Partial Birth Abortion Law – Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003


Today’s News
• Murder by Abortion
• Freedom of Speech
• Abominations
• Politics 2002
• Letters to the Editor
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Dear Daddy
• Truthserum


Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of the Savior

Contact Us:

Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

Jim Rudd                                                                        November 26, 2003


Partial-Birth Ban of No Effect

New law encourages up-to-full term abortions

It is difficult to measure the harm being done by people in the pro-life ranks who are spreading false and misleading information which is being used to deceive Christians into believing that the `Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003′ is pro-life.

Because the “Ban” may reverberate in the courts for some time, giving occasion for these people to blather on, I believe it is necessary to familiarize ourselves with key aspects of the Act, so we may give a quick and decisive answer to Christians who have been misled, and to those people who are willfully spreading the lies.

This Act is so riddled with holes it would take quite a lengthy paper to point them all out. So I’ve decided to focus on just the primary loophole in such a way that will help you to repeat it in causal conversation with other people — like with friends and family at church. I have also added links to the related material at the bottom of this page.

The Loophole

First, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003(1) does not mention the medical procedure known as the “Intact Dilation and Extraction” (D&X abortion). Since the Act does not use this official medical term, then the D&X procedure is not banned or outlawed by any legal means of this Act.

Second, the Act is specifically restricted by the word “living.” “Living, unborn child’s body,” “living fetus.” The words “living fetus” are used three times in the Act.(2)

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act only applies to a “living fetus” — and there is nothing in the Act to prevent abortionists from killing viable late term babies in the womb first!

If the “fetus” is killed before being pulled out of the womb then the “Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act” is moot!

All an abortionist has to do is kill the baby in the womb first; then using the medical D&X abortion procedure — pull the dead baby out — feet first — where the baby’s head is up to the cervical os, puncture a hole at the back of the neck at the base of the skull (making sure not to cut the mother’s cervix), suck the baby’s brains out, collapsing the skull, and then pull the head out of the birth canal.

By not outlawing the medical D&X abortion procedure, and then, specifically limiting the definition of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban to applying only to a “living fetus,” it is glaringly obvious that the lawmakers purposely fashioned the Act in such a way to encourage abortionists to murder up-to-full term babies in the womb first! You can see how the Act is synonymous with only a “partially delivered living fetus”(2) and does not apply to an already dead baby.


When I first spoke of this loophole a question was asked, “How would an abortionist kill the baby first?” There are a number of methods. Abortionists kill children before extracting their bodies by using ultrasound to guide an injection of lethal potassium chloride into a baby’s heart. Other abortionists use an injection of digoxin to cause fetal cardiac arrest. But while I was doing research for this paper, I stumbled across something that I believe is going to reshape the baby killing abortion industry.

I predict the new ultrasound technologies will be used as the primary execution instrument to carry out the murder of babies in the womb by a non-invasive high-energy ultrasound beam, similar to the ones being perfected and refined to pulverize tumors in cancer patients.(3)

The ultrasound will become the ultimate abortion machine. Sonogram Abortionists (or Sonoborts) will kill children at all stages of life, from the moment a little baby can be detected. A “non-invasive procedure” that kills — makes the ultrasound — the “Dream-Machine” for an abortion industry plagued with high medical malpractice insurance rates.

“Non-invasive” means no cutting, no sharp instruments in the mother’s body. No slicing, no jabbing around with long needles. It means a major reduction in medical malpractice lawsuits and a reduction of high insurance rates for every abortion clinic equipped with the newest ultrasound technology.

With just a two or three second blast of a high-energy ultrasound beam to the heart or brain will kill a full term baby in the womb. So then that leaves the question, “What is the cheapest and safest way to remove dead babies from inside mothers’ bodies? We see again why Congress deliberately refused to outlaw the medical D&X abortion procedure.

The race is on to develop it and make it more powerful.

Ultrasound surgery is on the cutting edge of tumor detection, liver, kidney and prostate cancers eradication.(4) Imagine being able to pulverize cancerous tumors, and the money that must be pouring into its development. Ultrasound technology is also on the cutting edge of Preborn Screening for abnormalities.(5) And it is just a matter of time when the two areas of research are combined for the purpose of killing babies in the womb.(6)

Sonoborts will use a targeting device, much like moving the cursor on your computer screen with your mouse. Once the first trimester baby is detected on the screen, the Sonobort aims the cursor at the point of impact. Then with a left click of the mouse, the computer locks the targeting device. With a right click of the mouse a pop-up window appears allowing for the selection of the “proper” energy level, roughly 10,000 times the power used for prenatal pictures. Then, with just another left click of the mouse, a beam so hot that it literally boils the baby away within seconds. Click, click, click and the little baby is pulverized just like they treat a cancerous tumor.(7)


Christians who analyze civil law must have the most serious of minds. We see an example of this in Acts.17. The Bereans, “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

This “readiness of mind” to “search the scriptures,” to find out whether those things being said are true, is our Biblical example of nobility. It is the way we find out if people are lying when they tell us that a particular piece of legislation is “pro-life” or “pro-family,” or what ever Christian euphemism they use to tell us a civil law deserves our support. Without prejudice and partiality, we must examine the civil law against the scriptures, having “readiness of mind” to cast “down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God.”

It is disheartening to watch Christians, when they hear that a piece of legislation is “pro-life” or “pro-family” or even “conservative,” make the fatal mistake of assuming the legislation ‘must be Biblical.’ Christians must learn to ask themselves, “What does God say about the legislation,” and then read the legislation to find out specifically what it says and then search the scriptures! Without first going through this preliminary process, then you must assume that you will be publicly rebuked for supporting legislation that you have no idea of what you are talking about!

With so many antinomian, anti-Bible parachurch organizations involved in the political process today and constantly berating the Church to support their legislative initiatives, Christians need to remember this political axiom: “Never make a comment about legislation until you have read it first!”

(1). Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act 2003 (Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

(2). “the term `partial-birth abortion’ means…”

(3). Bloodless Surgery with Sound

(4). Obstetric Ultrasound — A Comprehensive Guide

(5). New ultrasound offers noninvasive alternative to amniocentesis

(6). Focus Surgery has Positive Prostate Cancer Results Using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU).

(7). The Sonablate® 500 is lightweight and mobile for room-to-room use.

Related Research Information:

•  MR guided Focused Ultrasound (MRgFUS)

•  What is MR guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery?

•  Therapeutic Ultrasound Lab

•  High intensity focused ultrasound: surgery of the future?

•  Magnetic Resonance Imaging

•  Magnetic Resonance Image-Guided

Jim Rudd
Christian Street Preachers Alliance

More from Jim Rudd

Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Abominations    Politics    Family Topic    Links