National Right to Life
“Room packed, views clash as trial over Kentucky abortion law begins” is the headline to Deborah Yetter’s story describing the trial this week in which the ACLU is challenging Kentucky’s “House Bill 454.”
Views did indeed “clash.” Representing EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, the state’s lone remaining abortion clinic, the ACLU’s Alexa Kolbi-Molinas told Judge Joseph McKinley that tearing living unborn babies limb from limb well into the second trimester is safe, safe, safe—for the mother.
And to even have to first inject the living unborn child with potassium chloride is unconscionable—“an unconstitutional barrier for women seeking abortions after the 14th week of pregnancy,” as Yetter paraphrased the ACLU’s argument. That’s one view.
The other view saw the living unborn child as more than the object of the abortionist’s tool whose removal was more than “exercising” a right. That view said, “Think what you are doing—to the helpless child, to her mother, to the profession of medicine.”
But, as always, the gory, brutal, inhumane dismemberment of living unborn babies was brushed off by the ACLU lawyer with euphemisms intended to make unspeakable acceptable. Yetter writes that Kolbi-Molinas also said that supporters of the law will rely on extreme language to make their case.
According to Yetter’s non-inflammatory story, “The method involves dilating the patient’s cervix and removing the contents of the uterus with forceps.”
“Removing the contents of the uterus”…. That’s the non-inflammatory view of the ACLU which typically is not the least bit shy about using incendiary language when it fights for its clients.
Yetter concludes her story. [Judge] McKinley is expected to issue a ruling at a later date, with both sides saying an appeal is inevitable.
But, as always, the gory, brutal, inhumane dismemberment of living unborn babies was brushed off by the ACLU lawyer with euphemisms intended to make unspeakable acceptable. Yetter writes that Kolbi-Molinas also said that supporters of the law will rely on extreme language to make their case.
“This court is going to hear the same inflammatory rhetoric and non-medical terminology,” she said.What is a non-inflammatory description of an act where an abortionist continually reaches into the mother’s womb with a variety of sharp-edged metal clamps and tools, yanking off parts of the child and pulling them out, piece by piece, and placed in a tray?
According to Yetter’s non-inflammatory story, “The method involves dilating the patient’s cervix and removing the contents of the uterus with forceps.”
“Removing the contents of the uterus”…. That’s the non-inflammatory view of the ACLU which typically is not the least bit shy about using incendiary language when it fights for its clients.
Yetter concludes her story. [Judge] McKinley is expected to issue a ruling at a later date, with both sides saying an appeal is inevitable.
