Abortion – Is It Just A Political
Issue?
11/9/03
Story of the "Fetal Hand Grasp" Photograph....
As a veteran photojournalist
in Nashville, Tennessee, I was hired by USA Today newspaper to photograph a
spina bifida corrective surgical procedure. It was to be performed on a
twenty-one week old fetus in utero at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At
that time, in 1999, twenty-one weeks in utero was the earliest that the
surgical team would consider for surgery. The worst possible outcome would be
that the surgery would cause premature delivery, and no child born earlier than
twenty-three weeks had survived.
The tension could be felt in
the operating room as the surgery began. A typical C-section incision was made
to access the uterus, which was then lifted out and laid at the junction of the
mother's thighs. The entire procedure would take place within the uterus, and
no part of the child was to breach the surgical opening. During the procedure,
the position of the fetus was adjusted by gently manipulating the outside of
the uterus. The entire surgical procedure on the child was completed in 1 hour
and thirteen minutes. When it was over, the surgical team breathed a sigh of
relief, as did I.
As a doctor asked me what
speed of film I was using, out of the corner of my eye I saw the uterus shake,
but no one's hands were near it. It was shaking from within. Suddenly, an
entire arm thrust out of the opening, then pulled back until just a little hand
was showing. The doctor reached over and lifted the hand, which reacted and
squeezed the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shook the
tiny fist. Samuel held firm. I took the picture! Wow! It happened so fast that
the nurse standing next to me asked, "What happened?" "The child
reached out," I said. "Oh. They do that all the time," she
responded.
The surgical opening to the
uterus was closed and the uterus was then put back into the mother and the
C-section opening was closed.
It was ten days before I
knew if the picture was even in focus. To ensure no digital manipulation of
images before they see them, USA Today requires that film be submitted
unprocessed. When the photo editor finally phoned me he said, "It's the
most incredible picture I've ever seen."
- Michael Clancy
(The picture can be seen here: http://www.michaelclancy.com/)
Is abortion ever necessary to save the life or prevent the
death of the mother?
Medical advisors say the answer is a simple, unequivocal
"no"-and any claim to the contrary is bogus. And many other doctors
across the country agree.
In the past several months, American Life League, one of the
largest pro-life educational organizations in the US, has circulated a
statement concerning this position to a select number of doctors around the
country. Already, over 100 physicians have signed the statement-including
former abortionists Bernard Nathanson and Beverly McMillan-and it is
anticipated that hundreds more will sign in the coming weeks.
The statement reads, "I agree that there is never a
situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn
[unborn] child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for
the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything
possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must
never intend the death of either."
"This statement contradicts the popular political
thinking that such an exception is needed. It reflects the ethical thinking and
practice of many physicians, and is based on empirical data provided by
physicians over the past thirty years", said American Life League
president Judie Brown.
She continued, "The 'life of the mother' exception has
become standard fare for politicians and legislative proposals claiming the
pro-life label. This is why ALL began the campaign with physicians and we are
continuing this campaign by, today, challenging every major presidential
candidate to face the facts and denounce the life of the mother exception.
"In fact the language is archaic, it does not reflect
current medical experience, and it is nothing more than a loophole for the
abortionist. The language is a lie.
"There is never a reason in law or in practice to
advocate a 'life of the mother' exception for abortion. We base this statement
on testimony of many pro-life physicians over the years, including John F. Hillabrand,
M.D., Herbert Ratner, M.D., and Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.
*Federal
Judge in N.Y. Is Second to Block New Abortion Law
Published: November 6, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- In a ruling that could have coast-to-coast
effect, a federal judge Thursday blocked the government's new ban on certain
late-term abortions -- the second court victory for abortion-rights advocates
since President Bush signed the law.
U.S. District Judge Richard Casey granted a request by the
National Abortion Federation and seven doctors to block enforcement of the ban.
The ruling applies only to the plaintiffs, but it could have
broad application. The federation says that its members perform half of the
abortions done nationwide.
The decision follows a separate ruling Wednesday by a
federal judge in Nebraska who also blocked the ban -- less than an hour after
Bush enacted the law. That ruling covers four doctors, who together are
licensed in 13 states across the Midwest and East, and their staffs. A San
Francisco judge has also scheduled arguments in a similar challenge.
*Facts
about Federal Judges
Q: Who appoints federal judges?
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and
district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the
United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential
nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes members of the House
who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee
typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the
Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term.
The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and
confirmation process.
The Constitution sets forth no specific requirements.
However, members of Congress, who typically recommend potential nominees, and
the Department of Justice, which reviews nominees' qualifications, have
developed their own informal criteria.
There are 13 judicial circuits, each with a court of
appeals. The smallest court is the First Circuit with six judgeships, and the
largest court is the Ninth Circuit, with 28 judgeships. A list of the states
that compose each circuit is set forth in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section
41. The number of judgeships in each circuit is set forth in Title 28 of the
U.S. Code, Section 44.
There are 89 districts in the 50 states, which are listed
with their divisions in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Sections 81-144. District
courts also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia,
Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. In total there are 94 U.S. district
courts. Some states, such as Alaska, are composed of a single judicial
district. Others, such as California, are composed of multiple judicial
districts. The number of judgeships allotted to each district is set forth in
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133.
*Examples
of Judicial Abuses
While most are aware of the 9th Circuit's recent decision
that saying “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance threatens our American form
of government, there are numerous additional examples, some staggeringly
unbelievable. For example, in Jane Doe v. Santa Fe, a federal judge ruled that
graduation prayers must not include any mention of “Jesus” or other “specific
deities” and that any student offering such a prayer would face immediate
arrest and up to six months in jail. The judge threatened “violators” by saying
they would wish they “had died as a child” once his court finished with them.
In a Texas county where conservatives narrowly won multiple
seats in an election, a federal judge reversed that outcome by arbitrarily
throwing out the 800 votes cast by U.S. military personnel, saying they had no
right to vote in local elections.
A federal judge in Nashville reviews the verdict of any jury
in Tennessee that awards the death penalty. This judge has openly declared his
personal opposition to the death penalty and has set aside every jury decision
on this issue, despite the Constitution's explicit language to the contrary.
The judge even allows nine years to pass, on average, before overturning the
jury's sentence, thus disregarding the Constitution's guarantee to a speedy
trial.
*Is. 1:26 I will restore your judges as in days of old,
your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you will be called the City of
Righteousness, the Faithful City.”