Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-3. June, 2010

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

June, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 3
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone –484-706-4375,
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 110
John Dunkle, Editor

Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.

Prisoners for Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St., P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
9. Lo, Erlyndon Joseph LE#234894, Collin County Detention Center, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney TX 75071
10. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
11. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
12. Roeder, Scott P., KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
13. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
14. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
15. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
16. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
17. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804
18. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

"I'm prepared to die in jail, if necessary. I can no longer cope with the hypocrisy of praying for life ... and paying for death." David Little

This takes us through page 16 of the 22 pages Peter Knight sent me long ago:

And the biggest sin that anyone else can commit in regard to this is to encourage such people to remain in their state of delusion, or pretend delusion. (The delusion Peter refers to is that of thinking one has a moral right to avoid forcefully defending another who is being attacked.) Rather than that, rather than pretend as some people do that you’re stupid and know nothing about these people’s circumstances, rather than pretend that these people’s circumstances are somehow much different to Paul Hill’s, isn’t it your responsibility to tell such people they are cowards?
Maybe there are a small number who can be awakened out of their deep slumber, but they certainly won’t be by people who decide it’s easier for them to enter into a state of delusion themselves and pretend they have no idea what these people’s duty is.
Paul Evans said, “I just think it’s most important to maintain unity amongst those of us who are even real Christians.” Breaking the unity of real Christians is something which cannot be done. What can be done, though, and what should be done, and what must be done, on every occasion possible, is to create disunity between the real and the unreal. Between the real and the fakes.
Jesus said that he came to create divisions, LK 12: 49-53; MT 10: 34-36. Even the reason the Jews killed him could be said to be the result of the division he brought. There is an enormous difference between someone as concerned and committed as Paul Hill, and a fake who does little or nothing and then pretends to have much concern. And it is huge mistake to try to cover up or disguise that difference, or pretend that it doesn’t exist.
Paul Evans, and most other prisoners, say they were justified in taking the actions they took. In most cases, if not all, I suppose they believe it was their duty to take them. I can’t imagine that any would claim that they went beyond and surpassed their duty. The words of quite a number of them, however, as far as I’ve even seen, have never stated that it was anyone else’s duty. Where’s the big difference here between the others and them? And the question I’d really like to know the answer to, where’s the big difference between 99% of the others and Paul Hill?
If prisoners don’t believe it was other people’s duty to take similar actions to themselves, if they don’t believe it was their responsibility to point out to others where they were failing their duty, if they don’t believe it was their responsibility to preach the Gospel where it has been most neglected, most violated, and where it is most important to preach it, then what is it that they believe justifies their actions?
What sense does it make to destroy an abortionist’s property? Surely anyone knows it’s all covered by insurance. Even if it all wasn’t covered by insurance, the repair cost will be only passed on to the cost of abortions. And if the cost of abortion is paid for by the government-run murder system, as it is in this country I’m in, then why would anay abortionists or their clientele care how expensive abortions were made?
What sense does it make to cause disruption to an abortionist’s schedule? Unless you can close down dozens and dozens of abortion centers and close them down for at least a month, then they’ll have very little trouble catching up on any disruption or delay you cause. What sense does it make if your only objective was to give a mongrel some of what he deserves? Isn’t it a far more important duty of yours to save lives rather than that? You can’t ignore a more important duty to carry out a less important one.
What sense does it make to kill an abortionist in an attempt to save lives? With the lack of support that history has shown you can expect to get, unless you do it someplace like Hawaii, the abortionist’s clients will only go to one of the remaining abortionists nearby. You could never expect to save more than one or two like that.
If those were the only reasons your actions were carried out, then you would have done more good and saved more lives if you’d taken a regular job and donated a much as you could to the starving people of the world, or to malaria prevention.
I suppose it understandable that people might want to do justice and give abortionists and those who protect and assist them some of what they deserve, and if any prisoner had the concern to risk long years in prison in the false expectation that it would save many lives, or even just to give a mongrel some of what he deserves, then, unlike the multi-millions who were unwilling to take any such actions, I see no reason why he would not have taken the actions for the best and proper reason. That of course is all provisional on someone being capable of recognizing what the best reason is.
For some people it does take more courage to ask these sacrifices of others than to ask them of themselves. Fearing that others wouldn’t produce what is asked, they prefer not to ask, and prefer to say they don’t know what other people’s duty is. (tbc)

This third chapter of Eric’s Abortion: The Irresistible Conflict is longer than some books. Its length is exceeded only by its excellence:

The Liberal approach to cultural and familial issues is a recipe for social disintegration. Relativising the family structure through gay marriage, relaxed divorce laws, and abortion-on-demand are dire threats to the nation. Ignoring such threats is similar to ignoring a foreign army that has landed on our shores because we must not interfere with their “right to conquer.”
Does this mean that society’s interest in maintaining family integrity outweighs a woman’s right to control her own body? Yes. If the state has the authority to control its citizens in any situation, it certainly has the authority to hold a mother accountable for the life and health of her unborn child. This is merely a reasonable requirement of living in a civilized society, one that Western society imposed on women for over 1,000 years.
Thomson’s argument in defense of abortion demonstrates the absurdity of libertarianism. Taken to its logical end, libertarianism is a child’s attempt to avoid thinking seriously about the problems of society. If man is reasonable, then the “best government is the one that governs least,” say libertarians. How to deal with immigration? Open the borders. How to deal with the drug problem? Legalize all drugs. What about foreign policy? Don’t have one. How to regulate an increasingly interdependent economy? Don’t. The libertarians are right, if man was generally reasonable, there would be little need of government. And if we all had wings, we could solve the traffic problem overnight. And mental telepathy would eliminate our telecommunication problems as well.
But man is not generally reasonable, and thus we have laws and governments. How a government governs depends on the present situation. For example, an increase in the number of people in a given space, an increase in diversity among the people, and an increase of the likelihood of conflict with other societies, often create the need for more government. And the reverse is generally true—less people, less diversity, more space, equals more freedoms.
Even under the best of conditions, no government in history has allowed everything. The Declaration of Independence and John Stuart Mill notwithstanding, the individual is not sovereign. No one has an absolute right to anything, including life, liberty, and property. Rights are limited by the demand of living in an organized society. The Founding Fathers who gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution of 1787 knew this. They realized, despite social contract theory, there were prior obligations that we assume as members of society.
Rights are especially limited in time of war. The direr the threat to society, the more society will curtail the individual's freedoms, and subordinate his interests to society. Speech is often regulated in time of war. At the very outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln, jailed the Mayor of Baltimore and the entire legislature of Maryland, lest they vote for secession. Leading Copperhead and Ohio Congressman Vallandigham was jailed and exiled to the Confederacy for encouraging peace talks with the South. Responding to criticism of his order to suspend the right of habeas corpus and the arrest of Vallandigham, Lincoln wrote: “Must I shoot a simple-minded solider boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? . . I think that in such a case to silence the agitator and save the boy is not only constitutional, but withal a great mercy.” The Southern rebellion, Lincoln continued, reached into the North, where “under the cover of ‘liberty of speech,’ ‘liberty of press,’ and ‘Habeas Corpus,’ the rebels hoped to keep on foot amongst us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, aiders and abettors of their cause.” For those who accused him of setting a pattern that would be carried over into peace time, Lincoln said he could no more believe that the necessary curtailment of civil liberties in wartime would establish precedents fatal to liberty in peacetime “than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness, as to persist in feeding upon them through the remainder of his healthful life.”45
The same was true of wars in the twentieth century. Under the Sedition Act, hundreds were jailed for criticizing conscription during the First World War, including Socialist leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs. Thousands of Japanese, Germans, and Italians were “interned” during the Second World War as potential fifth columnists. An American citizen named William Pelley had his publishing company and press confiscated and was sentenced to fifteen years in prison under the Espionage Act—all for writing a pamphlet accusing FDR of having fore knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Property rights are also relative to the needs of society. Under Eminent Domain the government can take your property to build roads, airports, military bases, harbors—anything it deems to be in the public interest. In time of war, property rights become even more tenuous. During the Civil War property was confiscated or destroyed throughout the South. Very few of the owners were compensated after the war, and only after long court battles. Most got nothing, for most of the property was in slaves. Others had their lands taken for leading the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis had his Mississippi plantations seized. Likewise, our nation’s National Military Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia now sits on land confiscated from Robert E. Lee. Lincoln took over the railroads during the war. And during both world wars the government conscripted heavy industry and compelled it to produce war goods.
Even the way we use our property during peacetime has its limitations. You can’t set up a nuclear reactor in your backyard. Nor can you build a poison gas factory in your house. And the power to tax is the ultimate expression of the public interest superseding the private. You can influence the tax system through your representatives, but you can’t simply opt out of the tax system anytime you choose. (Eric should have written “may not” because David Little seems to have done just that in Canada.)

The entire legal system is based on the fact that society is sovereign. If the government believes you have committed a crime, it can deprive you of your life, liberty, or property. You can’t stand as judge in your own case. You are not even guaranteed a perfect trail. The Constitution only mandates a “fair” trial. What is considered “fair” changes from time to time, judge to judge, community to community. Nor are you guaranteed the right outcome. In many cases a person’s guilt is uncertain. Many a man has lost his life, liberty, and property for a crime he didn’t commit. As a citizen of this country, you are only guaranteed as much due process as the situation allows. As noted above, due process almost disappears in time of war and national emergency. All of your rights are relative to the needs of society

Last but not least, you have no absolute right to life. In time of war the state will put a gun in your hands, send you to the frontline, where you will fight, and if necessary, die for your country. Exemptions from combat are not absolute. If you refuse to help the war effort, you can be imprisoned, and even shot. Hundreds of deserters were shot during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Thousands were jailed for draft evasion. Persons caught in the war zone, of both sexes, were pressed into service to dig trenches, to cut firewood, or to gather food.

When pressed against the wall, the state’s demands on the citizen increase. Not since the Civil War has the American state been threatened with extinction. America experienced something like this in the weeks following 9/11. After three planes were deliberately crashed into buildings, America went into survival mode. Orders were in the works to shoot down any plane that appeared to be on a similar suicide mission, and was not responding to radio contact. Those in authority had to weigh the lives of the hundreds on board the hijacked plane against the thousands of citizens that could be killed if that plane was allowed to crash into another building. Would the right to life of those on board that plane have prevented the President from issuing the shoot-down order? No. He would have issued the order, and no one at that moment of crisis would have questioned his judgment. Only later after everyone’s fears had lessened would some congressman call hearings into the “unreasonable” shoot-down order. But on 9/11 that same congressman was the one yelling the loudest for protection. If you remember the dynamic in this country in the two weeks after 9/11, that is the actual basis for the relationship between the individual and society, not the theoretical one found in the Declaration of Independence and John Locke. (tbc)
Paul Ross Evans’ letter continues:


Those who commit arson are to answer as well, as long as the place of residence isn’t a place of heathency and evilness that should be rightly destroyed and purged. Such places include, for example, residences and businesses of murder, torture, rape, incest, adultery, pornography, perversion, idolatry, gambling, extortion, and all that stand against the Living God and/or bear arms against Him and His people or armies.
If the arson committed, however, is out of malice, rage, or the result of a psychological disorder, one is ordered to compensate the owner for lost property or merchandise. Such a declaration is given in Exodus 22:6 – If fire breaks out and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith, he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
Something to keep in mind in this instance as well is what is translated through the profound metaphorical value of this above statement. When a man is leader of a cause and/or movement that is evil and causes death or destruction against God and/or His people (even though his actual hand may not have physically shed the blood) he still must answer for that very fire that he kindled. As mentioned before in a theocracy crime is considered as against God directly. Therefore, if the arson committed is to destroy a place of evil, as deemed by the Judges of the Almighty God, the arson is therefore justified. If the arson is committed in the short/long term defense of the Army, or God’s people, it is as well justified. Here again we find another example of condemning factors in God’s eyes: malice, rage, revenge, and disorder.

Military Law and Rules of Engagement

A guerrilla is defined chiefly as one who engages in “irregular” warfare, especially as a member of an independent unit. Special Forces, units are branches of an army composed of soldiers specially trained in guerrilla warfare. Far-ranging varieties of descriptions have been used to characterize and define guerrilla warfare strategies of all sorts. Clearly, those who employ guerrilla warfare tactics are challenging/engaging an overbearing enemy in terms of sheer numbers, economic funding, and/or armament. They are out numbered in the above arenas; therefore, they gain advantages through stealthily weakening their enemies during surprise attacks and targeting, many times, strategic locations.
Such tactics are ideal for the Christian militant, in battling his enemies who are employing large-scale military conquests. Those enemies are the top-funded and the most well-trained military organizations in the world. They are murdering children in record numbers around the globe, and they use tactics that overwhelm and destroy their enemies. Traditional warfare would be nothing but a suicide attempt at this point on our part. We must use what we have learned by studying the history of civilization, and make use of our cunning skill and our zeal, which is what will win this fight.
Assaulting the enemy economically is necessary. The short-term goal is not to drive them out of the area, simply to weaken their funds and continually harass them. Once the damage done is visible and evident, our demands are taken seriously instead of stonewalled, as they have been for decades.
Main objectives of initial assaults are as follows:
-- to bring sections of the land we claim to a state of becoming “ungovernable”
-- momentous attacks toward enemy personnel with the objective of causing the highest casualty rates, property damage, and number of injuries as possible in short periods in order to force friends and relatives of those targeted to demand change to prevent future violence
-- destruction (and general harassment) aimed at financial interests as well as halting financial investments in those interest areas targeted

When such a resistance has been formed, and we have set sail, the core of our army has been created. Of course, after a time, when numbers and strength have grown, a renovation must occur and new organization must be established. But until that overhaul is necessary, our army can function in such small units, determined to carry out such objectives as those listed above. Usually unit sizes should be sufficient at from 3-5 individuals. Of course select operations can function with single individuals. However, some can demand greater numbers. Of course, in time, God will raise up through the ranks the leaders of individual units – and those leaders will be elected by a democratic vote (by those whom they lead). (tbc)

Jimbo says post the Syllabus of Errors, and I do what Jimbo says. Here are the next six; remember, The Chosen People says that these are errors:

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied.
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.

So far I don’t think any of us would have a problem here. Right? But just you white, Henry Higgins.

Two Convicted of Denying Access to Abortion Clinic

For the first time in New York City, federal prosecutors have used the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act to secure a conviction in a case where access was blocked to a clinic that provides abortions.

The prosecutors used the statute, signed into law in 1994, to charge two men who stood in front of an entrance at the Margaret Sanger Center, a clinic operated by Planned Parenthood at the corner of Bleecker and Mott Streets.
The men, Richard R. Dugan and Theodore A. Puckett, were each convicted on Monday of a single count of violating the act after a one-day bench trial conducted in Manhattan by Judge Robert W. Sweet of United States District Court. Each man faces a maximum six-month sentence and a fine of $10,000. Sentencing was scheduled for June 10.
Although the statute had never been used in a criminal prosecution in New York City, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan said prosecutors there had used the measure in 1996 in a civil case.
According to a criminal complaint, Mr. Dugan, 48, of Breaux Bridge, La., and Mr. Puckett, 58, of Normandy, Tenn., blocked staff and patients from using two entrances to the clinic on Dec. 12, 2009, and refused to leave.
During the proceeding on Monday morning, Mr. Dugan, who represented himself, told Judge Sweet: “They were going in there to kill babies, and we were stopping that. So I think the whole case should just be dismissed right now.”
Mr. Puckett told Judge Sweet that he did not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, adding, “I can’t participate in this farce.”
Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that since 1994 the agency had filed 58 criminal cases across the country related to the FACE act, resulting in 80 convictions. In addition, he said, the department had filed 19 civil suits using the act.
Over the last year or so, groups of several dozen protesters had been showing up on the first Saturday of each month at the clinic on Bleecker Street, said Joan Malin, the president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood in New York City. Members of the crowd have displayed pictures of aborted fetuses, passed out pamphlets and sometimes attempted to dissuade women from entering the premises.
Those protests have generally been peaceful, Ms. Malin said, but Mr. Puckett and Mr. Dugan emerged from such a gathering to block the clinic doors.
Ms. Malin said she hoped the convictions on Monday would send a message.
“I am concerned when people blockade and make it difficult for clients and staff to get in,” she said. “We provide health care services, and for people to obstruct that is wrong.

As Hannah Arendt once observed: “Under conditions of terror, most people will comply but some people will not. ... Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.”

Thanks so much for this great newsletter. Life is hard on these folks who have tried to save babies & your newsletter is a bright spot. I pray these gentlemen & shelly get out ASAP to resume the life that was stolen from them by an evil corrupt government.
Will be mighty interesting watching the americanland go down, kinda like nazi germany where their leaders were arrogant to the end & the surviving germans watched their country burn and dug in the rubble for bread. tobra

I would like to suggest that if you truly want to end the desire for abortions that you give the mother support for her to keep her baby. And it could be as simple as community groups - through churches or secular groups.
Women abort their babies for many different reasons - but they all fall back to ONE reason... she feels she cannot handle the situation.
If you want to end the vast majority of abortions - it is just that easy. Help Her.
If you want to feel "high & mighty" representing the unborn who cannot make their own comments on your behavior then you can continue these tactics that get attention but no results.
This is a very important thing to ponder.
It is the title of your group and the pride felt by "causing trouble" rather than "helping mothers & babies" that makes me feel I am correct about this.
Just my feedback for your group. I don't think Jesus would have displayed aborted fetuses on his transportation. His motive was LOVE...for ALL. Love those women and you will heal this issue. Being Proud is a sin.

In The Greatest Degree of Love... Melody Victor

Dear John, How’re you and your family today? Hope you all are doing well.
Most likely, you’ll soon receive an article from David Leach, written by a man who wants to help with my appeal. At this point, he wants to remain anonymous. His article, in my opinion, is well-written and I hope you enjoy it.
In the meantime I’m including a short story sent to me by Michael Bray’s wife, Jayne. I’m sure it will touch you and hopefully, your readers, as much as it did me! It is truly a story worth sharing.
I’ll be sending more thoughts, articles, etc., in the future, so until then, enjoy this one and may God bless you all. In His Service., Scott Roeder

THE TINY FOOT, by Dr. Loomis

Two years after I came to California, there came to my office one day a fragile young woman, expecting her first baby. Her history was not good from an emotional standpoint, though she came from a fine family.
I built her up as well as I could and found her increasingly wholesome and interesting as time went on, partly because of the effort she was making to be calm and patient and to keep her
emotional and nervous reactions under control.
One month before her baby was due, her routine examination showed that her baby was in a breech position. As a rule, the baby's head is in the lower part of the uterus for months before
delivery, not because it is heavier and "sinks" in the surrounding fluid, but simply because it fits more comfortably in that position. There is no routine "turning" of all babies at the seventh or
eighth month, as is so generally supposed, but the occasional baby found in a breech position in the last month not infrequently changes to the normal vertex position with the head down by the
time it is ready to be born, so that only about one baby in 25 is born in the breech position.
This is fortunate, as the death rate of breech babies is comparatively high because of the difficulty in delivering the after-coming head, and the imperative need of delivering it rather quickly after the body is born. At that moment the cord becomes compressed between the baby's hard little head and the mother's bony pelvis. When no oxygen reaches the baby's bloodstream, it inevitably dies in a few short minutes. Everyone in the delivery room is tense, except the mother herself, in a breech delivery, especially if it is a first baby, when the difficulty is greater. The mother is usually quietly asleep or almost so.
The case I was speaking of was a "complete" breech -- the baby's legs and feet being folded under it, tailor fashion – in contrast to the "frank" breech, in which the thighs and legs are folded back on a baby's body like a jack-knife, the little rear end backing its way into the world first of all.
The hardest thing for the attending doctor to do with any breech delivery is to keep his hands away from it until the natural forces of expulsion have thoroughly dilated the firm maternal structures that delay its progress. I waited as patiently as I could, sending frequent messages to the excited family in the corridor outside.
At last the time had come, and I gently drew down one little foot, I grasped the other, but for some reason I could not understand, it would not come down beside the first one. I pulled again, gently enough but with a little force, with light pressure on the abdomen from above by my assisting nurse, and the baby's body moved down just enough for me to see that it was a little girl - and then, to my consternation, I saw that the other foot would never be beside the first one. The entire thigh from the hip to the knee was missing and that one foot never could reach below the opposite knee. And a baby girl was to suffer this, a curious defect that I had never seen before, nor have I since!
There followed the hardest struggle I have ever had with myself. I knew what a dreadful effect it would have upon the unstable nervous system of the mother. I felt sure that the family would almost certainly impoverish itself in taking the child to every famous orthopaedist in the world whose achievements might offer a ray of hope.
Most of all, I saw this little girl sitting sadly by herself while other girls laughed and danced and ran and played -- and then I suddenly realised that there was something that would save everyone pain but once, and that once thing was in my power.
One breech baby in ten dies in delivery because it is not delivered rapidly enough, and now -- if only I did not hurry! If I could slow my hand, if I could make myself delay those few short moments. It would not be an easy delivery, anyway. No one in all this world would ever know. The mother, after the first shock of grief, would probably be glad she had lost a child so sadly handicapped. In a year or two she would try again and this tragic fate would never be repeated.
"Don't bring this suffering upon them," the small voice within me said. "This baby has never taken a breath -- don't let her ever take one. You probably can't get it out in time, anyway. Don't hurry. Don't be a fool and bring this terrible thing upon them. Suppose your conscience does hurt a little; can't you stand it better than they can? Maybe your conscience will hurt worse if you do get it out in time."
I motioned to the nurse for the warm sterile towel that is always ready for me in a breech delivery to wrap around the baby's body so that stimulation of the cold air of the outside world may not induce a sudden expansion of the baby's chest, causing the aspiration of fluid or mucus that might bring death.
But this time the towel was only to conceal from the attending nurses that which my eyes alone had seen. With the touch of that pitiful little foot in my hand, a pang of sorrow for the baby's
future swept through me, and my decision was made.
I glanced at the clock. Three of the allotted seven or eight minutes had already gone. Every eye in the room was upon me and I could feel the tension in their eagerness to do instantly what I asked, totally unaware of what I was feeling. I hoped they could not possibly detect the tension of my own struggle at that moment.
These nurses had seen me deliver dozens of breech babies successfully - yes, and they had seen me fail too. Now they were going to see me fail again. For the first time in my medical life I was deliberately discarding what I had been taught was right for something that I felt sure was better.
I slipped my hand beneath the towel to feel the pulsations of the baby's cord, a certain index of its condition. Two or three minutes more would be enough. So that I might seem to be doing something, I drew the baby down a little lower to "split out" the arms, the usual next step, and as I did so the little pink foot on the good side bobbed out from its protecting towel and pressed firmly against my slowly moving hand, the hand into whose keeping the safety of the mother and the baby had been entrusted. There was a sudden convulsive movement of the baby's body, an actual feeling of strength and life and vigour.

It was too much. I couldn't do it. I delivered the baby with her pitiful little leg. I told the family the next day, and with a catch in my voice, I told the mother.
Every foreboding came true. The mother was in a hospital for months. I saw her once or twice and she looked like a wraith of her former self. I heard of them indirectly from time to time. They had been to Rochester, Minn. They had been to Chicago and to Boston. Finally I lost track of them altogether.

As the years went on, I blamed myself bitterly for not having had the strength to yield to my temptation. (tbc)

I haven’t read anything this good about the power of “conscience” since that episode in Huckleberry Finn where Huck decides to go to hell rather than turn in Jim. Another excellent “conscience” battle occurs in Fatherless where a priest decides not to preach about the evils of contraception. Moments earlier he had decided to do just that.

I have just enough room to fit in Jimbo’s penultimate PS: Any fed. healthcare, Stupak or not, will bring tax-funded ABs.

One more to go.


Here is one of about twenty “Scott” bumper stickers. The winnowing process is on. I’ll tell you more about this later.