Archives

Source: Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist, 3-22-01

The bizarrely titled “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” which seems to
confirm the obvious, is back. And with it, one hopes, an end to discussions
that shouldn’t have been necessary.  At issue is a simple question: Are
babies who survive an abortion human beings deserving of protection? It was
answered with a resounding ‘yes’ last year when similar legislation passed
the U.S. House (380-15). The bill stalled in the Senate, however, and now has
to be re-introduced. If approved, the proposed law will require that babies
born alive be treated as, well, live babies. Talk about a given. Yet,  without
this law, the answer to whether newborns are human, stunningly, is: “It
depends.  ”Specifically, it depends on the intent of the “mother,” as in: Did
she intend for the baby to be born alive, or did she intend for it to be
dead-on-arrival as part of the abortion she was promised? Clearly, most women
seeking an abortion aren’t hoping for a live baby, yet miraculously, some
babies do survive and therein lies the dilemma.  Most newborns that would be
protected under the bill are survivors of an “induced labor abortion,” which
is usually performed in the second trimester when a fetus is determined to be
fatally abnormal. Unlike invasive abortions, the mother in an induced-labor
abortion delivers her baby after medication causes her cervix to dilate,
which can take a few hours or a few days. “They just open the cervix and the
baby drops out,” says Jill Stanek, a crusading, anti-abortion nurse who
testified Thursday before a group of congressmen. “The intent is never to
kill the baby in utero. The intent is that it will die in the birth canal or
die afterward.”  Stanek, who gets credit for prompting the born-alive bill,
has been instrumental in publicizing the inhumane treatment of babies who
survive abortion. Usually, the newborn is wrapped in a blanket and set aside
to die. Some die quickly; some live for as long as eight hours, says Stanek.  
Without a neonatal emergency team, the baby surely will die of suffocation
owing to undeveloped lungs. Otherwise the baby will die eventually of a fatal
abnormality – no brain, no kidney, or something of that order.

Those supporting the procedure argue that it’s the most compassionate way to
end a doomed life and to minimize a mother’s suffering. Stanek doesn’t see it
that way. More likely, she says, it’s the most convenient and cost-effective
way to eliminate a problem.  Of 13 induced-labor abortions at her hospital
last year, four lived, she says. One was misplaced when it was left in the
laundry room and fell into a hamper of dirty towels. The baby’s body fell
onto the floor when someone picked up one of the towels.  Inducing abortion
is little more compassionate to the mother, says Stanek. First, the mother
has to wait for the “birth,” which becomes increasingly stressful the longer
it takes. Then she has to live forever with her actions.   “At the other end
of life, when people are sick, you don’t just kill them, you ease them into
death easily. To avoid a couple of months of grief, these women kill their
handicapped child.  Wouldn’t it be better to give birth and hold your baby
for a couple of hours?  What memory do you want to live with?”  As memories
go, neither is a good one. And carrying a pregnancy to term knowing that your
baby will die is a tough road. But the question really comes down to this: Do
we condone killing newborn babies? And the answer is, not yet.
           

Media Coverage 
St. George Pro-Life | Parkview Christian Church