Skip to main content

Lies exposed by photos and videos

By Barbara Kralis
February 6, 2006
ęBarbara Kralis 2006

Supporters of the abortion movement have deceived mankind with bumfuzzling statements that Partial Birth Abortion is a rare occurrence, being performed "less than 500 times a year on only fetuses that are severely deformed."[1] However, as early as November 1995, Ron Fitzsimmons, then executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on ABC's 'Nightline' that he lied when he asserted the procedure was used rarely and only on fetuses and women whose lives were in danger. At that time, Fitzsimmons estimated 5,000 Partial Birth Abortions were performed annually and "primarily done on healthy women of healthy fetuses."[2]

Since that time, it has been reasoned by William F. Buckley[3] that Partial Birth Abortion is performed approximately 130,000 times a year in the United States. Los Angeles abortionist Dr. James McMahon admitted in l995 to performing over 2,000 partial birth abortions himself at that time. Cincinnati abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell admitted in l992 of having 'routinely' and 'easily' performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions himself, and that 80% of them are for purely elective [whimsical] reasons, such a depression or vomiting of the mother.[4]

If those groups promoting abortion assert the Partial Birth Abortion is so rare, then why do pro-abortion groups and Federal Judges bother to oppose the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003? The reason is clearly that Partial Birth Abortion is not rare but performed countless times on healthy babies and healthy mothers.[5]

In 2003, 345 U.S. Congressional members successfully worked toward banning the gruesome Partial Birth Abortion so that President Bush was able to sign into law 'The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003' [herein referred to as the 'Ban Act'] on November 5. Short and simple in wordage, the Act simply bans any abortion in which "the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the infant and completing the delivery."

The Ban Act met almost immediate Federal Judicial resistance in Manhattan, San Francisco, and Lincoln, Nebraska. Federal Judges in these three cities ruled the Ban Act unconstitutional after pro-abortion groups presented lawsuits opposing the Ban Act. The pro-abortion groups deceptively referred to the Partial Birth infanticide as a 'simple, commonplace, ordinary intact dilation and extraction procedure or D&E.'

On January 31, 2006, two Federal Appellate Courts again ruled the Ban Act was unconstitutional.[6] The Courts were the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco and the 2nd Circuit Court in Manhattan. All three of these decisions [Manhattan, San Francisco and Lincoln] will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority of these Federal Judges believed this surgical act of infanticide 'provides safety advantages for some women.' What about the disadvantages to the live, decapitated, crushed infant? All abortions are equally murderous acts and all of them must be opposed. How fashionable is their deception that casts doubt on reason's ability to know the truth. The truth is hundreds of doctors have testified there is virtually no condition that threatens the life of the mother to abort her child.[7]

Let us see who it is who is deceiving mankind about this surgical act of infanticide. For clear evidence to this answer, you may choose to view a photo at the website provided here. You will see three artist renderings and one color photo that depicts the surgical act of infanticide. Be sure to note the baby's head on the bottom right. This photo has everything to do with deception of the two January 31, 2006 Federal Court rulings.

This photo does not deceive mankind.

We should, with all one's heart, email this documentation to colleagues, family, and friends, providing clear, undeniable proof that abortion holds no advantages for the infant. Moreover, let us not bother to include any mawkish warning that the email contains 'graphic information that may be disturbing to some' because ...

1 | 2 | 3  Next Page

Rate This Article

Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 1 of 1 Comments

  1. jeremy
    5 years ago

    I pray that all Catholics will rely on gods teaching---the bible and only the bible

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Jonah 3:1-10
The word of Yahweh was addressed to Jonah a second time. 'Up!' ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 130:1-2, 3-4, 7-8
[Song of Ascents] From the depths I call to you, Yahweh: Lord, ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 10:38-42
In the course of their journey he came to a village, and a ... Read More

Saint of the Day

October 6 Saint of the Day

St. Bruno
October 6: Bruno was born in Cologne of the prominent Hartenfaust family. ... Read More