Congress and Bush: Aborting the trend, saving the children

It’s hard to say where the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is sitting today,… It’s hard to say where the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is sitting today, somewhere among the gears and axles of government. No major newspaper has come across any new information in the past two weeks. But when we last saw it, the Act was cruising through Congress and heading for the president, needing only his promised signature to become law. This will happen — probably very soon — and when it does, it will solidify a point that opponents and supporters can agree on: George W. Bush is slowly, meticulously dismantling Roe vs. Wade.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ For the pro-choice corner, Bush’s growing momentum against abortion signals a major threat. For tomorrow’s children, it signals a major victory. Though the partial-birth abortion ban will likely face legal opposition after its passage, it will have at least been passed, becoming a new high point in the anti-abortion fight, and made all the more dramatic because it comes on the 30th anniversary of the decision that made abortion legal.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Bush’s abortion policies are criticized from time to time, but never too fiercely. This is because they are executed so smoothly that the critics and press barely take notice, and if they do, each reform seems so insignificant it barely warrants attention. But the partial-birth abortion ban is different — its passage will raise hell.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In the coming weeks, liberal commentators from around the country will hit the keyboards, screaming Bush’s evils. But when that happens, let’s not forget that the President isn’t democracy’s only voice — versions of this act were passed by three congresses prior to the 108th, and so would be old news by now if Clinton wasn’t such a quick draw with a veto pen. Add 27 states with their own bans, and we’ve got ourselves a consensus.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ Abortion supporters — though I might call them anti-life, since by their standards I am anti-choice — are quick to point out that partial-birth abortion is not a medically accepted term. It’s too controversial. They would prefer something more neutral, specifying abortion during or after the second trimester. That’s the way it always goes with pro-choice philosophy — thinking on a theoretical plane makes it easier to gloss over the cold, sterile harshness of it all.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ The entire abortion movement is a chameleon, changing its colors to match the environment. In ’73 it was about privacy, in ’03 it’s about choice, in ’33 — if it’s still around — it will probably be about population. But anti-abortion is consistent. It’s always been about protecting babies, about opposing one of the greatest vices of our generation.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ This ban, once enacted, will achieve two very significant goals. The first, protecting babies from being killed, is pragmatic. The second is more general — it will raise awareness about a terrible practice that people love to sugarcoat.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ During a partial-birth abortion — or whatever term you choose — part of the baby’s body is actually delivered. Sometimes it’s the head, sometimes it’s the lower half up to the navel. A few inches either way, and the baby would be officially born. After part of the body has been delivered, the baby’s skull is pierced and a miniature vacuum is inserted to suck out the child’s brain. Anti-abortion activists often display pictures of things like this in public. The most moving shot I’ve seen was of a baby’s tiny hand grabbing the doctor’s finger, moments before being aborted. So it’s no surprise that activists often get kicked out of their venues. People don’t want to see what their ‘choice’ leads to.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ In partial-birth abortion, murder and medical procedure are separated by inches. But those few inches have been important because they define the subject. A baby with its head delivered is just a fetus, part of the mother’s body and therefore part of her choice. But move the child any further and it becomes a United States citizen, protected by the Constitution. It’s amazing to me how the Democratic party line supports killing children, citing location — in inches — as a justification.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ I think it’s a fair assumption that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 will pave the way for others like it, each one a piece of legislation 30 years overdue. Opponents are waiting in the wings, armed with fashionable, highbrow arguments about a woman’s right to choose, but they will never approach the cold, hard facts about our abortion institution. Doctors who swore to the Hippocratic Oath are willing to slice a defenseless child’s head open and with callous precision rob him of everything he has or will have, all before he can open his eyes.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ That is an evil I could devote my life to fighting, and George W. Bush is doing it, slowly, but more and more surely all the time.

Eric Miller believes in a woman’s right to choose and live her own life, even if her heart just started beating. E-mail him at save101@hotmail.com.