Abortionist: I Cut the Vocal Cord So The Baby Can't Scream
(Screenshot: Twitter)
Dr. Leah Torres, an OB/GYN in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that when she performs certain abortions she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.
Torres made her disturbing comments on Twitter on March 11, in response to a question.
As the tweets show, @ZarbaNotZorba asked Torres about the aborted babies: "Do you hear their heartbeats when you lay down at night? Do you hear their screams?"
Torres replied, "No. You know fetuses can't scream, right? I transect the cord 1st so there's really no opportunity, if they're even far enough along to have a larynx."
"I won't apologize for performing medicine," said Torres. "I'm also a 'uterus ripper outer,' if that's how you'd like to describe hysterectomy."
(Screenshot: Twitter, KP@She_ Became)
Torres's tweet garnered a lot of backlash from pro-life activists. David Daleiden, with the Center for Medical Progress, tweeted on March 13 that his organization did not investigate the Planned Parenthood facilities in Utah "in part because their abortion doctors were the only ones who actually scared me."
"Thanks @LeahNTorres for the very honest reminder," said Daleiden on Twitter.
On March 15, Dr. Torres disclosed that she had deleted her tweet about cutting a baby's vocal cords.
"Yes, I deleted the post," she said on Twitter. "My friend asked me to. See, the thing is, she is trying to open dialoge between 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' here in Australia, for the greater good of reproductive health.
"Folks allowed the post to inhibit progress, so, it's off my feed." (Torres's feed indicates she was visiting Australia at that time.)
Mississippi Becomes First State to Ban Abortions Past 15 Weeks of Pregnancy
Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has signed a bill into law making his state the first in the nation to ban abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The Republican governor signed House Bill 1510 into law on Monday, drawing an immediate lawsuit from the state’s only abortion clinic – Jackson Women’s Health Clinic – which claims the law is unconstitutional.
“We’ll probably be sued here in about half-hour,” Bryant joked as he signed the bill into law. “That’ll be fine with me. It’s worth fighting over.”
The bill makes exceptions to the 15-week ban if the mother’s life is in danger or the unborn baby has a life-threatening abnormality.
Abortion rights advocates claim the law is unconstitutional because it prevents women from having abortions prior to the stage of viability, when a fetus is able to live outside its mother’s womb.
“The legal standard that the Supreme Court has said is that a woman has the right to end a pregnancy before viability,” said Julie Rikelman, legal counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, according to Mississippi Today. “And this ban takes effect well over a month before the fetus is viable, and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that you just can’t do that.”
However, Jameson Taylor, interim director of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy – a conservative think tank that authored the bill – cited Gonzales v. Carhart, a 2007 Supreme Court case that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Taylor explained that viability of the fetus is not the “penultimate standard” as it has been in past years, in part due to medical advances that have allowed prematurely born babies to survive outside the womb earlier.
“What’s important is that this regulation makes rational sense,” he said. “That’s exactly what the courts will be looking at, to what extent does this protect the health of the mother and the life of the unborn child.”
While presenting the measure, Republican state Rep. Andy Gipson cited statistics from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute that shows a mother’s chances of having serious health risks increase substantially when abortions are performed after 18 weeks, from 0.3 deaths per 100,000 abortions performed prior to eight weeks, to 6.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions after 18 weeks.
Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates condemned the legislation:
“If Gov. Bryant truly cared about the health and well-being of Mississippi women and families, he would be working to expand access to health care — not taking it away,” said Felicia Brown-Williams, state director for Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates. “This law was written by politicians, not doctors. (House Bill) 1510 is just the latest in a series of attacks targeting women and access to safe, legal abortion.”
Bryant, however, said he was “proud” to sign the bill into law.
“I pray today we have saved the first life of an unborn child in Mississippi,” Bryant tweeted:
I pray today we have saved the first life of an unborn child in Mississippi. apnews.com/9bb9de1299e04f…
“I was proud to sign House Bill 1510 this afternoon,” the governor also posted on his Facebook account. “I am committed to making Mississippi the safest place in America for an unborn child, and this bill will help us achieve that goal.”
Supreme Court Skeptical of California Law Forcing Pro-life Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions
Washington, D.C. - The Supreme Court appeared likely, following oral arguments Tuesday, to strike down a California law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to post messages promoting abortion. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices expressed serious concerns that the law violated the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan even expressed concern that the law had been “gerrymandered” to target these pregnancy centers.
“If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue,” Kagan said.
Justice Samuel Alito observed that California's criteria about which centers must comply with the law seemed to be aimed at only "pro-life clinics."
"When you put all this together, you get a very suspicious pattern," he said.
The centers are required by the law to post a notice that “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The conservative justices and Justice Kennedy, the crucial swing vote on the court, said the law appears to violate the First Amendment.
Kennedy said the law was "mandating speech," and forces pro-life centers to "alter the content of their message."
According to the New York Times, “a part of the law that requires some unlicensed centers to disclose their status in large type and many languages when they advertise seemed likely to be struck down.”
Kennedy said that that part of the law constituted an “undue burden” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that it was “burdensome and wrong.”
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer brought up that the Supreme Court has permitted states to require abortion doctors to include statements about support available for women who decide to continue their pregnancies.
“In law, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Breyer said. He did go on to note, however, that since the law was immediately challenged, lower courts have been unable to assess the burdens it places on pregnancy centers.
During oral arguments, both NIFLA and the abortion group NARAL held rallies outside the court despite the freezing rain.
Kate Anderson, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, the group representing NIFLA in the case, told Townhall they were “very hopeful,” for a good outcome.
“This case is about the right of every American to not be forced by the government to promote a message that violates their conscience,” she emphasized, “and that’s something that should unite the court and unite every American.”
Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said in her remarks at the rally that the case is "critically important,” arguing that “the government shouldn’t have the power to force anyone to speak a message with which it disagrees. Pregnancy centers were established specifically to help women – at no charge – to choose life for their children. The government shouldn’t force them or anyone to advertise for something that directly contradicts the very reason they exist."
No comments:
Post a Comment