PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ACLU ADMIT
IN COURT DOCUMENTS THAT
ABORTION KILLS UNBORN CHILDREN
TRENTON, N.J. -- In an amazingly candid set of statements contained in court papers, attorneys with the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP) admit that "the physician providing an abortion by definition sets out with the purpose of performing a procedure that he knows will kill the fetus, and that does kill the fetus." The ACLU and PP attorneys also make many other frank admissions about the brutal reality and maternal health risks of abortion, all in summary judgment papers filed in the case of Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, a challenge to the constitutionality of New Jersey's ban on partial birth infanticide.
Among the admissions contained in papers filed in federal court, the ACLU and PP attorneys listed the following as undisputed facts about abortions done by "induction" (e.g., saline or prostaglandin abortions), "vacuum aspiration" (suction abortions), "D&E" ("dilation and evacuation" dismemberment abortions), and "hysterotomy" (C-section abortions):
In induction abortions, the physician essentially induces pre-term labor by introducing one of several chemicals into the amniotic sac, the vagina, a vein, or a muscle.Inductions involve the same physiological stress, emotional trauma, and medical complications as labor and delivery at term, including contractions that last from ten to thirty hours, and typically last in excess of twelve hours.
Inductions entail a lower risk of uterine perforation than D&Es and usually result in an intact fetus . . . .
Vacuum aspiration, D&E, and induction [abortions] all entail deliberate and intentional delivery of the fetus into the vagina.
In vacuum aspiration, D&E, and induction procedures, the fetus is almost always living at the beginning of the procedure.
In vacuum aspiration, D&E, and induction procedures, the fetus is not living at the end of the procedure.
In vacuum aspiration, D&E, and induction procedures, the fetus may be partly within the uterus and partly in the vagina (or outside the woman) when it ceases to have vital signs.
In a vacuum aspiration or a D&E [abortion], the physician routinely and intentionally delivers part or parts of the fetus while the fetus still has a heartbeat.
In a vacuum aspiration procedure, the physician -- often knowing or having reason to know that the fetus retains a heartbeat -- intentionally draws the fetus or fetal parts into the suction tube and thus into the vagina and then out of the woman, while other, "living" parts of the fetus may remain in the uterus.
During a D&E [abortion], the physician regularly and intentionally delivers into the vagina a fetal limb or limbs, either attached to or severed from a fetus that still has vital signs within the uterus.
In an induction procedure, while the fetus is often dead when the delivery begins, it sometimes still has vital signs.
In an induction [abortion], the physician intends to deliver, and usually does deliver, an intact fetus through the vagina.
Hysterotomy [abortion] is essentially a pre-term cesarean section, except that it entails even more blood loss and other damage because the uterus is thicker than at term.
The scar from a hysterotomy [abortion] can rupture during any subsequent pregnancy, causing catastrophic bleeding, and a woman who has had a hysterotomy must deliver any future children by cesarean section to avoid rupturing the scar during labor.
In their legal arguments, the ACLU and PP attorneys admit the following facts:
Some physicians use a variant of D&E that involves intact, breech extraction of the fetus, a procedure which is sometimes called "dilation and extraction." After dilating the cervix, the physician extracts the fetal body feet first up to the head; creates a small opening at the base of the fetal skull; and evacuates the contents, thus collapsing the skull and allowing it to pass through the cervical opening.In induction abortions, the physician essentially induces pre-term labor by introducing one of several chemicals into the amniotic sac, the vagina, a vein, or a muscle.
Inductions involve the same physiological stress, emotional trauma, and medical complications as labor and delivery at term, including contractions that last from ten to thirty hours, and typically last in excess of twelve hours.
Inductions entail a lower risk of uterine perforation than D&Es and usually result in an intact fetus . . . .
In any of the abortion procedures described above -- vacuum aspiration, D&E, and induction, all of which entail vaginal delivery -- the fetus is almost always living at the beginning of the procedure; is not living at the end of the procedure; and may be partly within the uterus and partly in the vagina (or outside the woman) when it ceases to have vital signs.
Hysterotomy [abortion] is essentially a pre-term cesarean section, except that it entails even more blood loss and other damage because the uterus is thicker than at term. . . . The scar from a hysterotomy can rupture during any subsequent pregnancy, causing catastrophic bleeding, and a woman who has had a hysterotomy must deliver any future children by cesarean section to avoid rupturing the scar during labor.
The facts recounted above -- pertaining to abortion practice and therefore material to the legal question of the constitutionality of the [challenged New Jersey] Act -- are uncontroverted, and uncontrovertible.
This statutory language [of the partial birth law] appears to require the following elements of proof: (1) the physician deliberately and intentionally performs a vaginal delivery; (2) the physician knows or has reason to know that the fetus is "living" when the vaginal delivery begins; (3) the physician intends to deliver into the vagina at least a "substantial portion" of the fetus; (4) the physician sets out with the purpose of performing a procedure he knows will kill the fetus, and (5) the procedure in fact kills the fetus. Although not every vacuum aspiration, D&E, or induction will involve each of these elements, virtually any abortion by one of these methods may unavoidably meet each of these elements.
In a vacuum aspiration or a D&E [abortion], the physician routinely and intentionally delivers part or parts of the fetus while the fetus still has a heartbeat.
In an induction procedure, while the fetus is often dead when delivery begins, it sometimes still has vital signs.
In a vacuum aspiration procedure, the physician -- often knowing or having reason to know that the fetus retains a heartbeat -- intentionally draws the fetus into the suction tube and thus into the vagina and then out of the woman.
Likewise, during a D&E, the physician regularly and intentionally delivers into the vagina a fetal limb or limbs, either attached to or severed from a fetus that still has vital signs within the uterus.
[T]he physician providing an abortion by definition sets out with the purpose of performing a procedure that he knows will kill the fetus, and that does kill the fetus.
Physicians performing abortions . . . . always have the proscribed purpose. Moreover, the physician's completion of the abortion procedure results in the death of the fetus.
* * * Patrick Monaghan, General Counsel of the New Hope Life Center, ACLJ-New Hope, commented on these admissions: "In order to further their murderous blood sacrifice, the abortionists will either lie or be 'factually correct.' First Planned Parenthood and the ACLU denied that abortion had anything to do with killing. Now they coolly admit that an abortionist deliberately kills the 'fetus' -- the child in the womb -- and they admit that some abortions are very much like induced deliveries and C-sections, except of course that the baby is killed.
Has killing lost its horror?"
Quotes taken from Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, No. 97-6170 (AET) (D.N.J. Apr 22, 1998) and Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts as to Which There Exists or Does Not Exist a Genuine Issue, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, No. 97-6170 (AET) (D.N.J. Apr 22, 1998)
HOME
NEWSLETTERS