Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 News / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

Description: George Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 Date: 11/5/2003 Length: 11.85 minutes Political Video Link: http://www.politicalvideo.org/node/1031Original Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031105-1.html
This item is part of the collection: blip.tv
Creative Commons license: Public Domain. The Congress finds and declares the following: A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child’s body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child’s skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child’s brains out before completing deliveryof the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited. The partial birth abortion has been performed legally in the United States for years. It is neither a “rare” procedure, nor is it done only for babies who are severely deformed or dying. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are “purely elective.” In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that “elective” does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure “for the health of the mother.” Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother’s health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist. The Court argued, furthermore, that a “health reason” for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that “live-birth abortion” should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion.

Duration : 0:11:50


[youtube 2Ks0e-90rrU]

This entry was posted in abortion laws and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 News / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

  1. Decimator334 says:

    Well at least Bush …
    Well at least Bush did something right.

  2. VoiceHunter says:

    “Well sure I’ll …
    “Well sure I’ll sign your heartless, anti-woman law. Just give me a minute so I can send these fifty thousand troops to Iraq so Dick and I can get our oil!”

  3. tonygmilan7 says:

    @seseon. have we …
    @seseon. have we not progressed scientifically to see that an unborn baby is a human?

  4. KodaJosh098 says:

    Change will come to …
    Change will come to America and it did….but not the change I was hoping for.

    I don’t support Obama!

  5. KodaJosh098 says:

    Indeed.
    Indeed.

  6. jessedostal says:

    one of the great …
    one of the great moments in American history

  7. ChulaKirby says:

    ???? I think …
    ???? I think Afganistan and Iraq are still there. What countries got blown off the map?

  8. adreecage says:

    47 million of …
    47 million of babies in the USA died in abortion already.

    The majority of the Democrats pushed for the war in Iraq too. So don’t just blame the Rep. for that.

    Obama didn’t vote for the war because he’s an Arab.

    Now Obama is trying to pass FOCA, which is to pass Partial Birth Abortion again.

  9. rem042 says:

    that the bible …
    that the bible provides? what is that supposed to mean? a higher level of understanding meaning… understanding killing the unborn?

  10. GoldBanks60 says:

    me too
    me too

  11. ProLife7777777 says:

    BUSH – KEYES – …
    BUSH – KEYES – PALIN

    Glad Im Republican

  12. Lorra41 says:

    This is the one …
    This is the one thing Bush did while in office that I applaud him for.

  13. darkstarownzu says:

    Bush promotes life. …
    Bush promotes life. Obama promotes death. Yep. Big difference.

  14. kingofthetots says:

    Bush hates abortion …
    Bush hates abortion but has no problem with blowing a couple of countries off of the map??? How many Children died in these ruthless attacks by our country?? But thats okay because god told this retard to do it????? YOU PRO LIFE PIECES OF HYPOCRIT ELEPHANT RAPING FUCKS

  15. seseon says:

    This is a …
    This is a jaw-dropping experience. To actually see something like this is stupifying. How can you justify a ban on abortion, even a partial one? Have we not progressed beyond the dark ages? Have we not reached a higher level of understanding than the bible provides? I cannot believe my eyes.

  16. PatriarchAuris says:

    hahaha, you’re funny
    hahaha, you’re funny

  17. PatriarchAuris says:

    also, God doesn’t …
    also, God doesn’t bless anyone, he is a burden to us.

  18. PatriarchAuris says:

    product of rape, …
    product of rape, with the cost of an orphaned infant, and the loss of a child to the infants grandmother and grandfather, also a friend to others (possibly a sibling as well)

    Is the mother crazy or a killer if she takes the abortion? Your theory must be applied to all cases no matter what the situation is. Either way someone is a killer, it may be the doctor or it may be God (or the course of natural selection and the human anatomy.)

    I won’t say your position is wrong, but I will say you are.

  19. PatriarchAuris says:

    No offense but you …
    No offense but you are amazingly ignorant
    Abortion:
    -is a not so illegal
    -termination
    -of soon to be new-born`s (not even alive yet)
    -by people.

    Scenario: 13 year old girl gets raped over and over for 3 months, she has been pregnant for 1 week and now has a choice to abort the pregnancy or carry out the pregnancy, but if she carries out the pregnancy, she’ll die on the table.

    Abortion or Death?
    Abortion – You save a life with the cost of a growing life
    Death – You take a life and support the-

  20. goppatriots says:

    Glad I vote for …
    Glad I vote for BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. yourfaceandmum says:

    You…you’re not …
    You…you’re not serious?!

  22. chcbrunettebabe says:

    I know…
    I know…

  23. chcbrunettebabe says:

    well how else are …
    well how else are we to free countires with that crap going on? oh…no…lets sit down and talk with crazy killing terrorists and discuss things..

  24. poodlepink says:

    I totally agree …
    I totally agree that it’s not right that after an unexpected, unplanned pregnancy, a woman has the right to say she does or doesn’t want the baby, and if she decides to keep it, even if the man would’ve chosen to abort, he has to pay child support on a child he doesn’t want. The courts making a woman continue an ALREADY VIABLE pregnancy isn’t asking her to do something with her body that’s unnatural because her body already had that ability.

  25. ivylainespeaks says:

    God Bless George W. …
    God Bless George W. Bush!!!