WARNING: This article contains some graphic descriptions and is not suitable for children

By REV. CHUCK GRIFFITH
Religion Columnist

My dad use to say , “The inmates are running the asylum”. Last week I felt like that might be true. The Supreme Court of the United States failed to uphold a Nebraska law prohibiting partial birth abortions by a vote of 5 to 4. Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion said of partial birth abortion, “The method of killing a human child—one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child—proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.”

Justice Kennedy (with whom Chief Justice Rehnquist joined) in dissenting described partial birth abortion: the abortionist initiates the woman's natural delivery process by causing the cervix of the woman to be dilated ... The fetus' arms and legs are delivered outside the uterus while the fetus is alive; witnesses to the procedure report seeing the body of the fetus moving outside the woman's body. At this point, the abortion procedure has the appearance of a live birth. As stated by one group of physicians, “as the physician manually performs breech extraction of the body of a live fetus, excepting the head, she continues in the apparent role of an obstetrician delivering a child.”

With only the head of the fetus remaining in utero, the abortionist tears open the skull. According to Dr. Martin Haskell, a leading proponent of the procedure, the appropriate instrument to be used at this stage of the abortion is a pair of scissors. Witnesses report observing the portion of the fetus outside the woman react to the skull penetration. The abortionist then inserts a suction tube and vacuums out the developing brain and other matter found within the skull. The process of making the size of the fetus' head smaller is given the clinically neutral term “reduction procedure.”

Brain death does not occur until after the skull invasion, ... The abortionist next completes the delivery of a dead fetus, intact except for the damage to the head and the missing contents of the skull.

You do understand that this describes the birth of a baby and before the head comes out totally the doctor pierces the base of the skull and sucks out the brains of the child.

Doctors have testified that in cases where the woman is dilated too much, the physician will have to hold the baby inside the woman so that he can perform the abortion. This is barbaric! Nebraska described the reason for the law to include concern for the life of the unborn and “for the partially-born,” in preserving the integrity of the medical profession, and in “erecting a barrier to infanticide.” It is pathetic that five justices of the highest court in our land would approve of such a procedure. As Justice Scalia said in his dissent, it “must be chalked up to the Court's inclination to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” In his dissent, Justice Thomas said the majority had to disregard the principles that the Supreme Court follows in every context but abortion. The majority decided on this case, not based upon its plain meaning but on their suspicion of it narrowing abortion rights.

It seems the number one issue for abortion rights supporters is having unlimited rights to take human life without regard for babies, society, or natural law.

To add insult to injury, I read last week that Archbishop Desmond Tutu said he wanted the abolition of the death penalty. He went on to say,” I can't understand why a country (speaking of the United States) that's so committed to human rights doesn't find the death penalty an obscenity.”

The majority of the states now use lethal injection as the method of executing a person who has been convicted of a capital offense. All that I have read about this method indicates it is the “most humane form of execution.”

It is sad that in this country we allow abortionists to kill innocent babies before they are born by ripping their skulls open and sucking their brains out and society considers it a woman's right to be protected. On the other hand society is more concerned that a person found guilty of murder, who goes through our legal system with all its appeals, should not be sentenced to die for his crime using “the most humane form of execution.”

Why doesn't Archbishop Tutu use his influence to speak out against partial birth abortion? Why are people so concerned about the death penalty for criminals but not concerned about the rights of innocent babies?

Maybe the inmates are running the asylum.

Chuck Griffith is pastor of Fayette Assembly of God, 1144 Ga. Highway 92 South in Fayetteville, 770-719-0322.

Back to the Top of the PageBack to the Religion Home Page