They should not be allowed to confuse the issue, which is, whether or not the rights of parents should correspond with their responsibilities to their minor children under the law.

Minor girls who get pregnant are still their parents' legal responsibility. Under the family codes of most states, parents are required to assume responsibility for the physical, psychological and emotional well being of their minor children. If a girl under 18 obtains an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her parents, and, if that abortion results in physical, emotional or psychological complications requiring professional medical treatment or psychological counseling, the parents have to foot the bill. In such a case, everyone involved in helping her to act behind her parents' back is involved in the usurpation of parental rights, yet they bear no responsibility for the consequences.

Parental consent or notification bills would restore to parents at least the right to be notified prior to their daughter's action. This is simply a matter of justice. Parental rights should correspond to parental responsibilities.

Wisconsin Pro-Lifers Move to Recall Senators Feingold and Kohl 
First Breath Alliance, a state-wide pro-life group in Wisconsin is gathering signatures to force a special recall election to rid the state of both U.S. Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl who voted against the ban on partial birth abortions. During the Senate debate on the ban, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) asked Senator Feingold, if, during a hypothetical partial birth abortion, "the baby's head is accidentally delivered . . . would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?" Senator Feingold responded "I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor and by the woman who receives the advice from the doctor. And neither I nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania truly competent to answer those questions. And that is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate." It is difficult to understand how the people of Wisconsin could want to continue to be represented by Senators who have such heard hearted disregard for the lives of innocent babies.

Eight Republicans Vote Against Ban on Partial Birth Abortions 
Flying in the face of what most Americans consider a minimally civilized position, the following eight Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, on March 20, callously voted against banning the partial birth abortion technique: Sherwood Boehlert (NY-23), Tom Campbell (CA-15), Benjamin Gilman (NY-20), Jim Greenwood (PA-8), Steve Horn (CA-38), Nancy Johnson (CT-6), Jim Kolbe (AZ-5), and Connie Morella (MD-8).

For those who have a hard time understanding what motivates the people who voted against the ban, consider the remarks about the partial birth abortion procedure by Representative Barbara B. Kennelly, Democrat of Connecticut, who is an ardent supporter of unrestricted abortion-on-demand: "It is brutal. It is inhuman. And it never should be used. However, may I say, that is not my decision. Under Roe v. Wade, the law of the land, it is the decision of the mother and the doctor." Chilling.

New York Times Interviews Abortionists 
A dozen abortionists were interviewed about their views on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and their comments were recorded in a New York Times story by Deborah Sontag (3/21/97), "Doctors Say It's Just One Way". Noting that the procedure in question is just one of several ways to kill an unborn baby after 20 weeks gestation, the abortionists' comments were frank and graphic. One, whose name was not mentioned in the article, said that he himself performs 200 late term abortions a year; he attempts an intact dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) in half, and succeeds in about a quarter.

Twenty-four hours before the abortion, he begins to dilate a woman's cervix, using laminaria, which are sterilized sticks of seaweed. The next day, he generally gives the patient a local anesthetic and a sedative. "'You go in and fish out a foot and pull the fetus into a breech position,' the doctor said. 'You turn it so that the backside is up, pull down on its hips and rotate. When you get to the shoulder blade, it's easy to sweep the arms down. Then, most of the time you have to crush or fenestrate the skull so that it can come out.' " Another abortionist, Dr. Darney of San Francisco, described his reaction to the ban. " ' This is not something I rely on, but I find it absolutely bizarre that Congress wants to ban it. In my view, it's as if they were to forbid me to use a certain kind of suture.' " Nuremberg comes to mind.

House Commerce Committee Votes to Deny Funds for Assisted Suicide 
HR 1003, sponsored by Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX), prohibiting tax funding of doctor-abetted suicide, passed by a vote of 44-2 in the House Commerce Committee on March 20. While HR 1003 stops the federal government from paying for assisted suicide, it does not prevent a state that legalizes assisted suicide from using its own funds under Medicaid for that purpose. Of particular interest is the fact that two Democrat-sponsored amendments were defeated by the Committee along Party-line votes. One would have withheld some medical education funds if medical schools do not improve their education about end of life care, and the other called for a federal health agency to set up guidelines for palliative care and pain management for the dying.