Thursday, February 05, 2009

AP: Infant Survives Late Term Abortion--Killed by Staff

This is an awful, awful story: The photo at left is of a 22-week prematurely born infant. According to the AP--no pro life outlet--a more developed infant survived a late term abortion in Florida only to be put in a plastic bag and thrown out by a staffer at the abortion clinic. From the story:

Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure. Only Renelique didn't arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic's owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant's umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out. Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
While in the Illinois Legislature, our president said that a proposed state law to protect the lives of such babies was unconstitutional and unnecessary, even referring to babies that survive abortions as "a previable child or fetus, however you want to describe it."If this story is true, she was a born infant--and she was murdered. President Obama should be asked for a comment. Moreover, he should be asked about the Freedom of Choice Act, that would eliminate the Federal Infant Born Alive Protection Act and similar state laws--like the one in Illinois that passed despite his "present" vote--designed to protect babies such as this.

This matter should be investigated thoroughly. If the coroner finds that the baby was indeed alive when she was born, the abortion clinic owner should be prosecuted for murder. If Florida won't act, the Feds should enforce the still-in-effect Infant Born Alive Protection Act.

Labels:

21 Comments:

At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Mia Zagora said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Mia Zagora said...

The first time I commented I didn't bother to click on your link, which was to a story by the Associated Press. Awful, disgusting story. This happens more often than we realize. I can't see how the people who do such things can sleep at night.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger GrannyGrump said...

"What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate:"

I wasn't shocked. SSDD. To be a shock, something has to be unexpected.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger GrannyGrump said...

What shocks me is that the AP is covering the story.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

Agree with GrannyGrump. I wish things like this shocked me. For people who will do mid- or late-term abortions, why would they stick at this?

I wonder about: "The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity." What did they base this on? It's true that the baby was extremely premature and possibly couldn't have been saved, but you could put a full-term infant in a plastic bag in the dumpster and it would die. I wonder if the cause of death actually suffocation, or dehydration, or something like that. Not that it matters, I suppose.

"'She came face to face with a human being,' Pennekamp said. 'And that changed everything.'" What changed, exactly? How is what happened different than what would have happened had the abortion gone according to plan, except that Williams wouldn't have had to see that human being?


"Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion.... She concluded she didn't have the resources or maturity to raise a child...."

"At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived."

Somebody please tell me why this is legal. Seriously. Even for people who see nothing wrong with abortion prior to viability - why is this LEGAL?

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

The coroner found that the child had breathed, hence was born alive. (This all happened, and came out, years ago. The only reason it's in the MSM now is because the mother is bringing suit.) However, the coroner ruled the cause of death "extreme prematurity." This despite the fact that the live child was placed in a biohazard bag full of bleach, which was hidden from the police. The police were very upset at the time and wanted it prosecuted, but since the coroner put "extreme prematurity" as the cause of death, the idea was that the prosecutor couldn't act. There was a statement at the time made (I don't know what the evidence was) that the prosecutor's office was trying to decide if the child was "viable" before deciding whether to prosecute. I assume the coroner's statement was meant to make that unnecessary.

The federal BAIPA probably has no specific provision that can be used to punish the individuals involved. The clinic has gone out of business, I believe, so it can't be threatened with the loss of federal funds (if it was getting them), and that's the most anyone (i.e., Hadley Arkes) has suggested as federal enforcement of the federal BAIPA.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Thanks for catching that Lydia. So nothing was done by law enforcement at the time? Unbelievable.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

My apologies to SHSers for missing the 2006 date of this. It doesn't change the nature of the issue, but I should have noted it.

 
At February 05, 2009 , Blogger Salt Racer said...

WJS: What is interesting is that in my twitter stream I saw this story come up before you posted here. And it came from Fox. (Though it is a reprint of the AP story.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488644,00.html

SOMEthing brought this to the MSM's attention again. Even if it's "just" the lawsuit, then good. The nature of the issue needs to be discussed.

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

Something was done by police, insofar as the police could do anything. Jill Stanek had several columns on it. They investigated it, found the body, and were determined that it would be prosecuted. Stanek even had, as I recall, the name of the police chief involved and so on and cited his determination to see charges brought. But evidently the prosecutor's office refused.

I've thought for a while (especially since reading about that case) that it would be interesting to find out what resources prosecutors have in those circumstances. For example, are the words the coroner uses to describe the death really so decisive as all that? The coroner did give the evidence that the child had been born alive. The designation of "extreme prematurity" as the cause of death looks ideological. If witnesses saw someone put a live, extremely elderly lady into a body bag filled with bleach and hid the body on the roof from police and the coroner wrote down "heart failure" or "Alzheimer's disease" or "cancer" on the death certificate, I would think it could still be prosecuted.

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

Ughahhhhh....

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger Ianthe said...

That "live birth" and "protection" should even have to be in the same name of an Act, and that there should even have to be such an Act, is horrifying,

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger Ianthe said...

I meant Infant Born Alive Protection Act. Well, a stillborn doesn't need that kind of protection. We need even to make sure that a live infant gets it, there should even be a question?

Every so often, one reads in the news about a bovine, for example, that escaped on the way to slaughter and had to be rounded up by the cops as it ran for its life through the streets. Invariable, the animal gets to live. The intention was that it should die, but its will to live is rewarded. There is something in us that compels us not to send it back to the slaughterhouse, and it is part of what is the best in our human nature. Not that other animals don't often have the same kind of instinct, by the way.

I don't want to say, "We treat an animal that way and we don't treat humans as well?" because it is not only trite, but also, and much more importantly, demeaning to the overall concept I'm trying to convey. (I don't seem to be at my most articulate today.) Regardless of intent that it should not live, when a being does, we have lost whatever right, or "right," we had to take its life. (And no, that doesn't apply to situations where execution techniques don't work on the first attempt in the cases of capital crimes, because in that case the being has done harm to society; I'm talking only theoretically, because I am not in favor of capital punishment in the first place, but theoretically, the exception holds.)

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger Ianthe said...

Mia: I don't understand why they are not in prison day and night. They shouldn't be walking among us. We can't afford it.

 
At February 06, 2009 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

I wish the media would confront Obama on this too. But they won't. He's their guy and too big to fail. His argument is/was that if you protect the child born during an abortion or like this when an abortion was intended, you are burdening the mother's initial decision to have an abortion.

The BAIPA was necessary because the Third Court's Farmer Decision and Supreme Court's Stenberg Partial Birth Abortion decisions made it clear or at least left the idea that the location of the child didn't make a difference in the eyes of the law. What mattered was the desire for a dead baby. If this were sustained, killing after birth would be logical because it is much safer to the mother than the grisly late abortion.

Lydia, I don't know what federal funds they could get since the Hyde amendment prevents federal-not state-funding of abortion except for rape, incest and the life of the mother. Bush put in some provision when Arkes and others complained there was no consequence, but I can't remember what it was.

My guess is that Obama's justice department doesn't do anything about this except perhaps to show he really doesn't support what he was caught supporting prior to the election. He's stacked his administration with pro-abortionists, which is natural since they helped him win, so I don't see them doing anything even though the BAIPA had near unanimous support.

I sympathize with others about not being shocked. When you are around things like this so often, you forget that most people around us aren't aware of the atrocities that happen every day and they can cease to be shocking. The horror can overwhelm us. It becomes routine and these atrocities numb us. The only way I've found to fight against this is to look at the pictures of what abortion does or pictures of the unborn or ultrasounds at places like Priests for Life. Culture of death advocates have an advantage. What they do is for the most part unbelievable. You can lose your credibility reporting what they do. No one can believe it. People get mad at the messenger. The message tells them they'd have to do something. So sometimes it's not strategic to share all that we know. Then when it breaks out that it is true, it's so repulsive that people tend not to be able to muster a sustained response. So there's some advantage in being heinous.

Lanthe, you wonder what's happened to society that these people are walking among us.

 
At February 07, 2009 , Blogger Laura(southernxyl) said...

I thought Obama's argument was that if you protect these babies you're conferring personhood on fetuses.

Maybe we could let them be just 3/5 of a person?

 
At February 07, 2009 , Blogger Don Nelson said...

Laura, he probably thinks that too in his talk about pre-viable fetuses, but he also thinks that treating newborns born during an abortion burdens the choice the woman made to have the baby dead. I think someone could probably make an analogy to the baby Doe case where the child was not the kind of child that the parents wanted, so they decided not to treat him. Their decision to have a certain kind of child was burdened by his existence.

As to the 3/5 person comment, it's bizarre to me that people groups who have suffered incredible oppression appear to be the least supportive of the effort to protect the unborn and don't show much of the kind of offense to the dehumanization of the unborn to justify abortion that I'd expect. I don't try to understand it anymore.

 
At February 07, 2009 , Blogger Ianthe said...

Don: I think what happened to society that these people are walking among us is too much "nice" as embodied, for example, by the Nuremberg code, the U.N., materialism, laziness, a sense of entitlement, science divorced from humanity, which the Nuremberg code purported to try to stop but enabled to continue and flourish, and tolerance of illogic and ignorance, or, in a nutshell, what a certain stripe of Democrats and liberals happen to embody and represent.

As for Obama, I posted here not long ago what's in his astrological chart for reasons including precisely the issue at hand. You are right that people can't, and don't want to, believe that such heinous things go on and that the media does not do its job. They didn't, and some still don't, want to believe what was right before their eyes in him, and the media, who don't even seem to know what their job is any more, waved him in, and now we see the result. He himself looked as if he couldn't believe he'd been elected, and if he's not removed from office forthwith, and the whole crew he's installed along with him, we're done for. We've got a crisis that's turning into a catastrophe, all right, but it's not the economy.

Remember "it's the economy, stupid"? Spoken by the crew he's brought back. Now, if someone is stupid, why tell them anything? One who says that has already begun with the assumption that they won't understand it, and is proceeding to shove it down their throats. He's doing the same thing, saying the economy is the problem, and making it a worse problem, in an attempt to distract from the real issue, which is the moral bankruptcy with which the person placing primary focus on the economy is operating.

 
At February 07, 2009 , Blogger Ianthe said...

Don: I forgot to include "incompetence and irresponsibility and tolerance of incompetence and irresponsibility " with "tolerance of illogic and ignorance" just now. I do happen to think that the Reagan dynamic did more harm than good, including to the Republican party, with the "religious right" stuff. That polarized the country, and allowed liberalism of the unsound variety, including in the media, to run even further amok, resulting in, among many other things, the phenomenon of "Reagan Democrats," while leaving secular Republicans with no ground remaining under their feet. Religion has no place in politics, and common sense and life-preserving values do not require religion. The whole thing ended up with no one having ground under their feet and things such a mess that people fell for the "change" mantra, which had no ground under its feet, either, but with enough people floating with no ground under their feet, that was allowed to float too. Now we've got the kind of change people didn't believe could happen, even though it has no legs to stand on, but with no ground to stand on themselves, people can't stand up and fight it and are just dazed and amazed and confused. Which is how he actually looks, and he's cranky, too. If the media had published his chart and people had been taught serious astrology in school, people would have known what they would be getting if they voted for him, and their minds would have been trained too well to have voted for "change" without even knowing "to what"; they elected someone who seems to have no idea what he's doing because they had no idea what they were doing. Well, we know now what the change is to. The way things are going his term is headed for the crisis and catastrophe he's talking about, and I think he's been a stooge for those with a previous agenda the whole time. He's talking about crisis and catastrophe; he left out chaos; that's next. Life can't survive in chaos.

 
At February 11, 2009 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

Where is the discussion about Octomom and her scheme to con the taxpayer by abusing her pro-life distribution?

If you cant raise both sides of the issues then why complain when CBS doesn't?

 
At March 19, 2009 , Blogger College Goyl said...

lanthe, what makes astrology more sound than religion in your opinion, that the latter should influence people's political decisions while the former has no place? Sorry, but inquiring minds want to know!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home