Saturday, July 09, 2005

Partial-Birth Abortion: Medically Necessary?

On March 17, 2004, NARAL issued a press release after HB1220 was defeated (this bill would have banned partial-birth abortions in New Hampshire) in which NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire Executive Director Laura Thibault applauded the vote saying, "New Hampshire legislators clearly recognized the threat that such a ban would have posed to women's health and lives." Ms. Thibault also said that those who had supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, "continue to ignore the United States Supreme Court requirements that restrictions on abortion must include exceptions to protect the health and lives of women" and that "the true intent of this legislation was 'to restrict abortion regardless of the costs to women's health and lives."

However, as the American Life League reports in one of their articles, "In September, 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop and other PHACT members said that 'partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.'"

On March 17, 2004, HB1220 was defeated by a vote of 189-129. One of those who voted nay (opposing this legislation to ban partial-birth abortion) was State Representative Maurice Pilotte. Does he believe, as Ms. Laura Thibault does, that partial-birth abortions are somehow medically necessary or that a ban would have posed a "threat" to women's health? If so, is he more knowledgeable than former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop on this matter?

And how does one reconcile voting against a ban on partial-birth abortion (which is actually infanticide) with receiving Jesus in the Holy Eucharist?

I wonder if Fr. Arsenault would find this problematic?


No comments:

Site Meter