The Pulse
Featured Image
Philip Nitschke Wikimedia Commons
Wesley J. Smith

The West is quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture

Wesley J. Smith
By Wesley Smith

We are quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture–indeed to the point now that organizations like the Hemlock Society Compassion and Choices, bioethicists, and the mainstream media promote suicide by self-starvation as the new big thing in making oneself dead.

Philip Nitschke is one of the international rock stars of euthanasia advocacy. He is also its most candid. He believes that everyone owns their own body absolutely and thus have a right to suicide whenever they want and for whatever reason. Indeed, he told NRO’s Kathryn Lopez that suicide pills should even be made available to “troubled teens.”

I clashed with Nitschke in Australia when I traveled the country on an anti-euthanasia tour in 2001. First, I busted him for the above assertion. It created a media fire storm.

While there, I also made front page news by revealing that he was importing and distributing suicide bags. I am proud to say, my effort led to the passage of a law that forced Nitschke to move his suicide industry offshore. It was one of my most successful public advocacy campaigns. 

Now, Aussie medical authorities want him struck off as a doctor because of the suicide of a healthy but depressed man which he facilitated. What. Took. Them. So. Long?

As for troubled teens and other young people, a study showed that many used his favorite method of suicide–and Nitschke doesn’t care. From a column by anti-euthanasia campaigner Paul Russell:

It is this supposed right-to-die that is the false over-arching philosophy by which the death of a young person can be somehow ‘rationalised’ by Nitschke and Exit. In 2010, in response to a Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Report showing that two thirds of deaths in the preceding decade using the Exit drug-of-choice, Nembutal, were for people under the age of 50 with nearly one-third being younger than 40 and six being in their 20s,

Nitschke said: ”There will be some casualties … but this has to be balanced with the growing pool of older people who feel immense wellbeing from having access to this information.” Tell that to the families of the two men featured in the 7:30 Report! Suicide prevention should never accept the notion of acceptable casualties!

Nitschke just oozes compassion, doesn’t he?

But it isn’t just Nitschke. All suicide promoters know–or should know–that their work will lead to the suicides of some people who are not the prime targets of their advocacy. And they don’t care.

For example, Derek Humphry’s New York Times best selling how-to-commit-suicide book Final Exit–what does that tell you about our degrading culture!–has been found next to the dead bodies of troubled teens, and he could not care much less.

Compassion and Choices pushes self-starvation for people tired of life, not just the sick.

In Belgium elderly couples receive joint euthanasia and a psychiatric patient sexually exploited by her psychiatrist was killed by another psychiatrist. And the world shrugs its shoulders.

Most assisted suicide promoters know that there will be deadly consequences from their advocacy–I mean beyond the suicides they support, and it doesn’t matter. They want what they want and don’t care who gets hurt.

The rest of us should care, but increasingly, we don’t. Why? As I wrote above, we are quickly becoming a pro-suicide culture.

Reprinted with permission from the National Review Online.

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock
Sarah Terzo

‘My baby’s alive, my baby’s alive!’: Baby lived ‘several days’ after saline abortion

Sarah Terzo
By Sarah Terzo
D&E late-term abortion

(LiveActionNews) - Former abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett gave his testimony at a conference held by the Pro-Life Action League called “Meet the Abortion Providers.” In a speech reproduced on the Priests for Life website, he talks about his experiences with late-term abortion.

An OB/GYN, Dr. Jarrett did his residency between 1970 and 1973 in Indiana. Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, was decided in 1973, but in the first year of Dr. Jarrett’s residency, some abortions were being done legally. In Indiana at the time, a woman could get an abortion legally if she went to two psychiatrists and had them certify that her pregnancy was a threat to her mental health.

According to Jarrett:

Although my textbook stated that true psychiatric indications for abortion were extremely rare, in practice it was relatively easy for a woman to get two psychiatrists to rubber stamp her abortion request for the price of a consultation visit. By the time all the paperwork was done, these pregnancies were more advanced and were classified as second trimester. Technically, these could be between 14 and 27 weeks, but usually they were 18 – 20 weeks along.

He describes how these abortions were done:

This type of abortion was then done by hypertonic saline injection. In laymen’s terms this meant injecting a very caustic salt solution into the amniotic sac which the baby swallows, causing his death. Labor begins 12 – 36 hours later. A well liked member of the teaching faculty would inject the solution and the patient was admitted to the gynecology ward to await delivery.

Saline abortions were painful for both the baby and the mother. The child could take hours to die in the womb. The mother had to go through labor and essentially “give birth” to her dead baby.

Dr. Jarrett goes on to describe his role in the saline abortions:

It was my job to go to the ward and pick up the dead baby from the labor bed and make sure the placenta had all come out. This was my least favorite duty as a resident…

Saline abortions were also very dangerous for women, because the caustic solution could cause a woman’s death if it entered her bloodstream. As doctors investigated different techniques, hypertonic urea was used for a short time to induce labor in women who were having late-term abortions.

As Dr. Jarrett says:

The major disadvantage in using it [urea], was the problem of live births. I remember using it on a patient that the psychiatric residents brought to us from their clinic from an institutionalized patient who really was crazy. I’ll never forget delivering her nearly two pound baby, and hearing her screams, “My baby’s alive, my baby’s alive.” It lived several days.

One can only imagine how watching her baby, who was supposed to be born dead, kick and struggle after the abortion affected this woman’s “mental health.”

In this case, at least, the baby was not subsequently killed by direct action of the doctors.

However, the euthanasia of infants with disabilities was tacitly approved of by some of Dr. Jarrett’s colleagues. He says:

Later, I was taught by my chief resident that if I was delivering a defective baby, such as an anencephalic, I should place it in the bucket of water at my side and declare it a stillborn. I never did that, but I’ll always remember it.

How many times did this chief resident, or the doctors under him, perform such infanticide? And were the mothers ever aware that their children were euthanized? Sadly, such actions are not unheard of.  In March of this year, I wrote about the infanticide of Down syndrome newborns that allegedly took place in one hospital.

To return to the abortion issue, live births also occurred with saline solution, and it was a real problem for the abortion industry. Eventually, the abortionists hit upon a macabre solution – the D&E procedure, which is known as a “dismemberment abortion.” This is now the most commonly used abortion procedure in the second trimester, though some abortions are still done by induction and live births still do occur. A D&E procedure, as you can see in the diagram below, is performed by tearing apart the baby with forceps, extracting one piece at a time.

Obviously, there is no chance of the baby being born alive.

Dr. Jarrett would eventually leave the abortion business, and I will talk about what led to his conversion in the next article.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Kristi Burton Brown

Baby saved after mom changes her mind after starting abortion, seeks reversal

Kristi Burton Brown
By Kristi Burton Brown

(LiveActionNews) - A growing number of mothers are doing something different about abortion: they’re changing their minds. Thanks to the efforts of 270 pro-life doctors, women who start a medical abortion can now reverse the procedure and, in 60% of the cases, they go on to have a successful pregnancy and birth.

Becky Buell is one of these women, and her story is nothing short of amazing. Facing Life Head On tells Becky’s story:

When Becky Buell of Sacramento, California, discovered she was pregnant with her second child at the end of her freshman year of college, she was scared and unsure of what to do. With her marriage falling apart, she feared she’d also lose the support of her parents. Becky chose to abort her baby by taking two drugs that cause a chemical abortion. She visited a Planned Parenthood facility and took the first drug, RU 486, while she was there. She was to take the second drug 24 hours later.

But immediately after taking the first drug, she regretted her decision and called the abortion pill reversal hotline (877-558-0333, abortionpillreversal.com) run by Culture of Life Family Services, the family practice of George Delgado, MD. The reversal treatment was successful and her baby was born healthy at full term.

Becky now advocates for women who change their minds, and she’s speaking out about Dr. Delgado’s work. Many women and doctors are unaware that a chemical abortion can be reversed if treatment is started quickly after the first drug is taken. Dr. Delgado and nurse manager Debbie Bradel are spreading the word and gaining the support and help of doctors across the globe. If hearts and minds can be changed in those first few hours following the chemical abortion, thousands of babies could be saved.

For more on the proven science behind Dr. Delgado’s work, go here. To get help to reverse an abortion, go to AbortionPillReversal.com or call 877-558-0333 right now.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

Advertisement
Featured Image
The woman claims that pro-lifers don’t actually care about the life of a child, and won't pony up. It's a classic hostage situation. Shutterstock
Susan Michelle Tyrrell

Ransom: Woman demands $1 million, or she will abort her 7-week baby

Susan Michelle Tyrrell
By Susan Michelle Tyrrell

(LiveActionNews) - Her abortion is allegedly scheduled for July 10, but one anonymous mother is demanding that pro-lifers give her $1 million to keep her from killing her preborn baby through an abortion.

The woman, who says she will do her “best to remain anonymous in this process as what I aim to prove has nothing to do with me personally,” claims that pro-lifers don’t actually care about the life of a child. She writes:

“On July 7th I will start accepting donations on this page. I will accept donations for 72 hours, the same amount of time this state currently requires a woman to wait after a consultation with a doctor until she can have an abortion. If one million dollars is raised in those 72 hours then I’ll have the baby, give it up for adoption and every cent of that one million dollars will be put in a trust fund for the child, which he or she will have access to when they turn 21.

“I’ll keep none of the money for myself so if I am to be vilified in this process, it can’t be for that. If the one million dollar goal is not met by the end of those 72 hours, any and all donations received will be refunded and I will have an abortion that I have already scheduled for July 10th in my home state. Mathematically this means that every one of the 157 million Americans that identify as pro-life needs to donate less than one cent to stop this abortion.

“The backward direction this country is headed in terms of its treatment of women I feel is due in large part to the influence of the religious right disguised as the pro-life movement. The pro-life movement cares very little about saving lives and far more about controlling women by minimizing their choices in a wide variety of ways not the least of which is readily available reproductive health care.”

At face value it may sound like it’s not about the woman but the cause; however, other factors come into play that indicate it’s much more about her than she would like us to believe.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek calls it blackmail: “Pro-abort blackmail: Give me $1 million, or I’m having an abortion,” her headline reads.

The Stir says, “It’s like a political Kickstarter — or a ransom note, depending on where you stand on the issue of abortion.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Indeed, some comments say she is trying to hold pro-lifers hostage by saying they must prove it if they want a baby to live. If pro-lifers don’t give her $1 million, she will kill the baby. If she gets the money, she promises to have the baby and give him or her up for adoption, sending the $1 million with her child in the form of a trust fund. She calls it a baby, too, not a fetus, indicating she understands exactly what she’s doing: ransoming the life of her preborn child for self gain. Early human trafficking at it’s (un) finest, some might say.

Her demands leave other questions, though.

First, many accuse her of wanting the money for herself. She says nothing, at least yet, about accountability to show that the money is legally bound to go to her baby.

Second, this ransom is actually a prime money-making opportunity for the 26-year-old graduate student from either Missouri, South Dakota, Utah, or North Carolina – states that have 72-hour waiting period laws. Even if she legally sets up every penny to go to her baby, her personal income from the talk show and book circuit could skyrocket, which makes the ransom more opportunistic than the heartfelt political awareness plea she would like people to see.

The woman insists if she doesn’t raise the money in 72 hours, she will refund all the donations to the people who gave and she will keep her July 10 abortion appointment. What some may wonder is whether she will take the media along for the appointment, or will she simply wait until she leaves to stop by the talk show circuit to make her statement?

Countless ways exist to bring awareness to the plight of the child who needs adopting as a solution to abortion, but pro-life blackmail and ransom demands are far more about self-promotion and gain than they are about any cause.

One can only hope that since she clearly understands she is carrying a human life, she will choose not to put her baby to death in some political statement she tried to use for publicity. Even animals get treated with more dignity than that.

Reprinted with permission from LiveActionNews

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook