much longer will Americans be able to say that they live in a civil society? Not
long, if our Congress allows abortionists to deliver a live baby, and then simply set it
in a corner and let it die. This is NOT an exaggeration--this is happening today,
and it's time for Congress to act and make such "medical procedures"
World Net Daily
Monday, September 25, 2000
by Jane Chastain
"Live-birth abortion" is an oxymoron if ever there
was one, but in the state of Illinois and elsewhere, it's an oxymoron that has tied some
of the best legal minds in knots. Back in July, it was an issue that had some of the most
radical abortion supporters on the United States House of Representatives Judicial
Committee running for the tall grass. This week, when a bill designed to address this
sensitive subject comes up on the House floor, there may be a record number of "no
shows" for the recorded vote.
The complication most feared by late-term abortionists always
has been a living, breathing child. The partial-birth abortion was an attempt to solve the
problem of the premature infants, marked for death, who just wouldn't die from lethal
injections into the womb or from very rough rides through the birth canal brought about by
the various methods used to induce labor.
The live-birth abortion is the result of the aversion to [the
partial birth abortion] procedure by medical professionals, members of Congress and the
general public. It is much safer for mothers who don't wish to be mothers, and much tidier
for all concerned. The abortionist simply induces labor to interrupt the pregnancy and, if
the premature infant survives, she is wrapped in a towel unceremoniously and transported
to some isolated spot and left, until she does what any unattended child would do, she
dies. With this method, the abortionist takes no direct action to kill the baby. He and
his attending staff simply ignore the child.
Is a child who survives an abortion not entitled to the
treatment afforded any other infant? If a mother delivers prematurely and then kills her
child she can be prosecuted for murder. If a mother delivers an infant, prematurely or
not, and abandons her baby, she can be prosecuted for child endangerment. How is it that
these abortionists are able to just walk away? Why are the hospitals, where these children
are delivered and left to die, not culpable?
Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who chairs the House Judiciary
Constitutional Subcommittee, introduced the bill that is coming up for a vote this week in
order to spell out the obvious. The "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" (H.R.
4292) would establish, for federal law purposes, that an infant is "born alive"
if he or she has undergone "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother ... at
any stage of development," and displays heartbeat, respiration, or movements of
voluntary muscles. Also, the bill would establish that the legal term "person,"
and all equivalent terms, "shall include every infant member of the species homo
sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development."
The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League
attacked Canady's reasonable bill. During his hearing on H.R. 4292, NARAL distributed a
press release calling the legislation an "anti-choice" assault on the Supreme
Court decision, Roe v. Wade. The release states, "The Act would effectively grant
legal personhood to a pre-viable fetus -- in direct conflict with Roe."
On July 20, Allison Baker, a former employee in the Labor and
Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., a suburb of Chicago, testified
that she personally witnessed three babies who had been born alive during such abortions.
On the first occasion, Ms. Baker said, "I happened to walk into a 'soiled utility
room' and saw, lying on a medical counter, a (22-week) fetus, naked, exposed and
breathing, moving its arms and legs. The fetus (she was cautious and used the medical term
for a pre-born child) was visibly alive, and gasping for breath. ... I did wrap the fetus
and place him in a warmer and for two-and-half hours he maintained a heartbeat, and then
Jill Stanek, who is still employed at Christ Hospital, told
the panel, "It is not uncommon for one of these live aborted babies to linger for an
hour or two or even longer. ... One of them once lived for almost eight hours." She
said that one night she personally rocked a 21 to 22 week infant to keep him from dying
alone in the soiled utility room.
Ms. Stanek related stories she had been told by other nurses.
One was haunted by the memory of attending one of these procedures where the baby
"came out weighing much more than expected, almost two pounds." Another
"told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the soiled
utility room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the
garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell
out of the towel and onto the floor."
Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan recently asked the Illinois
Department of Public Health to investigate the hospital. However, on Dec. 6, the IDPH
issued a report stating that it found no "violation of the Hospital Licensing Act or
the Vital Records Act." The IDPH report asserts that "no other allegations or
medical evidence to support any statutory violation were referred to our office by the
Department for prosecution." Interestingly, the website of the Illinois Attorney
General contains a place for visitors to report violations of the "Abused and
Neglected Child Reporting Act."
I know that you probably find the above to be horrific, but for
people who need to "feel OK" about their desire to kill their infant, Princeton
University has a department ready and willing to convince people that killing infants is bioethically
If you know who Peter Singer is, then you might like to bookmark
some of the sources compiled below for future reference, under the heading of "baby
murderers" or perhaps "genocidal maniacs."
For those of you who do not know of Peter Singer, here is an excerpt from a biography:
Dr. Peter Singer has been appointed to the Ira. W. DeCamp
Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values. He has special interests
in animal rights and social philosophy. Dr. Singer's appointment begin July 1, 1999.
Dr. Singer is a 1967 graduate of the University of Melbourne,
he received his BPhil at Oxford in 1971 and remained there as lecturer for two years. He
was a visiting assistant professor at New York University in 1975-76 and spent a year as
senior lecturer as La Trobe University in Australia before becoming professor at Monash
University, where he was the first director of the Center for Human Bioethics for eight
years and now is deputy director. A DeCamp Lecturer at Princeton in 1992, Singer has been
a visiting professor at the universities of British Columbia; Colorado; California,
Irvine; Rome; and Canterbury. In 1992 he was elected Foundation President of the
International Association of Bioethics.
Coeditor of Bioethics since 1985, Singer has published many
articles and more than two dozen books, including Democracy and Disobedience (1973, 1994),
Animal Liberation (1975, 1991 published in nine languages), Practical Ethics (1979), The
Reproduction Revolution, Should the Baby Live? and Rethinking Life and Death (1995). He
also wrote a major article on ethics in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica
. -Source: Princeton Weekly Bulletin June 8, 1998.
FUROR FOLLOWS PRINCETON PHILOSOPHER
By James Bandler, Boston Globe Correspondent, 07/27/99
Some called him "Professor Death" and "Baby
Killer." The Wall Street Journal has called him a symbol of all that's wrong in
colleges and universities. Even academic admirers find some of his views beyond the pale.
Singer's defenders say the tumult has obscured the work of a
man who has written widely on a host of thorny social questions, including medical ethics,
overseas aid, civil disobedience, treatment of refugees, and the status of animals.
His 1975 book, "Animal Liberation," which compared
treatment of animals with slavery, launched the animal-rights movement; it has sold
400,000 copies in nine languages and has turned tens of thousands of people into
vegetarians while inspiring international reforms in the treatment of lab animals and
livestock. He is the president of the Great Ape Project, which is dedicated to the
protection of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. As a philosopher, he appears to
practice what he preaches: He is a committed vegetarian; he gives one-fifth of his income
away to international relief agencies.
Singer's philosophy flows from the utilitarian ethic of 19th
century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarians focus on the consequences of acts
rather than underlying motives. At the root of Singer's world view is an abhorrence of
cruelty and suffering and a belief that the interests of all sentient beings ought to be
given similar consideration.
It is from this perspective that he advocates giving parents
and doctors - not the state - the right to kill newborns with severe defects that will
condemn them to lives of pain with limited mental development. An infant, Singer said, is
a being that is neither rational nor self-conscious; unlike adults or even some animals,
it is incapable of seeing itself as a distinct entity existing over time. In his 1981 book
"The Expanding Circle," Singer argues that starvation in Africa should be
considered as horrifying as hunger in America; animal suffering should be deemed as
scandalous as a child's suffering.
He argues for considering euthanasia for the elderly or
accident victims who are not "self-conscious, rational or autonomous," as long
as while they were rational they did not expressly say they opposed being put to death
under these circumstances. Singer and his admirers argue, with some justification,
that his views on the relative rights of animals and children have been twisted and
misunderstood. For instance, it is not true that Singer ever stated that snails have more
of a right to life than newborn infants. What he did say, though, was that neither snails
nor newborns have self-awareness. "It's a factual claim, not an ethical one,"
But even in their context his views are radical and
disturbing. Because they are autonomous and self-conscious creatures, he believes certain
adult animals - chimpanzees, dogs, pigs, and cats - have a greater right to life than
children. He would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to kill babies with
such defects as spina bifida or Down syndrome, he writes in his book "Practical
Ethics." In rare cases, he can see an argument for killing babies with hemophilia,
even though they may have the prospect of relatively normal lives.
"The total (utilitarian) view makes it necessary to ask
whether the death of the hemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being
who would not otherwise have existed," Singer writes. "In other words, if the
hemophiliac child is killed, will his parents have another child whom they would not have
if the hemophiliac child lives? If they would, is the second child likely to have a better
life than the one killed? Often it will be possible to answer both these questions
for an interesting editorial written by Wesely J. Smith titled "Animal Rights
Extremism at Pinceton"
here for a biography and tons of links to research Peter Singer.
Links with more data
You may want to go to the Princeton website or specifically to
the department where Singer "works",
and if you want to contact him:
Address: Center for Human Values
Department: Center for Human Values