About Born Silent. In 2000 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Nebraska's law banning the brutal act of late term abortions. This decision has paved the way for legal challenges to similar laws in 30 other states. Born Silent was launched as a grass roots effort to raise awareness of the issue in the weeks preceding 2000 Supreme Court case. Our goal was to develop a concise message that clearly reveals the issue without being offensive. The result was a one minute narrative video in the style of a public service announcement, the heart of this web site. Our message is just as relevant today as it was in 2000: "Your voice will make a difference!" Born Silent is a message, not an organization. Our related sites and take action pages contain links of organizations working to voice this issue in the hallways of Washington. We hope you take time to investigate these organizations, let them hear from you, contribute to them, and spread the word about this web site. If you represent a political action group we hope that you will be able to use this site as a tool, as a way of helping your constituents fully understand the issue. Link us from your site, let us add you to our list of related sites. Just drop us an email and let us know how we can help each other spread this message. http://www.bornsilent.com/about.html
Public domain public service video. In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented his paper on this procedure at a Risk Management Seminar of the National Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure "for the health of the mother." Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother's health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist. The Court argued, furthermore, that a "health reason" for the Partial-birth abortion procedure was present if, in the judgment of the physician, it was safer than alternative procedures. One of the problems with this line of argument is that one can identify many circumstances in which it is safer for the mother to deliver the child normally than to have a partial-birth abortion. Normal delivery excludes the dangers that arise from inverting the position of the child, and from inserting surgical instruments into the birth canal. Why not argue, therefore, that "live-birth abortion" should be legal as a safer alternative to partial-birth abortion. People like Jill Stanek have exposed this practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-abortion forces, not having the support of the American public, challenged the law in court. Federal Courts in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th Circuits ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the case, and is reviewing the decisions of the 8th and 9th Circuit courts. Oral arguments were heard on Wednesday, November 8, 2006.
Loading...
2:56Early Surgical Abortion POC identificationby jerryedw13,082 views
if you dont want a baby then DONT OPEN YOUR LEGS AND SCREW!!! Abortion is MURDER!!!!!!
jmk2011 6 months ago
Repent, Pray! God Bless you.
2000yrCatholic 1 year ago
@angelmom3950 so true ive heard that too.
TheBELIGARCIA 1 year ago
@Losuol thats not true I worked for a pedatric doc. and spoke with people who have adopted these types of children who love them just the same as any child, question for you if you saw an infant laying on your front porch unaware of his condition would you murder the child? or would you call for help??
TheBELIGARCIA 1 year ago
The description is horrible already ..
If people don't want a child, I mean why do they do it in first place...
There is information and protection nowadays...
I personally wouldn't do it, I was born at 5 months myself.
Sy0592 1 year ago
I HATE ABORTION AND COME ON HELLLLLOOOO PEOPLE WAKE UP THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE TO ADOPT!!!!!
TheBELIGARCIA 1 year ago
@acostayuri Isn't that kind of VIOLENT???
ImaginaryDevils 1 year ago
obama approves of this kind of thing, btw. just search for obama infanticide. have a nice day! please ignore all the dead babies and reelect elitists like obama
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago