Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Society|Wed, May. 28 2008 04:42 PM EDT

Michigan House Affirms Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

By Aaron Leichman|Christian Post Reporter

Pro-life groups in Michigan were encouraged Tuesday after the Democratic-led House voted 74-32 to hand a bill that would ban partial-birth abortions for review in the Senate.

“Today’s vote is a victory for those who have spent several years working to uplift the dignity of women and the human rights of the unborn by ending the atrocity known as partial-birth abortion,” Michigan Catholic Conference Vice President for Public Policy Paul A. Long said in a statement after the vote.

Although the bill is expected to coast smoothly through the Republican majority Senate, celebrations from pro-life supporters were partially muted over concerns that Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm would veto the bill. Granholm has said that should would veto the bill if exceptions were not made that would account for the health of a mother.

An amendment allowing for the exception failed to be approved by the state legislature.

If the bill is passed, however, the measure would strengthen abortion laws in Michigan and mimic the federal ban on the practice that was approved by the Supreme Court last year.

While detractors of the bill have called the bill unnecessary because of the already existing federal ban, Republican Rep. Brian Palmer paraded the bill as an effort to bring a certain end to an inhumane procedure in which babies are partially delivered only to killed.

"Even if it is one, it's one too many," Palmer said, according to The Associated Press.

In 2003, Granholm earned the derision of pro-life groups when she vetoed a similar attempt to ban partial-birth abortions after calling it “unconstitutional.”

Long of the Catholic Conference said that he hoped the 2007 ruling by the Supreme Court to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions would help this year’s bill pass more easily.

“[T]he Governor needs to be reminded that the United States Supreme Court, on April 18, 2007, found the federal partial birth abortion ban constitutional, thereby ensuring that measures which mirror the federal ban would be constitutional as well,” he said.

“The game of playing politics with human life is beyond tiresome and must end for the sake of the most vulnerable among us – the unborn,” he concluded.

Since 1973, when the Supreme Court made its ruling in Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion throughout the United States, nearly 50 million babies have been aborted.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Fri May 30, 2008 7:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I very strongly believe that the procedure of partial birth abortion is never necessary for the safety or health of the mother!! Never ever. Abortion is bad enough, this procedure is beyond words. Why pray tell does it need to be that kind of abortion to save the health of the mother? As with the others (they are all murder), this little child just wants to be born. It has a creator, designer, purpose!

  • Thu May 29, 2008 12:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I have a friend who's wife was carrying twins. One of the twins died in-utero and was positioned in the uterus in such a way as to make it's extraction impossible without "effectively" aborting the other baby. It happened somewhere in the second trimester.

    This was obviously a rare case where neither the mother or her surviving child would have continued to live if an abortion was not performed. But it was still a case of saving the mother's life, rather than letting them both die.

    I can't imagine that in this day and age, that doctors would have any legal issues with this even if Roe-v-Wade were completely overturned. Would anyone "really" have something to worry about if we put an end to ALL of these horrific practices?

    BTW, her 2nd and 3rd pregnancies were text-book, and she and her husband have 2 beautiful children.

  • Thu May 29, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks star. Unless the mother's life is in danger, I can't imagine someone carrying out this procedure (and I'm really liberal!)

  • Thu May 29, 2008 10:43 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    BmoreTeacher

    "Partial-birth" abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull, (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5) completing the delivery.

    Google "partial birth abortion" if you want more information on it.

    (I flagged myself to make a correction and an addition)

  • Thu May 29, 2008 8:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Could someone explain to me exactly what partial birth abortion consists of (I'm looking for someone who really knows, not someone who is speculating.) How does it differ from a normal abortion and under what circumstances would it performed?

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links