NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

At a loss, pro-abortionists pretend not to understand what is banned under the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

by | Mar 26, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

dismembermentabortion32reWhen we wrote our Kansas story yesterday, the House had just passed the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act on a voice vote.

Later on Wednesday there was a formal vote on SB 95, and it carried the day 98-26.

Having already passed the Senate 31-9, the bill awaits only the signature of pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback to become law.

Oklahoma could become the second state to pass the bill within a week.

What would you expect pro-abortionists in Kansas to say? Not that ripping tiny legs off of little torsos is okay—that would mean having to talk about what actually happens in a D&E Dismemberment abortion and that is verboten—yesterday, today, and forever.

Instead what you read is a combination of that hazy, gauzy language they love and the pretense that, gosh, they cannot figure out what those anti-choice people are talking about.

For example, “We’ve never seen this language before,” Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues associate for the Guttmacher Institute, told the AP’s Brad Cooper. “It’s not medical language, so it’s a little bit difficult to figure out what the language would do.”

Actually it’s not all at difficult to figure out what abortionists cannot do. Under the bill, abortions are banned that “dismember” a living unborn child…one piece at a time…through the use of clamps, grasping forceps, tongs, scissors or similar instruments.

What else? The standard pro-abortion talking point. Words like “sensational” and “graphic” are tossed out as somehow that in and of itself discredits what supporters of the ban are saying.

Or, as Caitlin Borgmann, former state strategies coordinator for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told Cooper, “It’s meant to try to create an inflammatory description that people are going to read and then support the bill because their instinct is that this sounds terrible.”

Let’s ask ourselves, which characterization corresponds more closely to reality?

In a dismemberment abortion, the body of the current resident of the womb is literally (not figuratively) dismembered, limb-by-limb.

Don’t want to take my word for it? Here’s Supreme Court Justice Antony Kennedy, quoting from the testimony of abortionist LeRoy Carhart:

“As described by Dr. Carhart, the D&E procedure requires the abortionist to use instruments to grasp a portion (such as a foot or hand) of a developed and living fetus and drag the grasped portion out of the uterus into the vagina. Dr. Carhart uses the traction created by the opening between the uterus and vagina to dismember the fetus, tearing the grasped portion away from the remainder of the body…. [until the unborn baby] bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb… In Dr. Carhart’s words, the abortionist is left with ‘a tray full of pieces.’”

We call that “brutal.”

How do pro-abortionists describe what happens?

To Tara Culp-Ressler, a dismemberment abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”

That’s right, “fetal and placental tissue.”

To return to Borgmann’s lament, “It’s meant to try to create an inflammatory description that people are going to read and then support the bill because their instinct is that this sounds terrible.”

No, it isn’t. The language of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act simply tells it like it is—in all its surrealistic brutality–not the way pro-abortionists would like it disguised.

Categories: Legislation