Little Fingers, Big Victories

January 2004

Dear Friends:

It's January, and that means it is time to observe Sanctity of Human Life Month. At the outset, however, I would like to hearken back to the April 2000 edition of Family News, in which I shared the remarkable story of Samuel Alexander Armas, a tiny baby boy who, at 21 weeks' gestation, underwent spinal surgery while he was still in his mother's womb.1 A photographer named Michael Clancy was on hand for the procedure and captured a powerful and heart-wrenching image of Samuel's hand extending from the womb and grasping the finger of the surgeon. This dramatic photograph should have been seen by people around the world, because it illustrates the marvelous humanness of a preborn child. Unfortunately, most of the major news outlets refused to share it with the public. Given their pro-abortion bias, it isn't difficult to figure out why.

Seeing this wonderful photo reminds me of the struggle to outlaw partial-birth abortion and the many emotional debates surrounding it in the U.S. Congress. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), the most articulate defender of life in the Senate, pleaded repeatedly with his colleagues to end the grotesque procedure by which the brains of un-anaesthetized babies are suctioned out in the final moments of delivery. For eight years, the battle raged.

Coming from the other end of the universe, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), fought year after year to preserve the legality of partial-birth abortion. For her, killing babies was "a women's health issue" that disregarded entirely the welfare of the child.

In 1999, after President Bill Clinton had shamelessly vetoed a bill banning the procedure in both 1996 and 1997, a new attempt to pass the legislation pitted the two senators in another confrontation. Boxer claimed that partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to save the life of the mother, even though the American Medical Association insisted that it is never needed for that or any other purpose.2 During the heat of the debate, Santorum asked Boxer, "[Do] you agree, once the child is born, [and] separated from the mother, that the child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed[?] Do you agree with that?"3 Boxer's answer was stunning. "I think that when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born ... the baby belongs to your family and has rights," she sputtered.4 Think for a moment about that disturbing statement that is now immortalized in the Congressional Record. Though she did not say so, the position taken by Sen. Boxer would clearly support the murder of an infant until, and if, the mother and father decide that they want to keep it. As long as the baby is still in the hospital, however, he or she has no rights whatsoever — not even the right not to be killed. This is a tragic example of postmodern reasoning that, if enacted into law, would lead ultimately to infanticide at the whim of the parents.

At this point in the debate, Senator Boxer apparently realized that she had gotten herself in an impossible bind. She shot back at Santorum that she didn't "want to engage in this [type of discussion]."5 Santorum was persistent. What "if [only] the baby's foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?" he asked.6 She wouldn't answer the question. What "if the baby's toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby?" Santorum pressed.7 Boxer was breaking and shot back, "absolutely not . . . I am not answering these questions."8 Finally, Santorum asked what "if the head is inside the mother, you can kill the baby?"9 Caught up in her own hypocritical and nonsensical web of logic, Boxer responded by saying that Santorum was "losing his temper."10 This is how many in the pro-abortion camp deal with these disturbing contradictions — they just ignore them.

The issue of partial-birth abortion was debated one more time in October 2003 when Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Boxer did battle on the floor of the Senate. During the contentious interchange, Sen. Brownback displayed the historic photo of little Samuel's hand grasping the surgeon's finger, and asked Sen. Boxer if it depicted "the hand of a child" or the hand of a piece of property?11 Again, Boxer dodged the question awkwardly and replied, "I am not a doctor, and I am not God."12 Of course, that is exactly what the senator was doing — she was "playing God" with the lives of innocent babies.

For 31 years, the abortion industry has treated preborn babies like non- persons whose lives mean nothing in the eyes of the law. Indeed, the late James McMahon, an early practitioner of the hideous partial-birth abortion procedure, suggested that it isn't a question of if a baby is human, but instead, "Who owns the child?"13

Well, how about it? Did the perfectly formed little hand in Michael Clancy's photograph belong to a human being, or was it merely part of something the early abortionists used to refer to as "a blob of tissue" or "meaningless protoplasm"? What I am going to share with you now will answer that question for time and eternity. Samuel Alexander Armas, the 21 week-old preborn baby who struggled for life in his mother's uterus, is now the four-year-old, bustling, energetic boy pictured below. What a dramatic testimony this is to the humanity of not only this one child, but every baby conceived down through the ages. Each of us can say with King David, "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:14-16, NIV). Samuel represents the millions of babies for whom we plead during this year's Sanctity of Human Life Month.

In many ways, 2003 saw positive developments in the pro-life movement on a number of fronts. Referring again to partial-birth abortion, a ban was finally passed by both houses of Congress, despite the outlandish protests of Sen. Boxer, Sen. Kennedy, and Sen. Feinstein. In November, after years and years of frustration and disappointment, President Bush signed the bill into law.14 Four other pro-family leaders and I met with the President in the Oval Office just prior to the signing, and then witnessed the historic event. Unfortunately, in yet another display of judicial tyranny, three judges immediately issued injunctions to halt the implementation of the law.15 Nevertheless, we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will declare it to be "Constitutional" in the near future. Please be in prayer about this pivotal decision.

Now I have some more exciting news to share. It has become increasingly clear to us this year that the Lord is asking us at Focus on the Family and our friends to take a dramatic new step in protecting the preborn child. It will involve the use of a powerful and indispensable tool — ultrasound technology — in the examining rooms of pregnancy resource centers. The available data indicate that 57 percent of women who visit a pregnancy center and report they are considering abortion will decide to keep their baby after going through counseling.16 However, that number jumps to 79 percent when such women are able to actually see their babies by way of ultrasound images.17 Unfortunately, only 350 of the 2,300 pregnancy resource centers in our nation currently are able to offer ultrasound services. In light of this reality, Focus on the Family is not content simply to argue for the protection of the unborn. We are now convinced that God is calling us to take an even more dramatic step. Our board of directors has authorized us to help provide ultrasound equipment to as many centers as possible and help shepherd them through the training and implementation process. How exciting to know that we have it within our sphere of influence to help save thousands of babies every year, each as precious and unique as little Samuel was four years ago! Each of those children is worth more than the possessions of the entire world, and is imbued with an eternal soul that will live forever in the world to come.

Our first-year goal for this new initiative is to help provide 2-D ultrasound machines for 50 pregnancy care centers across the United States. (Newer 4-D ultrasound machines, while offering a clearer image of babies in the womb, are significantly more expensive and therefore may be cost- prohibitive. By embracing 2-D machines — which are still more than adequate in terms of being able to show a living, moving image — we hope to maximize the number of pregnancy care centers that are able to benefit from this technology). Our resources for this project are extremely limited at this point, but we are trusting in the Lord to provide the needed funding because we believe it is such a clear cut and valuable investment. For example, if each of the 50 centers that receives an ultrasound machine this year is able to save even 100 babies as a result, 5,000 lives might be spared! How could we possibly place a price on even one of those children? We hope to expand this initiative dramatically in the coming years as the Lord provides the means to do so. Obviously, your financial help in underwriting our efforts to protect preborn babies would be greatly appreciated. For further information about the benefits of using ultrasound technology in a pregnancy care center environment, or other details about this ambitious initiative, please visit our Web site at family.org/pregnancy.

The good news continues: There are signs that Americans appear to be increasingly embracing a pro-life perspective. A Wirthlin poll released early in 2003 found that 68 percent of respondents favored "restoring legal protection for unborn children," while a similar percentage indicated they would support Supreme Court nominees who favored protections.18 Similarly, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll revealed that 70 percent of respondents said that partial-birth abortion should be outlawed, 78 percent backed a mandatory waiting period for all abortions, 73 percent favored parental consent for girls under 18 seeking abortions, and 88 percent favored a law directing doctors to inform patients of alternatives to abortions before they are performed.19

Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan made another encouraging observation about the abortion debate last year. In her column for the Wall Street Journal, she observed that abortion, which has become the cornerstone issue of liberal ideology, may be the very thing that brings an end to rampant liberalism. "Abortion is now the glue that holds the Democratic Party together," she wrote. " . . . The abortion rights movement packs huge clout in the party; it can make or break a candidacy with contributions and labor and support ... So the pro-abortion forces keep the party together, but they also tie it down. They keep the Democratic Party on the defensive — the lockstep pro-abortion party that won't even back parental notification, the party of unbending orthodoxy that will fight tooth and nail against banning abortions on babies eight months old, babies who look and seem and act exactly like human beings because they are." Ms. Noonan concluded her remarks with this statement that should send chills up the spines of those who continue to see abortion as the highest of virtues: "No party can long endure, or could possibly flourish, with the unfettered killing of young humans as the thing that holds it together."20 I pray that abortion advocates in every political party will carefully reconsider their support of this evil practice.

That day may still be a long way off, however, and there is no denying that there are still a number of challenges and obstacles to overcome in the battle to defend the sanctity of human life. Indeed, the encouraging reports I have shared are tempered by the fact that nearly 45 million babies have been sacrificed since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Clearly, we have a long road to travel before human life in all of its expressions — preborn, newborn, elderly, disabled — is embraced and protected.

For those of us who believe that all human life is a gift from God and worthy of protection, though, our mission will remain clear regardless of the shifting tides of public opinion. We will continue to promote legislation that preserves and defends the sanctity of life at every stage, from conception to the grave. With the elections coming up later this year, I hope you will do everything you can to stay informed on this issue. Focus on the Family will be tracking important developments as election season draws near. You can keep updated by logging on to our Web site at www.citizenlink.org. And by all means, see that you are properly registered to vote in November. Not one citizen can afford to sit out this day of decision.

Finally — and even more importantly — I hope you will join me in praying that, regardless of our laws, and regardless of who is in office at any given time, Americans would once again embrace the biblical values upon which our belief in the sanctity of human life is based. As more and more people come to realize that every life is important and worthy of protection — whether a developing baby in the womb or an elderly hospice patient who can no longer care for himself or herself — may they gain a newfound awareness of the loving Creator of all life. It's up to us, in our words and deeds, to help make sure that happens. May God grant us strength and resolve for the challenges that lie ahead.

Sincerely,

James C. Dobson, Ph.D.
Founder and Chairman

*(Note: Referrals to Web sites not produced by Focus on the Family are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.)