fbpx

 

 

Yes, you read that correctly.  When performing an abortion, the abortionist shall (will / must) terminate the pregnancy.  Why would somebody write such a bill?

Let’s take a look at more of the text:

HOW CAN AN ABORTIONIST
PERFORM AN ABORTION
WITHOUT KILLING
A BABY?

Proponents of SB 124 / HB 266 argue that it is an abortion survivor’s bill that provides the best chance for children to survive the abortion procedure – and even alters the procedure to guarantee the greatest chance of survive-ability.

But HB 266 only changes the method of killing the child, and to claim otherwise demonstrates serious legislative negligence and a significant lack of ethical commitment to protecting children in the womb.

Moreover, the Alaska Statute that regulates abortion makes it clear that abortion accomplishes one thingit kills the child.

“abortion” means the use or prescription of an instrument, medicine, drug, or other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, except that “abortion” does not include the termination of a pregnancy if done with the intent to (A) save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; (B) deliver the unborn child prematurely to preserve the health of both the pregnant woman and the woman’s child;”

 

Whether the baby is killed by an abortion procedure, or an elective pre-term delivery, the result is the same:  a dead baby.  Compare the text of the bill with the comparison above and judge for yourself.

SB 124 / HB 266, An act relating to the duties of physicians and health care practitioners when performing or inducing abortions…

“Section 1. AS 18.16.010 is amended by adding new subsections to read:

(k) When a physician performs or induces an abortion in the state, the physician shall use the method of terminating the pregnancy that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive after the child is removed from the pregnant woman’s womb if, in the physician’s clinical judgment, the method of terminating the pregnancy does not present a serious risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

The Alaska Right To Life Committee opposes any act that requires an abortion to be replaced with elective pre-term forced birth, regardless of the care available for the surviving infant(s).

BACKGROUND

In January 2018, SB 124 was pre-filed the Alaska Senate, accompanied by HB 266 in the House.  The sponsoring senator and representative were contacted by The Alaska Right To Life Committee and appeals were made to both amend and withdraw the bills.  Neither bills were amended nor withdrawn.

The concern with a bill like this is found in:

  • The language of the bill itself
  • Lack of understanding of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton court cases of 1973
  • Complete disregard for the sanctity of human life either inside, or out of the womb.

BILL LANGUAGE

SB 124 / HB 266, An act relating to the duties of physicians and health care practitioners when performing or inducing abortions…

“Section 1. AS 18.16.010 is amended by adding new subsections to read:  (k) When a physician performs or induces an abortion in the state, the physician shall use the method of terminating the pregnancy that provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive after the child is removed from the pregnant woman’s womb if, in the physician’s clinical judgment, the method of terminating the pregnancy does not present a serious risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

SB 124 / HB 266 clearly states that the abortion procedure is to be substituted with pre-term induced labor.  Here’s why:

  • The pregnancy will be terminated.
  • The method of terminating the pregnancy must not place the mother’s life or health at risk.
  • The pregnancy must be terminated using the method that ensure the child’s greatest chance of survival.
  • The child will be removed from the pregnant woman’s womb.
  • Every method of abortion is performed for the sole, exclusive, single objective of killing the innocent child in the womb.
    • AS 18.16.090 states that an abortion “does not include the termination of a pregnancy if done with the intent to:
      • Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child
      • Deliver the unborn child prematurely to preserve the health of both the pregnant woman and the woman’s child; or
      • Remove a dead unborn child.”
    • RU-486 (abortion pill) uses a combination of drugs that disintegrates the lining of the uterus, cutting off nutrient and oxygen supplies to the child in the womb, then produce powerful contractions that expel the dead baby.
    • Suction Curettage (vacuum aspiration) uses high power suction to dismember children while sucking them out of the womb.
    • Dilation and curettage (D&C) uses a loop shaped knife to scrape the wall of the uterus, cutting the child to pieces.
    • Dilation and Evacuation (D&C), also known as dismemberment abortion, uses powerful gripping tools to cut and tear the limbs from the living child in the womb, tearing the torso in pieces, then crushing the child’s head before removal.
    • Induction abortion uses digoxin to poison the child in the womb. Once the baby is confirmed to be dead (usually within 24 hours), labor is induced and the dead baby is removed from the mother’s womb.
  • No consideration is given for the age of the child in the womb.

SB 124 / HB 266 (CONTINUED)

“(l) If the unborn child is removed from the pregnant woman’s womb alive under (k) of this section, any health care practitioner present shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to a child born alive at the same fetal age in the course of a natural birth.”

Since the child is expected to survive removal from the womb, medical care is required for those surviving children that have grown and developed sufficient heart and lung capacity to survive outside of the womb – generally, around 23 weeks’ gestation.

Were SB 124 / HB 266 made law prior to 2012, we would see the effects of the law on the 7,194 innocent children scheduled to be killed by abortion.

Abortions by Gestational Age 2012 to 2016
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total  
Abortions at

21-24 Weeks Gestation

  0 0 0 1 0 1  
Abortions at

< 21 Weeks

Gestation

1,632 1,450 1,518 1,334 1,260 7,193  
The only question remaining of SB 124 / HB 266

What happens to the 7,193 babies under 23 weeks gestation?

 

With the understanding that 100% of the children intended to be killed by abortion would have been:

  • Removed from their mother’s wombs – most likely by RU-486 or early pre-term induced labor.
  • Some would survive after being removed from their mother’s womb, yet die outside her body.
  • Some would show signs of life and will have developed sufficient heart and lung capacity to survive outside of the womb but will die outside her body.
  • Less than one-tenth of one percent might receive professional skill, care and diligent care to preserve their life and health.

ONE INNOCENT CHILD MIGHT HAVE SURVIVED

The sad reality of SB 124 / HB 266 is that the other 7,194 innocent children would have died while being expelled from their mothers’ wombs, or in a metal pan at her feet.

The consequences of poorly conceived and poorly written legislation can be devastating to our efforts to return real protections to every innocent human life.

 

Considerations For ALL

  1. How many children scheduled to be killed by abortion will be killed by another “method of terminating the pregnancy?”
  2. In consideration of life and health, whose life has greater importance – the mother or baby?
  3. How will this bill reduce or eliminate child killing in Alaska?
  4. How do I feel about a bill that regulates the method used to kill children in at out of the womb?
  5. Nationally, 98.7% of babies murdered in the womb wouldn’t survive outside of the womb if a different “method of terminating the pregnancy were used.”
  6. How do I feel about a bill that actually removes the right to protection as persons from babies that can’t yet survive outside the womb – nearly 99%?
  7. While we don’t know what the future holds, less than .08% of the babies killed in Alaska’s abortion mills are old enough to survive outside of the womb.
  8. Should a law that diminishes or even eliminates legal protections for 99% of all babies murdered in the womb be pursued for the sake of fewer than 1/10th of a percent of those who are killed?

What can you do?

  • Contact Senator Giessel
    • Juneau:  (907) 465-4843
    • Anchorage:  (907) 269-0181
    • Email:  Senator.Cathy.Giessel@akleg.gov
  • Contact Representative Tilton
    • Juneau:  (907) 465-2199
    • Anchorage:  (907) 373-6298
    • Email:  Representative.Cathy.Tilton@akleg.gov

Alaska Right To Life has had several conversations with both Senator Giessel and Representative Tilton, during which both bill sponsors refused to amend or withdraw their bills.

The Alaska Pro-Life Accountability Project considers sponsorship of SB 124 and HB 266 as direct opposition to any Personhood Affirmations signed by candidates for office.

The Alaska Pro-Life Accountability Project considers sponsorship of any bill that compromises or opposes the Personhood of children in the womb as direct opposition to the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.

In all the emotion, injustice, pain, suffering and difficulty surrounding our state’s laws promoting and protecting the practice of killing innocent preborn children, God has commanded to confront this evil practice, and to do so in a way that honors Him.  Our comments and criticisms should be rooted in mutual respect, truth, facts, and charity.

Patrick Martin

 

 

Chairman, The Alaska Right To Life 2018 PAC

 

Be Sociable, Share!

Hits: 231


Leave a Reply