Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
I don't envy the pro-abortion folks in Washington these days.
It must be tough trying to defend an indefensible position.
It must be tough to argue against a ban on "intact dilation and extraction" - what has come to be known as partial birth abortion.
During the procedure, the abortionist partially extracts a fetus legs first through the birth canal, cuts an incision in the barely visible skull base and then drains the contents of the skull before completely aborting the fetus.
The U.S. Senate Tuesday approved a bill banning the procedure, falling just three votes short of the two-thirds necessary to override an almost-certain presidential veto.
The vote was 64 to 36, with 51 Republicans and 13 Democrats supporting the ban. Four Republicans and 32 Democrats opposed it. Sixty-seven votes are needed to override a veto if every senator is present.
The only exception to the ban in the legislation is to save the life of the mother.
It's tough to argue against the ban because an overwhelming majority of the public thinks the procedure should be banned.
And those against the ban are well aware of that.
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin has told fellow Democrat senators that the very same issue nearly cost him the election last year. He says it was a matter of timing. The Senate passed the ban on partial birth abortion on Dec. 7, 1996. The House passed it on March 27, 1996. On April 10, 1996, President Clinton vetoed the legislation.
Harkin believes that if the veto would have come close to the November election, he might have lost his seat. He survived the scare and was re-elected. He voted against the ban last Tuesday.
How unpopular is the procedure? More than 10 million cards and letters arrived at congressional offices in support of the ban the last time it was up for consideration.
House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) said it was the largest volume of mail he had ever seen. Mail was running about 500 to 1 in favor of the ban.
Even so, the senate could not muster up enough votes to override a veto. Senators received thousands of letters urging them to vote for the ban but chose to vote against it anyway.
So much for a representative government - a government of the people.
Even pollsters concede that the Republican, anti-abortion crowd has the edge on this issue.
The Associated Press quoted noted Democratic pollster Mark Mellman this week: "To the extent that they're able to shift the focus onto an unborn fetus, that works to their benefit."
Well, duh.
Of course it works to their benefit.
Isn't that where the focus should be? Isn't that what the whole partial birth abortion argument is about? The death of an almost-born fetus?
Most people - except for the most twisted of individuals - squirm at the thought of tiny humans flinching and jerking as their skulls are evacuated with suction.
Not Mellman. He says the challenge for Democrats is to regain the offensive by reminding the "pro-choice majority that there is a well-organized radical right group that wants to take away your right to an abortion."
Hmm.
If people who want to save unborn children are "radical," what do we call the people who want to kill unborn children? Reasonable?
AP also reported that Lake Research, a polling firm that works for many Democrats, was prompted to caution its clients in a pre-election memo last fall.
"Do talk about the life and health of mothers," the memo said. "Don't talk about the health and condition of the fetus. Voters believe that this procedure, no matter what we call it, kills an infant. We cannot get around this basic belief."
Imagine that! People perceive the procedure for what it is. And no matter how hard they try, the politicians and pollsters can't seem to change that perception.
What a tragedy for them. Best thing to do? Just don't talk about it. Dodge the issue. Deflect the responsibility. Now there's an honest, forthright strategy for you.
Opponents of the ban say a mother's health exception is needed. But proponents argue that "health" would be widely interpreted to include virtually any reason, emotional or otherwise, and render the ban meaningless.
Opponents of the ban say the procedure is rare and used mostly when a mother's life or health is threatened. But Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed more than 1,000 partial birth abortions, said he performs them "routinely" for nonmedical reasons and that 80 percent are "purely elective."
Some of the nation's leading anethesiologists testified in Congress that anesthesia used on the mother has little or no effect on the fetus. Medical experts testified that babies at this age can experience great pain.
And if all this is not enough to convince you that we should ban this procedure, consider this newspaper account of one mother's experience with partial birth abortion.
This mother underwent three ultrasounds, all of which showed normal development of her child. A fourth exam showed an abnormality, as did a fifth. Doctors assured the mother that her child would be "mentally retarded."
The child was aborted at 27 weeks. An examination revealed that the last two ultrasound exams had been misinterpreted. There was nothing wrong with the child.
A spokesman for the hospital where the final ultrasound was conducted said the incident "was a tragic mistake but we are all human."
I agree with the hospital spokesman. We are all human. All of us. Even the unborn.
