Mature audience: Woman describes performing abortion while pregnant herself

WARNING: this post contains a graphic description of an abortion that may not be appropriate for some individuals. Please read with care.

I think it's important in the debate about abortion to have an honest dialogue about all parties who are involved.

I think this blog, written by a female abortionist, goes far in revealing the sort of extreme cognative dissonance that is necessary for someone to perform abortions. 

And yet, even in this situation, it's impossible for her to avoid her own humanity - and the humanity of the young human person she is destroying:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. 

I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. 

With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. 

Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain - even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. 

It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

... and yet, she continues to perform abortions to this day.

There are several more examples in the same post of similar, incomprehensible thoughts and experiences related by the abortionist-writer.

If anything we've ever read has convinced us we need to pray for an end to an abortion, for the conversion of those who perform them, and work with greater self-conviction in the knowledge that our cause is just and desperately-needed in this world ... this was it.

Papist Quote of the Day: Abp. Chaput

"Health-care reform is vital. That's why America's bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades. They still do. But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy. It's not only imprudent; it's also dangerous.

... If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people's concerns more honestly -- and learn what the "common good" really means." (source)

Oh, and Abp. Chaput also has something to say to the editors of the UK Tablet who claimed "The US Bishops must back Obama." His first response to them? "[This article] proves once again that people don't need to actually live in the United States to have unhelpful and badly informed opinions about our domestic issues."

More proof that American Papists ought to carefully read everything Abp. Chaput writes.

Important: Bishop Nickless critically evaluates Obamacare, lays out Catholic principles

Stop the presses....

If you are a Catholic engaged in our nation's debate about health care, you need to read Bishop R. Walker Nickless' in his latest column.

I don't often post what I consider to be "required reading" for AmPsters, but this is one of those times. It's one of the very best articles on Catholic principles of health care I've read since I started following the debate.

Some excerpts:

.... My brother bishops have described some clear “goal-posts” to mark out what is acceptable reform, and what must be rejected.

First and most important, the Church will not accept any legislation that mandates coverage, public or private, for abortion, euthanasia, or embryonic stem-cell research. {contined}

Second, the Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right. {continued}

Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. {continued}

Fourth, preventative care is a moral obligation of the individual to God and to his or her family and loved ones, not a right to be demanded from society. {continued}

Now Bishop Nickless takes a look at the particular parts of the legislation we are examining in Congress:

Within these limits, the Church has been advocating for decades that health care be made more accessible to all, especially to the poor. Will the current health care reform proposals achieve these goals?

The current House reform bill, HR 3200, does not meet the first or the fourth standard. As Cardinal Justin Rigali has written for the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-life Activities, this bill circumvents the Hyde amendment (which prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions) by drawing funding from new sources not covered by the Hyde amendment, and by creatively manipulating how federal funds covered by the Hyde amendment are accounted. It also provides a “public insurance option” without adequate limits, so that smaller employers especially will have a financial incentive to push all their employees into this public insurance. This will effectively prevent those employees from choosing any private insurance plans. This will saddle the working classes with additional taxes for inefficient and immoral entitlements. The Senate bill, HELP, is better than the House bill, as I understand it. It subsidizes care for the poor, rather than tending to monopolize care. But, it designates the limit of four times federal poverty level for the public insurance option, which still includes more than half of all workers. This would impinge on the vitality of the private sector. It also does not meet the first standard of explicitly excluding mandatory abortion coverage.

Here you have Bishop Nickless' very compelling prudential conclusion about the current forms of the health care proposals. The idea that Catholics have an automatic obligation to support them is false. Instead, Catholics ought to be vocally involved in opposing the problematic features of this legislation, while also calling for authentic reform along different lines than the ones proposed now.

Important: Abp. Chaput's advice on nationalized health care

Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who I have immense respect for, has dedicated his latest column to the subject of health care. 

Typically I excerpt paragraphs from articles to give AmP readers the highlights and save them time, but in this case, I would simply urge you to read the whole thing (it's fairly short).

It's such a joy to encounter informed, rational debate and advice on health care from one of our bishops. Much space on AmP has recently been devoted to shooting down insane and deceptive perspectives on the issue. This is unfortunate because it may leave some with an impression that I only have critical things to say about health care reform as it is now offered. Well, it's true I have many critiques to make, but I'm also happy to engage in constructive conversation.

Anyway, after you have read Abp. Chaput's piece, consider a few comments of my own:

• I think it's brilliant that Abp. Chaput reminds us Catholics that the Church invented "common ground" on controversial issues. We're always in favor of true common ground that does not contradict our fundamental Catholic (and human) principles.
• Simultaneously, Catholics can support "in theory" the concept of health care reform but vehemently opposed a particular attempt at health care reform when, as Abp. Chaput says, "the devil is in the details." The details of the plan, in my personal opinion, flunk it, not the concept of reforming health care (how about, for instance, tort reform, anyone?). 
• If, as Abp. Chaput says, this health care plan explicitly includes mandated abortion access, or sneaks it in through another mechanism, this is "simply ... a form of lying." We should be angered at those who lie about their intentions, for it is an added offense beyond their determined support to make Catholics fund what we know to be the murder of innocents.
• Abp. Chaput is right to call out the amendment recently offered by Lois Capps (D-CA) as a "shell game". The current state of the health care bill, I confidently argue, is pro-abortion.
• Obviously, Catholics need to be vocal and involved in this debate. Amen a thousand times.

Regarding, finally, Abp. Chaput's four key principles that should guide the development of a health care plan "in light of the mixed and sobering track record of national health plans in other countries" (take note of this warning!) ... I think this health care plan currently fails on all four counts:

1. The elderly and disabled I do not believe will be treated "with a special concern" in the current plan. Rationing is a reality of every government benefit. Eugenics and pressure to low-income and disabled groups is a phenomenon of most every government-run health care plan I've come across. Look at England and our own state of Oregon.
2. The current plan contains no conscience clause protection for individuals or institutions!
3. The current plan funnels money to abortion under such euphemisms as "comprehensive planning services" and "mainstreams" their funding and pays those who provide them.
4. The current plan is economically unrealistic and unsustainable. Seriously, the government can't keep the postal service in the black, what's to make us think it can run 1/6th of our economy any better? Their first step has been to draft a gargantuan bill, so dense in its bureaucracy that not even the officials who are to vote on it have read it!

I could continue, but since this is an ongoing debate, I'll pause it here with my first round of impressions.

Required Reading: Abp. Chaput on Media, New & Old

I'm going to break with tradition and not excerpt any of the text because I think you should just click through this link and read the whole thing.

... especially if you spend a good deal of time digesting mainstream and new media (and really, who of us doesn't?). Not a single wasted word!