U.S. President Bill Clinton, who broke new ground in “style over substance” politics, has again vetoed a ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure.
The president attempted to obscure his motives by suggesting that partial-birth abortion is needed in “… the small number of compelling cases where use of this procedure is necessary to avoid serious health consequences.”
Although the possibility exists for Congress to override the presidential veto and officially ban partial-birth abortion, one has to marvel at Clinton’s steadfast support for the procedure.
It is widely established that contrary to earlier reports, partial-birth abortion is much more widely used than the president and abortion rights advocates would have us believe.
In addition, a prominent pro-abortionist not long ago admitted on a nationally televised news program that his previous statements about the rare use of partial-birth abortion were complete falsehoods.
Officials with the National Right to Life Committee in the U.S. hit the nail on the head when suggesting that the latest veto will subject thousands of living babies to a brutal, violent end. To label partial-birth abortion as infanticide – as many church leaders have done – is not mere rhetoric, but an honest description of an unthinkable act.
The situation is even more ominous when one considers Clinton’s nominee for the post of Surgeon-General is an admitted supporter of partial-birth abortion. Dr. David Satcher is on record as supporting the action to protect “the health of the mother.”
As one noted U.S. pro-lifer put it, “the position of the nation’s doctor should not be filled by an individual who acquiesces in the radical agenda that threatens the life and health of our nation’s mothers and their unborn children.”
