« Salvation Army campaign | Main | A ‘reflection of love’ in KC »

February 26, 2007

Very premature baby

Tiny Amillia Taylor is a living example to all mankind of what is lost when a woman has an abortion (2/22, A-6, In brief, “Preemie heads home”).
This little baby was obviously a human being when she was delivered by emergency C-section, and medical professionals treated her as such.
For those who still say the heinous act of partial-birth abortion is necessary when a mother’s life is at stake, here’s one more thing to consider: Why does a baby have to be murdered most cruelly to save the mother’s life?
Little Amillia teaches us that if there truly is a crisis, there are other ways to prevent the mother’s death than to purposely kill the baby. The doctors should treat both patients, mother and child, with the human dignity and compassion they equally deserve.
God bless this little miracle, Amillia. May she shine as a beacon of truth. She’s made a mockery of the entire abortion-rights movement, and she has shown the entire world that even the tiniest among us deserves a fighting chance.
Kathy A. Sneed



"Apparently, in Wichita, this includes depression which is hardly irreversible."

Please elaborate. Do you have facts as to a late-term (22 weeks or later) abortion performed in 2005 solely to alleviate the depression of a pregnant woman?



15 years ago, I would have agreed with you as to that interpretation, however, now I cannot. In a day when cutting the skin in order to remove a splinter is considered surgery and no doctor will see you outside of the ER for chest pain (even if you KNOW it isn't a heart attack), I don't know what "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" means. Apparently, in Wichita, this includes depression which is hardly irreversible.


Just reporting what the report actually said, which is that 100 percent of late-term abortions were either in situations where the fetus was not viable or the mother's bodily health was threatened (I think that's a reasonable interpretation of "sustaining a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she continued the pregnancy").



I am not going to pretend to know what "sustaining a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she continued the pregnancy" necessarily means. It could mean loss of sexual pleasure for all I know. That being said, I was actually presenting it to refute Jeff's claim "sustaining a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she continued the pregnancy".

It would seem that 174 out of 414 is the VAST MAJORITY in a little place I call crazy-land.

Mark Robertson

Partial birth abortion is never needed to protect the health of the mother. All ones needs is common sense to see this.
Is the government a tyrant if it disallows a child to be killed one second before it loses physical contact with the mother during birth, or for that matter, one second after. Thankyou.

Mark Robertson


One thing that pops out when you review the report is that Kansas apparently is an abortion Mecca, and especially for late term abortions for out of state people. Of 414 such abortions, 34 were on Kansas residents and 380 were on out of staters. In contrast, in the case of "before 22 weeks" abortions, the numbers are roughly equal, with there being more resident abortions some years and more "out of state" abortions others. This is a stastic that indicates the possibility that rules are being bent some how, and bent more easily in Kansas than elsewhere. As for the reasons given, there is no information in depth. Dr. Tiller and similar out of state Doctors could easily fill in the blanks and no one would be the wiser. After all , we are talking about a compiled document, not a reviewed, checked and verified record.


I just reviewed that report, and it nowhere give reasons for a particular procedure, whether D&E or otherwise.

It does address the reasons that late-term abortions were performed. The report shows that in the state of Kansas in 2005, 414 abortions were performed at 22 weeks or more.

174 of those were performed because the fetus was not viable, and 240 were performed because the mother was at risk of sustaining a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function if she continued the pregnancy, based on gestational and diagnostic information provided by the referring physician and other health care professional(s) as well as examination and interview of the patient by attending physician.



I don't know where you are getting your information, but as near as I can tell, the reasons for D&E are largely unreported and where information is available, it is mixed. According to KDHE, in 98-99, none of the D&E were performed to preserve the life of the patient.


Jeff H

I would add that if Ms. Sneed actually looked into the facts about the intentionally (and so misleadingly)mislabeled "partial birth abortions", she would learn that by far the vast majority of situations in which D&X is used is when the mother's life IS threatened, and the fetus is either dead or dying (in fact, in many of these cases, the fetus suffers from hydrocephalus, and can have a head swollen to larger than basketball-size, a condition which WILL kill the mother if she attempts a vaginal birth and can do severe damage if not remedied immediately).


This is dead simple, Kathy. If you don't want a late term abortion, don't have one. If you don't want an EARLY abortion, don't have one. But when you want State intervention in the medical decisions of other women, then you become a tyrant.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright