, so far, performs D&X-- told the _American Medical News_: "If I see a case...after 20 weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. ...On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: `Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother." I reminded Jesse Jackson, a while ago, that when he was a spellbinding pro-lifer, he used to liken the claim of ownership of the unborn child to the slave-owning plantation owner who said he could do anything he liked with his property. Jackson did not deny having said that, but, looking uncomfortable, he said nothing more to me. Hentoff comments that anti-abortion activists have seized the D&X procedure --used for second and third-trimester abortions-- to fight FOCA. (Apparently, our letters and phone calls are reaching Congress!) FOCA would allow abortions only up until viability, except that viability would be determined by _the abortionist_. Abortion supporters comment that there are few late abortions; Hentoff quoted a 1988 figures indicating that there were almost 168,000 late-term abortions. Hentoff continues to balk at the defense given for D&X: Barbara Radford, executive director of the National Abortion Federation, says that there is no need to apologize for D&X. It's legal. And "there are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." An another reason _not_ to apologize is that the target of the Metzenbaum scissors is --according to a majority of the Supreme Court-- not yet a `person,' not yet human enough to be protected by the Constitution. After all, as Richard John Neuhaus reminds us: "We need never fear the charge of crimes against humanity so long as we hold the power to define who does and who does not belong to `humanity.'" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) The Right to Write: Part Two Reader Becky Mattson finds the issues of D&X and fetal tissue research sufficiently troubling that she is sending out letters to major television news shows. She urges other concerned readers to also exercise their "Right to Write," and offers her letter (a short version of which follows) as a guide. However, keep in mind that politicians and media folks love to ignore form letters; letter have much greater impact if you can state your concerns in your own words. (Some hints: state your position clearly near the beginning, and be polite.) I would like to bring an issue to your attention, that is horrible and grotesque, and is also being deliberately hidden from the public. That is, Fetal Research or Fetal Harvesting. If ordinary Americans knew just what is being done in the name of research, they would be as outraged as they were by Nazi medical experiments. Why is it that only one side of fetal research is being told to the public? Why is it that, the American public is not being told the "whole story"? Could it be, that if John Q. Citizen knew all the facts of this horrendous crime, certain doctors and clinics would be put out of business? Doesn't the bottom line come down to one thing and one thing only: that someone is making BIG BUCKS from this Nazi-like experimentation? I would like to submit to you, the enclosed article taken from a publication called "The Texas Catholic". "Texas Catholic" is published biweekly by the Most Rev. Charles V. Grahmann, Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas, 3725 Blackburn, PO Box 190347, Dallas, Texas 75219. Phone 214-528-8792. I feel quite certain, that you will be as horrified as I was when I read this. And I sincerely hope that your show, has the moral fortitude and responsibility to investigate this matter, and inform your public the true nature of this crime. Sincerely, - Becky Mattson For a list of media addresses, contact the Editor [Ask for "MediaAddresses"] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Reader Comments Fetal Killing Results in Murder Charges [v3n15]: This only serves to point out the most distressing thing about the two-faced nature of society. On the one hand, if the pregnancy is wanted, then people speak of the "baby"; if it is not wanted, the humanity of the fetus is diminished - Thus the sick irony that someone could be accused of murder when she didn't have the opportunity to exercise her right to abort. Hence also the hypocrisy of the Media, especially our campus paper _The Pitt News_, who in one editorial talks about how horrible it is that babies can be born addicted to crack, emphasising how the babies were harmed in the womb by their mothers' addiction, yet then demand a woman's right to abortion, which of course represents the all-out killing of the baby. Of course, my letter pointing out this double-standard didn't get printed. I think society has to really be challenged on this point -- why is it when a pregnancy is "wanted", and someone decides that they want the baby, that the humanity of the fetus is emphasized, and anything that could happen in the womb that could harm that fetus is just terrible - yet when someone makes the judgement that they don't want the child, can't go through with the pregnancy, or whatever, the humanity of the fetus is neglected and it becomes simply a matter of the right to "choose," and have control over one's own body?? (of course the fact that in an abortion you are exercising control over TWO bodies is conveniently neglected). - Mike VanAuker -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Clinton's Surgeon General Nominee [v3n15] "60% of American children are `unplanned and unwanted'" - Dr. Joyce Elders These comments are possibly the most offensive things I've read in my life. Since I currently have 2 kids (#3 may be on the way, we're not sure yet), does this mean that I didn't want half my family? Which one(s) didn't I want? My 5 year old daughter? My 1 year old son? And since she knows so much about us which of my 2 kids weren't planned? To be sure, our 3rd may not have had the planning that our first 2 did but s/he is definitely WANTED and LOVED! This is outrageous! God forgive us and our country. Our elected leadership has abandoned all decency with this nomination. Please excuse the tone - I find this quite upsetting and infuriating!!!! - Steven Klepzig [proud father of 2 (3) and former pre-born] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) On-Line Resource Update The On-Line resources are now contained in an ftp archive, so persons interested may scan and collect backissues and papers at their leisure. To access the archive directories, use anonymous ftp to connect to and to . All backissues for volume 1(1991), volume 2(1992), and some of the backissues for volume 3(1993) of _Life Communications_ (AKA the _ProLife News_) are contained in the corresponding subdirectories , , . All special-topic papers are contained in the subdirectory . For those with access to AFS, the directory can be reached at . All files are stored in compressed (.Z) format, and each subdirectory has an non-compressed file that describes the contents of the files included in the directory. The old system of requesting papers and backissues from the editor (via email) is still available to those without access to (or would rather not use) ftp. Simply mail your request to the editor, and include the issue numbers or paper titles that you are interested in (short titles preferred). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old [life] ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death." - from an editorial in _California Medicine_ calling physicians and the medical profession to embrace ethical values based on the relative quality of life. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - From an EP article reported in the _Spiritual Intervention Journal_, | | July 1993, v4 n2. Many thanks to reader Mark Shelby. "Life Action | | Advocates" publishes the _SIJ_, and can be contacted at 3232 SW 35th | | Boulevard, Suite 324 Gainsville, FL 32608 Annual dues are $20. | | 3 - From the _Texas Catholic_, 2 July, 1993 Vol.41 No.26, p.2. The _Texas | | Catholic_ is published bi-weekly by the Most Rev. Charles V. Grahmann, | | Bishop of the Diocese of Dallas, 3725 Blackburn, PO Box 190347, | | Dallas, Texas 75219. 214-528-8792 Many thanks to reader Becky Mattson | | The editorial observation on the cure-rates from fetal tissue research | | was quoted from the July letter of Dr. James Dobson of _Focus on the | | Family_, Colorado Springs, CO 80995 | | 4 - Nat Hentoff's editorial "It's Just Too Late: Third-trimester Abortions | | Are an Outrage and an Insult to the Human Race" appeared in the | | _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_ on 27 July, 1993. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.