California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, an ardent abortion supporter who is known for his hostility toward the pro-life cause, faced some backlash this week for his past vote against a ban on gruesome partial-birth abortions. Becerra has no health care experience, and yesterday, a large pro-life coalition issued a letter urging the Senate to reject Becerra’s nomination for the position as head of HHS due to his dismal track record on protecting human rights. Becerra has long used his power and position to attack pro-life organizations and individuals. The coalition letter pointed out just how radically pro-abortion Becerra is:
As Attorney General, Mr. Becerra went out of his way to attack pro-life policies and conscience protections. He led the charge against the Title X Protect Life Rule which, under the prior administration, successfully defunded Planned Parenthood of $60 million…
While a member of Congress… Becerra even voted against commonsense legislation to prohibit partial birth abortion and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which made it a crime to harm or kill an unborn child during the commission of a violent crime – 38 states including California currently have similar protections.
Becerra also unsuccessfully attempted to force pro-life pregnancy centers to promote abortion through “government compelled-speech,” notes the letter, and “sought to intimidate and prosecute investigative journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt after their reporting uncovered the unethical and likely illegal sale of aborted baby body parts by Planned Parenthood. Mr. Becerra sought 15 felony charges for recording 14 videos against these journalists, a move that the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board called ‘a disturbing overreach.'”
Yet what caught Senator Mitt Romney’s attention during the Senate hearings was Becerra’s position on partial-birth abortion. Romney, considered a moderate Republican, asked Becerra pointedly during the hearing, “Most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?”
Becerra unsurprisingly evaded the question, responding, “… I understand that people have different deeply-held beliefs on this issue. And I respect that…. I think we can find some common ground on these issues, because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you’re going to live a healthy life… I hope to be able to work with you and others to reach that common ground on so many different issues.”
Romney replied, “I think we can reach common ground on many issues, but on partial-birth abortion, it sounds like we’re not going to reach common ground there.”
Asked by Sen. @MittRomney why he voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, Becerra refers to a "future baby."
— Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) February 23, 2021
In his response, Becerra referred to children cared for by “high risk OBGYN[s]” in the womb as “future bab[ies].” The Susan B. Anthony List addressed this on its Twitter feed, noting that partial-birth abortions are not done on “future babies.” In this procedure (often medically referred to as a D&X or intact D&E), an abortionist actively kills a living child by delivering him feet first, then by stabbing surgical scissors into the base of his skull and suctioning out his brain matter.
Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, who once worked for abortionist Martin Haskell, considered to be the creator of the partial-birth abortion procedure, witnessed many abortion procedures, including the partial-birth abortion — which understandably left her traumatized. She testified before a Congressional subcommittee:
Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby (then 26 1/2 weeks into pregnancy.) On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. I asked Dr. Haskell and he told me that “Yes, that is the heartbeat.” As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, he went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and brought them into the birth canal. Then he delivered the body and arms, all the way up to the neck.
At this point, only the baby’s head was still inside. The baby’s body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was still stuck inside. Then Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby’s head. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby’s brains out. I almost threw up as I watched him do these things.
Next, Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head, cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he’d used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just “reflexes.”
The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed it to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, “I’m sorry, please forgive me.” I was crying too. I couldn’t take it. In all my professional years I’d never experienced anything like this.”
While there may be common ground to be found on the best way to end abortion, there can be no “common ground” on the question of whether to end the violent slaughter of innocent human beings. Killing an innocent human being should never be accepted as the solution to anything.
“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!