Ed. (Jacobse) The death merchants invent a grisly twist.
LifeNews.com | Steven Ertelt | July 30, 2007
Detroit, MI (LifeNews.com) — After the Supreme Court upheld the national ban on partial-birth abortions, some abortion businesses are so desperate to continue doing legal second-trimester abortions that they are willing to put women’s health at risk by misusing a drug for heart conditions to do the abortions.
The partial-birth abortion ban made it clear that abortion practitioners can’t mostly deliver an unborn child before doing the abortion and killing her.
To get around the ban, they are using the drug digoxin to kill the baby inside the mother’s womb and then cause the mother to miscarry the dead baby’s body.
Digoxin is widely used in the treatment of various heart conditions such as atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter and congestive heart failure.
But abortion practitioners admitted to the Detroit News in various interviews that they are misusing the drug in off-label use to do the second-trimester abortions.
Renee Chelian, executive director of Northland Family Planning Centers, said the three Michigan abortion centers under that name use digoxin.
The drug is administered with a long needle inserted into the abdomen and it has normal side effects such as nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. However, the drug can also cause premature delivery and there is a risk of infection.
Researchers at Yale University also studied the use of the drug and were surprised to see that women in the study who took digoxin died more frequently (33%) than women who took a dummy pill (29%).
They calculated that digoxin increased the risk of death in women by 23%.
Despite these health concerns, not only do abortion practitioners at Northland Family Planning Centers use digoxin but Chelian blamed the ban and pro-life advocates for them doing so.
“The woman’s health has taken a back seat [because of the partial-birth abortion ban],” Chelian claimed in comments to the Detroit News. “The fetus is given an equal status as the woman. It’s a horrible precedent that the woman’s health and safety is not paramount.”
“We have to cause fetal death,” Chelian added. It is not necessary, but it is the Supreme Court telling doctors, ‘This is how you do surgery.’ It’s really scary that the fetus has as much weight as the woman.”
The Northland abortion centers have been giving women digoxin for years for abortions done at 20-24 weeks of pregnancy. Now women will get the heart drug as much as six weeks earlier so legal second-trimester abortions can be done.
Meanwhile, women at the six abortion centers run by WomanCare also are forced to misuse the drug. Its medical director, Alberto Hodari, confirmed to the newspaper that all women having abortions between 18 weeks and 24 weeks of pregnancy will get digoxin.
Janet Crepps, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, a prominent pro-abortion law firm in New York, confirmed to the News the reasons for misusing the drug.
“Because certain aspects of abortion procedures are variable in ways that physicians cannot control, physicians may feel compelled to cause fetal demise in order to avoid any appearance or suggestion that they have violated the law,” Crepps said.
“One fail-safe way to protect against prosecution under the law is to ensure that fetal demise has occurred,” she added.
The FDA approved digoxin in 1982 but abortion practitioners have been using it since the to kill the baby in second-trimester abortions.
Dr. Mengele would be proud. These people are demonic in their passion for the murder of innocence.
Interesting how they use the term “fetal demise” to mask the absolute perversion and horror of their acts. No Ms. Crepps, it’s NOT “fetal demise” but UNBORN BABY MURDER that you are passionately promoting, advocating, and defending. The slaughter of defensless innocence is pure evil.
A defender of the murderous procedure argues:
A horrible precedent? Is the fetus trying to kill the mother?
What do these activists think when the stillborn child is delivered? What do they make of its hands, feet, eyes? What do they think as they inject the drug knowing it will kill the child?
This is a deep, deep, darkness.
Yes and they even protect rapists of children in order to keep the veil of secrecy drawn about them.
The child within is not human, it is a blob of flesh a parasite even that has to be removed “for the health of the mother” To paraphrase the current govenor of the “conservative” state of Kansas, “I believe in human rights, they just don’t extend into the womb.”
What medical condition would require PBA as opposed to C-section
I am not a medical person here, but, my understanding is that when a medical condition develops that threatens a mother’s life, (very high blood pressure for instance) the medical response is a C-section rather than a partial-birth abortion.
What medical condition of the mother would be ameliorated by a PBA that could not be similarly ameliorated by a C-section?
Cancer of the cervix may require immediate radiation therapy but again that could be dealt with by a prompt C-section followed by radiation therapy.
I think anyway
Anybody know?
There is an association of doctors who has written on the subject (I wish I could remember the name of the association). Their medical conclusion was that there is no medical reason for partial birth abortion. Its sole use is to kill children who would otherwise be born alive.
As far as I know, the “health of the mother” excuse for murdering babies in the womb is one of the biggest red herrings used by the pro-abortionists. Whatever “threat” or “health danger” a baby can possibly represent to a mother can be medically treated and helped by rational and ethically individuals without resorting to murdering the unborn baby.
The fact that so many in our society tolerate and passionately defend such horrible practices in the name of “choice” is of grave concern. If these “people” (and I use that term very liberally) can so easily slaughter innocence without batting an eyelash, then they are capable of anything. Our freedoms, property, and lives would mean even less to specimens like this. Is it any wonder these pro-abortionists share the same ideology and goals as the pro-euthanasia bunch. Fr. Hans is right when he states:
Folks, imagine what PETA and the mainstream media would do if murderous procedures like these were done on gorillas and chimpanzees. How long do you think that would last before the entire secular left would rise up and demand justice and an immediate end to such practices? And yet, unborn human babies are regularly slaughtered without causing even a stir in the hearts and souls of these groups. Truly insane!
Fr. Hans wrote
They lie to their souls. Exchanging lies for truth and light for darkness.
Their hearts are hard. They do not feel.
Here’s a scientific look at what it means to become a human being from natureinstitute.org that might give pause to think differently about pro-abortion:
Gestures of Becoming a Human Being
“The Nature Institute will offer a seminar in phenomenological embryology by Jaap van der Wal. In this seminar, he will lead participants through the first stages of human development with the goal of reading the language of shape and form underlying the human being’s journey from conception to birth. Like every living being, in every phrase of its development, the human embryo is a coherent whole, a unity of form, shape and function.
Jaap van der Wal, MD, PhD specialized in anatomy and embryology and lectured in these disciplines in medical school and the universities of Utrecht and Maastricht, Netherlands. He explored the question of posture and locomotion for his PhD, investigating the questions: What moves us? What motivates us to move? Through phenomenological studies, he has developed striking insights into the gestures of life reflected in the stages of embryonic development. His seminars “Embryo in Motion” have inspired doctors, midwives, therapists, teachers, and parents who carry questions about what it means to become a human being.”
And a scientific double take on Evolution:
Research into the holistic nature of organisms has large implications for the way we think about evolution. By appealing to mutation and natural selection, Darwinian evolutionary theory tends to “explain” (construct evolutionary stories about) the evolution of adaptive characteristics in isolation from the rest of the organism. One conceptually abstracts, say, horns or grinding teeth from the whole organism and interprets each as its own kind of “survival strategy.”
This approach, for all its suggestive power, has fundamental drawbacks. First, each characteristic of an organism has multiple functions, and it is largely arbitrary which one we focus on to construct our evolutionary story. Many such story may well be a tall story. Second, the organism itself, as a distinctive unity in its own right, dissolves into an array of traits and becomes a kind of epiphenomenon. This approach to explanation turns out to explain away the organism itself.