February 6, 2002
volume 13, no. 23

Have the Pro-aborts been Bush-whacked?!

President George W. Bush and the legal recognition of Unborn children definitely have pro-aborts squirming as the 'talking heads' of cable news networks take on the leaders of NOW, Planned Barrenhood, NARAL and that ilk and press the issue to get the baby-killers to admit that is a child - a human being - they are murdering through the vile, hideous act of abortion!

    Pro-lifers got a morale boost from the Bush administration Thursday when Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced that fetuses would henceforth be redesignated as "unborn children."

    Thompson said, "Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle. Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women."

    Wow! Did this news set off a firestorm among the pro-abort camps. They don't like referring to unborn children as unborn children. Following are their pitiful objections to prenatal care for poor women: Remember, they are Democrats. You know the people, who are supposed to be the champions of the needy, downtrodden and the voiceless.

    Well, except for the most voiceless of all -- unborn children. Is this why the word “hypocrisy” was coined? But I digress.

    We will start with the exchange on the Chris Matthews TV show, “Hardball.”

    Kim Gandy of NOW (National Organization of Women) said, “this is the beginning of the underpinning. The administration is trying to define the fetus as a person. They should just provide coverage for prenatal care for pregnant women and not make a political statement.”

    Matthews, who is pro-choice (that's what he said on a prior show) said, "Prenatal care is not just for the mother, but also for the unborn child. It's not a political statement. She has another person living within her. Because she is poor, Bush wants to make sure she get prenatal care. Matthews in mentioning that the mother feels the unborn child move and kick, to somehow get Gandy to admit that indeed the mother is carrying a child and should be entitled to prenatal care said, “It's an executive order to protect the health of the child.”

    Gandy responded, "that's not true. What it provides is permission for the state to cover a fetus in the same way as a child."

    Matthews, who I believe is also Catholic in name, appearing bewildered and disgusted by now over the fact that Gandy couldn't understand what a good law this would be and the fact that she kept calling the unborn child a fetus, as if it the unborn was less than human, couldn't take it any longer and said, “you can keep saying the word fetus until you're blue in the face.” Then in his parting remark Matthews said, “THE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT N.O.W., CANNOT THINK ON TELEVISION.

    Is it all right to gloat? After hearing Gandy’s pitiful attempt to justify her and NOW’s position and Matthews’ remarks -- I couldn't help myself.

    Then, there was the "O’Reilly Factor" on Fox News. Gloria Feldt - president of Planned Parenthood said, “we also want women to be covered for prenatal care.” However, she was in a tizzy over the wording -- “unborn child.”

    Host Bill O'Reilly, born and raised Catholic in Levittown on Long Island, replied, “you think it's a big conspiracy to eventually overturn Roe Vs Wade, but let's be sensible about this. A fetus is an unborn child. That's a fact -- correct?

    Feldt responded grinning from ear to ear (why was she smiling?) said, “but it's the woman who needs the prenatal care.”

    "Whoa, whoa, whoa," O’Reilly interrupted, “let’s walk through it step by step. A fetus is an unborn child -- correct?"

    Feldt answered, again with a big smile, “a fetus is developing into a child.”

    O'Reilly laughing said, “do you know how silly you look when you try to parse this. This IS an unborn child.”

    Wham! With the expression on Feldt’s face turning from smiling to one of surprise and bewilderment at O’Reilly’s last remark said, “if they want women to have prenatal care, then they should cover them for prenatal care.”

    O’Reilly, with a perplexed look, retorted, “and they ARE covered.”

    Feldt replied, “they should cover the woman.”

    O’Reilly appearing to be at his wits end, interjected sharply, “but they have to have an explanation why she is covered and the explanation is because SHE IS CARRYING AN UNBORN CHILD. I would say that 90% of the people watching tonight would say that the fetus is an unborn child, would you agree with that?”

    Feldt’s answer skirted the question: “Just a few days ago in his State of the Union Address, the president said that woman's rights are nonnegotiable, then he turns around two days later and tries to turn it around on its head.”

    O’Reilly, still with a perplexed smile said, “A woman's rights are not infringed on when you call a fetus an unborn child.”

Feldt: “That's not the point here, Bill, that's not the point.”

O’Reilly: “That's not YOUR point.”

Feldt: “They have to sign the eligibility form for prenatal care as being a fetus from the moment of conception. It’s not the woman who is eligible for prenatal care.”

O’Reilly: “It's for the fetus AND the woman -- it's for BOTH of them. You see, I'm trying to get you -- I'm praying that you follow me here. Don’t be a fanatic, don't be a fanatic. If every American -- pro-life and pro-choice are ever going to come together and agree that as Americans, we want fewer abortions -- if you would raise the sensitivity to the fetus that it's an unborn child and not make it a casual thing -- we would be such a better society.”

    Feldt, still responding as a person, who just refuses to acknowledge the truth said, “a pregnant woman should be covered for prenatal care. That’s the point here. I’m going to answer your prayers. We do all want the same thing. We want healthy children, we want planned wanted children we want fewer abortions.

    Whoa! Now this is me - Dr. Joseph - speaking and I must interject here. Did you catch the blatant lie in Feldt's statement? Planned Parenthood, the world's leading killers of unborn children wants fewer abortions done, like I want a hole in my head! Now, back to the interview.

    Feldt continued, with her pseudo-smile returning, “in order for that to happen women have to be respected and what this administration is doing is making women second class citizens.”

    O’Reilly retorted abruptly, “OH STOP -- YOU ARE SO ABSURD -- you're saying that by calling a fetus an unborn child, they're making women second class citizens.”

    Feldt, still smiling, which I still don't understand its necessity in such a serious issue. Is it possible that when they grin from ear to ear, they think people will think they are right? I just couldn’t get over her almost constant wide grin smile. Anyhow, she said, “I’m saying for covering the fetus for prenatal care but not covering the woman.”

O’Reilly: “They ARE covering the woman.”

Feldt: “No, they're saying the fetus is eligible and getting prenatal care.”

    O’Reilly, who couldn't keep from laughing said, “the unborn child and the mother are both eligible. You see Ms Feldt they're intertwined.” As O’Reilly said this, he overlapped his arms hoping that the picture just might finally sink into Ms Feldt’s brain. “They're both eligible for the money. when they go in -- they're together. They're both eligible for the money.”

    Feldt: “That's the point, it's the women in whose body the pregnancy resides. It’s the woman who is going to have to take care of it.”

    O’Reilly, not liking the word, “it” said, OF THE UNBORN CHILD. In closing that segment of his show, O’Reilly’s parting remark was, “think about what I said Ms Feldt.”

    There was another TV show, “Hannity and Colmes,” which also did a segment on this same issue. The pro-abort side was represented by Susan Estrich, who by the way, also had a grin a mile wide throughout the entire show just as naturally liberal 'fall-guy' Alan Colmes did. The pro-life side was manned by conservative counterpart to Colmes, Sean Hannity, a Catholic, and guest Ken Connor, president of Family Research Council.

    Hannity said, “I have two kids myself -- When babies are growing in their mother’s womb, we get to see their little fingers and see their heart beating, their legs and their hands. Will you be honest and admit that liberals are very callous on the issue of abortion.”

    Estrich, who teaches Law and is a Fox News analyst said, “I don’t know if it’s callous, but if you ask me -- having two children and having lost children you wanted to have early in pregnancy and gone through the pain of that -- with all do respect, I didn’t lose fetuses, I lost babies I knew the due days and they were children to me.

    How about that, Estrich, a liberal Democrat admitting that the unborn was a child. Is it possible that as an attorney, she didn’t want to sound stupid and confront her class with illogical arguments, as Gandy and Feldt attempted in their interviews. Earlier in the show, she did say she was pro-choice [to kill unborn children] She’ll probably hear from NOW and [Un]planned Parenthood about this.

    Although she did say, “they could have used the word 'pregnant' and get the same results, but the way, Tommy Thompson did it, my friends in the pro- choice community stand up and say, oh my goodness, the sky could fall and it could. And the right to life community could say look at the great victory we had. All we’re really doing is playing political games. They should just be honest about what they’re doing.”

    Since Susan Estrich did admit the unborn was a child, one would have to assume that her dishonesty remark was aimed at the pro-aborts.

Hannity: “They want to use taxpayer funds to kill their children and the president says -- lets use taxpayers funds to take care of those children.”

Colmes: “Let’s be honest here [note: liberals love to use that phrase because when they say 'let's be honest here' they are desperate because what they're promoting is usually a lie!] , from day one they wouldn’t fund clinics, to even give women the option of an abortion. They’re supporting people for Judgeships -- two people who want to overturn Roe v Wade -- is this part of that agenda?”

Connor: “We’re dealing with an unborn child and the health of that child depends on the kind of care he receives in the womb. If people are pro- choice they should support the notion that a poor women would choose to provide medical care for their child. They want to use taxpayer funds to kill their children and the president says -- lets use taxpayers funds to take care of those children

Colmes: “Using language like that -- accusing women, who go through torturous decisions and to slip in there (the word killing) like you did, so beautifully -- like velvet.

Connor: “They are killing children.”

Colmes: “Should we put them in jail -- should we lock them up for murder?

Connor: “Well. they are killing children. If they were not alive they wouldn’t have to kill them. Abortion kills children and hurts women. Women are deceived by what they’re dealing with -- they have no idea -- they think it’s just a blob of tissue.

    And finally, diverting from Cable to Network, on ABC's “This Week,” (ABC), with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts , another 'Catholic' whose mother was ambassador to the Vatican. They checked in with some interesting comments in interviewing George Will, who many consider the 'Mark Twain' of today. The following comments have got to have the pro-aborts squirming, especially considering how liberal both Donaldson and Roberts are.

Donaldson: “How can you have prenatal care for a fetus and have Roe-Wade?”

George Will, “Excellent question -- way to go Sam. Look, the Supreme Court says the fetus is fetal material -- says it’s potential life. Well, it has a heart beat it has eyes, it has fingers at the end of the first trimester. Medicine now can do wonderful diagnostic and therapeutic things in utero. Every doctor says there are two patients in a pregnancy. The Supreme Court says we don’t recognize one of them. The Supreme Court is wrong and science is ......” I couldn’t make out this last word, because Will was talked over by Cokie Roberts, but it’s obvious what Will meant.

Roberts: “Anybody to argue against this would be so extreme, it would be ridiculous. It’s something woman’s organizations have been fighting for since before they got suffrage. It’s one of the most obvious ways to prevent infant mortality and everyone agrees it’s terribly important. Unborn children are recognized in civil law all the time.”

    Now for my two cents: The pro-aborts have NOTHING on their side. Not science, not common sense and certainly, not God and the Holy Scriptures. In any future discussions on this issue on TV, or anywhere else, the pro-life side could be represented by a ten-year old and win easily.

    I do think that in the future, the pro-aborts/pro-choicers will try to avoid all confrontations on the issue of the killing of unborn children. They could never win. Too bad there are not more of them. I wonder why.

Dr. Frank Joseph

Your email:
Your name:
E-mail it  to:

For past columns by Dr. Frank, see PRO-LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS Archives

Wednesday, February 6, 2002
volume 13, no. 23
Dr. Frank Joseph's PRO LIFE PRESCRIPTIONS column
Return to Current Issue