Our letters section and your opportunity to weigh in and be heard. Send us your thoughts and profundities. You can contact us here.

Outraged by abortion

Dear Editors:

The partial-birth abortion bill claims to ban a procedure that, by the definition and exceptions in the bill, will not ban anything and probably will not stop one abortion. The bill bans a specific procedure but allows abortionists to use other procedures, not included in the definition, to continue the killings. Thus, it doesn’t actually ban the abortion of a viable fetus at all.

In forming the bill, liberals included a standard abortion loophole – that the procedure is banned “except when the life of the mother is at risk.”

Besides the fact that abortion doctors have no compulsion against falsifying such a declaration, it does not follow, logically, that the two are related. For instance, if the near-term pregnancy is “at risk to the mother” and is solved by performing a Ceasarean section and delivery of a live fetus, why does the baby have to be killed outside the womb after the delivery? Why not put it in an ICU and let it live? Obviously, the killing of the baby AFTER it has been delivered, which means AFTER it is BORN means the purpose of the final killing procedure is not connected at all with the supposed saving of the mother’s life.

This is an outrage?

– Kim Rogalin


via e-mail





News Index Second Index Opinion Index Classifieds Index Contact Index