-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Girls Aborted By Ethnic Minorities
13:40PM Thu Apr 06 2000 NZST
http://www.xtra.co.nz/homepage/news/main/0,1081,News%3ANew+Zealand+News%3A17
1162,00.html?
Doctors have been put on alert following the claim that the third world
practice of aborting unborn baby girls is going on in New Zealand.
The Medical Association says it has anecdotal evidence that some ethnic
minorities are terminating their foetuses once they are told it is female.
Overseas the practice is widespread in India and China and sometimes in
Russia.
Association chairwoman Dr Pippa MacKay says it's extremely concerning and
she wants doctors to be aware that it's occurring.
She says it's illegal to terminate a child on the basis of its gender.
___________________________________________________
House OKs partial
birth abortion ban
Measure still faces Senate,
Clinton promises another veto
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_fosterj_news/20000406_xnfoj_house_oks_.
shtml
Links here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
By Julie Foster
� 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
For the third time since Republicans gained control of Congress, a
bipartisan coalition in the House of Representatives approved a ban of
partial birth abortions with a super-majority vote -- a large enough margin
to override President Clinton's impending veto.
Partial birth abortion is a procedure in which the body of a fetus is
vaginally delivered, feet-first up to the head, the fetus' skull is then
punctured and the brain removed by a suction device. Once the brain is
removed, the fetus' head collapses, delivery is completed and the fetus is
discarded.
"This House has the responsibility to do everything in its power to put an
end to this practice which has no place in a civilized society," said Rep.
Charles Canady, R-Fla., who sponsored the legislation. "This House cannot
remain silent while a procedure such as partial birth abortion is being
performed across this land."
"I appeal to the Members of this House to consider the chilling reality of
what takes place when a partial birth abortion is performed," Canady
continued. "We cannot in good conscience sit idly by while such deeds are
being done under the protection of the law."
"Consider our common humanity," he pleaded.
Passage of the bill was never in doubt, but opponents held out hope that
support would be less than the two-thirds majority needed to override a
threatened veto by the president. The House has overridden two previous
vetoes on the issue, but the Senate has sustained Clinton's rejection each
time, and is expected to do so again.
The Senate approved a similar bill last fall, and a compromise is expected
before the end of the year. The only difference between the two bills is a
Senate-passed provision -- engineered by Democrats -- declaring that the
high court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 established "an important
constitutional right" and should not be overturned.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion
Providers, made news in 1997 when he admitted to having "lied through my
teeth" when claiming partial birth abortion was performed in rare
circumstances when a mother's life was in danger and only when a fetus was
damaged.
"The pro-choice movement has lost a lot of credibility during this debate,"
Fitzsimmons told American Medical News, "not just with the general public,
but with our pro-choice friends in Congress."
As reported by the New York Times, Fitzsimmons admitted in "the vast
majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a
healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."
"The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so,
probably, does everyone else," he said.
Sponsors of the ban say it is designed to outlaw only partial birth
abortions, but opponents claim the bill, as written, would apply far more
broadly, thus undermining the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that
granted women the right to abortions.
Less than 500 words long, H.R. 3660 defines "partial birth abortion" as "the
overt act that kills the fetus while the intact living fetus is partially
outside the body of the mother."
Congress is voting on the measure at the same time the Supreme Court is
prepared to hear arguments on the constitutionality of a partial birth
abortion ban enacted in Nebraska.
While there is no direct connection between the court case and the pending
legislation, sponsors say the measure before the House was designed to meet
objections of federal appeals court judges who said the Nebraska statute
failed to meet constitutional standards.
A bipartisan group of opponents of the measure sought a vote on an
alternative to ban "post-viability abortions" except in cases in which the
woman's life or health were in jeopardy. GOP leadership successfully
prevented the measure from coming to a vote.
Minority Leader Dick Gephardt continued his support for the ban. In all, 209
Republicans, 77 Democrats and one independent voted for the measure, while
132 Democrats, eight Republicans and one independent were opposed.
The vote, 287-141, came after several hours of debate in which opponents of
the ban accused Republicans of exploiting the hotly debated issue for
political gain in an election year -- otherwise known as "driving a wedge
issue."
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who made such an accusation during debate, was
contacted by WorldNetDaily for comment. Spokeswoman Lisa Cowen explained the
congresswoman opposes a partial birth abortion ban because she is "not in
the business of legislating medical decisions."
Cowen was asked to clarify whether DeGette "has a problem with a five- or
six-month gestated fetus being partially delivered and then aborted."
The spokeswoman replied, "I'm really not comfortable with the tenor of your
questions, and I would like to cut this off."
But Cowen is not the only person in the debate over partial birth abortion
who is offended by frank discussion of the procedure, yet refuses to support
a ban on the gruesome practice.
Searching for a defense of opposition to the legislation, WND also contacted
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., for comment.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Her staff members said she opposes the bill
because it lacks an exception for the life of the mother, even though the
bill includes just such an exception.
Waters' legislative assistant, Veronique Pluviose-Fenton, told WND the
congresswoman opposed the ban because it "did not include protections for
the life of the mother."
However, the second sentence of the bill states: "This paragraph shall not
apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a
mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."
Upon hearing the sentence, the puzzled Pluviose-Fenton revised her
statement, saying the provision was "not broad enough" for the
congresswoman.
Frank Phillips, official spokesman for Waters, was asked to clarify the
congresswoman's position. Phillips, obviously apprehensive, was asked
multiple times for the spelling of the legislative assistant's name, and he
initially requested that Pluviose-Fenton's statement be attributed to
himself. WND refused to falsely attribute the quote.
Phillips then asked WND to read back Pluviose-Fenton's quote, which he
repeated, saying, "There, now I said it."
Canady's bill must now be approved by the Senate before being considered by
the president.
Clinton has vetoed two "partial birth" bills in the past and promised to do
so again, calling on Congress to provide for exceptions in the case of
potential harm to a woman's health, not just the life of the mother.
Both previous vetoes were overridden in the House before being narrowly
sustained in the Senate.
Readers can express their views on this or any other public policy issue at
WorldNetDaily's Legislative Actions Center, which provides instant access to
state and federal representatives, media outlets and additional legislative
information.
Julie Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.
E-mail to a friend Printer-friendly version
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
