Thursday, May 15, 1997

Daschle's partial truths about abortion

By Cal Thomas

On the face of it, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's proposal to ban abortions against "viable" fetuses appears to go even farther than those favoring the prohibition against "partial birth" abortions.

Daschle says his proposal would outlaw the abortion of any fetus capable of living outside the womb. This sounds like a quantum leap in a pro-life direction. Because medical technology has pushed "viability" to the point that a growing percentage of fetuses can now survive at 24 weeks, and even earlier in some circumstances, the Daschle proposal seems to protect thousands of unborn children and their mothers from the physical and psychological horrors of the abortion mill process.

There's just one problem. It is Daschle's caveat that an abortion could still be obtained at any stage if a doctor "certifies" a pregnancy risks a woman's life or "grievous injury" to her health. Since abortionists are in the business of doing abortions, it is likely the health exception, as defined by them, would be invoked to justify the procedure.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, calls Daschle's proposal "a political sham" that would "empower abortionists to snuff out the lives of babies even during the final three months of pregnancy - when they could simply be delivered alive - merely by signing a piece of paper." Johnson says it also would permit partial-birth abortions of babies of healthy mothers to continue, on demand, during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, when most of them are actually performed.

Last week, five women who say they experienced the trauma of having their unborn children diagnosed as either dead or genetically deformed, wrote to tell me they had sought a meeting with President Clinton. They want to balance another group of women who met with the president and told him that while they disliked undergoing a partial birth abortion, it was the only way to save their lives and fertility. The women who wrote me said they chose not to have abortions and instead delivered and cared for their babies. Some of those babies died. Others remain alive, but handicapped. The women say their fertility is undamaged. They want to tell the president their story, but have been told his schedule is full and he can't see them.

That Daschle would propose "limitations" on some abortions indicates pro-life forces are gaining in their 24-year attempt to persuade the public that abortion is a terrible evil and that they have done all they can to answer the objections of those who believe that while the procedure is distasteful, it should be tolerated in some circumstances. Clearly, the drawings and verbal description of what happens to a mostly delivered baby who has his or her brains sucked out and skull crushed is having an effect on the public attitude toward at least this abortion technique.

If pro-lifers were not making progress in arguing for a restoration of laws recognizing the unborn as part of the human family, Daschle would not feel it necessary to propose his disingenuous bill. Furthermore, the public, however slowly, seems to be awakening to the social consequences of allowing the destruction of more than 30 million of our future citizens. Increasing numbers are seeing abortion on demand has devalued other categories of human life and human relationships.

If the unborn are not human, living beings, why curtail any abortions? Why does Daschle feel the need to propose such a fraudulent measure? Why negotiate the terms of death? Why not just kill any unborn child at any stage a woman wants? The pro-choicers know the debate over partial-birth abortion has touched something deep in the American psyche, something many thought might not be reachable in an age of selfishness.

Daschle's attempt to stem this new pro-life momentum won't work when the truth about his toothless measure is known. That abortion stops a beating heart is becoming more widely understood by growing numbers of people, including pro-choicers.

Los Angeles Times Syndicate