“We believe the state has a right to ban this gruesome procedure. The lawsuit just moves us one step closer to overturning Roe vs. Wade.”
By Micaiah Bilger
Life News
A closely-watched abortion trial concluded Wednesday in Texas with the abortion industry arguing that they should be allowed to continue dismembering living, second-trimester unborn babies while their hearts still are beating.
Earlier this year, the abortion chains Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood, along with other pro-abortion groups, challenged Senate Bill 8, which prohibits dismemberment abortions, a method typically used in the second trimester to kill nearly fully-formed, living unborn babies. It is a barbaric and dangerous procedure in which the unborn baby is ripped apart in the womb and pulled out in pieces while his or her heart is still beating.
In late August, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the law until the case could go to trial. Yeakel also presided over the hearing this week.
The abortion industry’s case is based on the claim that the law will outlaw the most common second-trimester abortion procedure (dilation and evacuation or D&E) and put an undue burden on women’s access to abortion.
But, according to Texas Right to Life, their witnesses contradicted one another throughout the trial and admitted that there were alternative abortion methods that they could use to comply with the new abortion law.
“At the end of the day, the abortion industry was forced to graphically describe the draconian and violent process of taking a child’s life through dismemberment, while also defending the practice they claim Texas has no right to prohibit,” the pro-life group said in a statement.
Media allies tried to paint the trial as a success for the abortion industry, though. A heavily biased report in The Austin Chronicle profiled Bhavik Kumar, medical director of the Whole Woman’s Health abortion chain in Texas, and his take on the new law.
Kumar said he has aborted about 4,000 unborn babies during his three years at the abortion chain, including dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions, which typically involve dismembering a living, nearly fully-formed unborn baby. He claimed dismembering living unborn babies is the “safest and most common type of second-trimester abortion.”
Sanitizing the brutality of a dismemberment abortion, the report stated:
Doctors dilate the cervix and remove the fetus with surgical instruments during the typically one-day, outpatient procedure. …
Alternately, the law would allow D&E if doctors cause fetal demise first, a typically painful injection of either the drug Digoxin or potassium chloride (KCl). Those procedures are not only medically unnecessary but also add risk, pain, price, and logistical barriers, with little to no benefit, testified plaintiff physicians. And in the case of Digoxin, a woman could end up delivering the fetus outside of a health care facility.
The Federalist reports attorneys and witnesses for the abortion industry used pedantic arguments about medical terms to try to defend their cruel practices, while using euphemisms themselves to avoid drawing attention to the unborn child.
