Relaymedia

Supporters of Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Voice Criticism Against Abortion Procedure

( [email protected] ) Apr 03, 2004 09:03 AM EST

WASHINGTON – While partial-birth abortion trials are still ongoing in the nation, faith-based advocacy group and medical organization are uttering criticism against abortion and the abortion doctors, calling the procedure gruesome and inhumane.

"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," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who is supporting the Department of Justice in its defense of the ban and attending the trial in New York City.

"The truth about this barbaric procedure is finally coming to light - a horrific and repulsive procedure that clearly underscores the need for this ban on 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."

Christian Medical Association Executive Director Dr. David Stevens declared, "The arguments of abortion doctors and activists in these cases are astonishingly revealing about the heartlessness behind the abortion-on-demand forces. The testimony reveals an incomprehensible depth of inhumanity and barbarity."

"Abortion doctors say they crush an unborn baby's skull 'as if you were picking up salad," Stevens said as he was referring to the March 31 transcript of opening arguments by plaintiffs in National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft case took place in New York.

The transcripts of the case revealed that the abortionist described the skull-crushing tools as follows: "It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center, and the instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with…"

At that point, the judge interrupted to say, "Except here you are crushing the head of a baby."

Stevens further pointed out the heartlessness of the doctors saying: "When the judge also asks if the doctor ever considered the fact that an abortion causes the baby pain, the doctor incredibly says it never crossed his mind. Then he claims ignorance of the well-documented medical evidence that aspects of pain perception are present in an unborn child from as early as six to seven weeks gestation, and that they feel pain at a much stronger level than adults. What kind of doctor is this?"

Stevens also quoted the March 29 transcript, in which the plaintiffs' attorney argued, "In the case of unwanted pregnancies especially, some women want the fetus to better grieve. The intact (partial-birth abortion) procedure can typically allow this while a dismemberment (abortion) typically will not."

Stevens noted, "What kind of people are these who debate whether it's better to tear a baby into pieces or to present the baby with a brainless head--whom they have just killed--to her mother?"