Home-Index NewsPhoto Gallery | Links | Pathlights Main

June 2004


 It is an insult to the Creator, when America is willing to ban partial-birth abortions while permitting all the millions of other abortions to remain legal.

(As mentioned in a previous study several years ago, the reason why the abortion industry did not want to lose partial-birth abortions was because they obtained the babies intact. This way they could more easily remove all their organs and sell them at high prices. Even the spinal fluid is extracted and sold.)

The latest news concerns one of three lawsuits that is being conducted as I write these words in April, in an effort to abolish that new law. Here is the story:

As soon as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban went into effect as a U.S. federal law in November 2003, the national Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and others filed suits challenging the measure.

At this time, judges in New York, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska are hearing evidence in juryless trials before deciding whether the ban violates the Constitution.

The liberals and the abortionists refuse to call it "partial-birth abortion," although that is exactly what it is. Instead, they cover it over with these mysterious words, designed to confuse the mind: "intact dilation and extraction" or "D&X."

A full-term baby is manually turned inside and partially delivered from the womb, feet first. Then, while the head is still just inside the woman's body (so it can legally be said that the baby has not been delivered yet), a pair of sharp surgical scissors is inserted through the back of the child's neck, into its brain. The infant kicks and then becomes limp. The dead baby is then removed. More money in the pocket of men who, if they do not repent, will later burn in hellfire.

Judge Richard C. Casey is the trial judge of the case in New York. He has repeatedly swept aside scientific-soundingjargon; and, in response to his insistent questioning, he has revealed some of the abortionists' techniques and ways of evading the truth, when they talk women into getting abortions.

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) made this comment about the information Casey is forcing the abortionists to disclose in his courtroom:

"The testimony of these abortion providers unlocks the door to a secret world of torturous death that includes dismemberment and decapitation of unborn children whose lives are taken by partial-birth abortion. The testimony of the abortion providers is not only revealing gruesome details about a procedure that amounts to infanticide but is setting the stage for the Department of Justice to prove that this procedure is never medically necessary."

On March 31, in Judge Casey's court, an anonymous abortionist testified about what he observed during a partial-birth abortion, revealing a new method for killing the almost-born infant: Smash its skull.

"What they did, they delivered the fetus intact until the head was lodged in the cervix, the doctor said. Then they reached up and crushed it. They used forceps to crush the skull."

Judge Casey: "Like a cracker that they use to crack a lobster shell?"

"Like an end of tongs you use to pick up a salad, except they are thick enough and heavy enough to crush the skull," replied the doctor.

Judge Casey questioned: "Except in this case you are not picking up a salad; you are crushing a baby's skull."

The judge then asked, "The fetus is still alive at this point [just before the crushing]?"

Reply: "Yes, sir."

Question: "The fingers of the baby opened and closed?"

Reply: "I did not observe the hands when I observed the procedure."

Question: "Were the feet moving?" Reply: "Yes, sir, until the skull was crushed."

Judge Casey asked Timothy Johnson, of the University of Michigan, whether doctors tell women that partial-birth abortion includes "sucking the brain out of the skull."

Reply: "I don't think we would use those terms. I think we would probably use a term like 'decompression of the skull' or 'reducing the contents of the skull.'"

Judge: "Make it nice and palatable, so that they wouldn't understand what it's all about?"

Reply: "Yes."

On April 5, Judge Casey asked this of a witness (a woman abortionist) supplied by the National Abortion Federation: "Do you use simple English words, so they know what they are doing and authorizing?"

Reply: "Yes" (a lie, shown by what follows).

Question: "Do you discuss the killing of the fetus?"

Reply: I tell them that when I cut the umbilical cord of the fetus, the fetus exsanguinates."

Judge: "Exsanguin-what?"

Reply: "In laymans terms, it would be drained of blood."

Question: "Do you tell them that?"

Reply: "No."

Question: "Do you tell the mother the fetus will feel pain?"

Angry snapping reply: "I have never talked to a fetus."

Judge: "I did not ask you that. Do you ever tell the mother?"

At this point, the woman became extremely angry and raised her voice. "That is what I tell my patients, I'm sorry! . . I do not believe the fetus feels pain, so I do not tell them that."

The judge asked if she ever bothered to read the literature on fetal pain; she admitted that she had not.

In the San Francisco trial, the judge is permitting the abortion lawyers to use mysterious words; the judge himself uses them.

("The fetal calvarium [skull] is separated from the fetal body."

"The body is disarticulated [cut into pieces]."

With but one exception (a Lancaster, PA, newspaper), the usual public media is totally silent about these trials.

If two judges render different rulings- which is extremely likely-the matter will come before the U.S. Supreme Court for a final verdict. --vf