A DAY IN COURT-THIS TIME
THE TRUTH WAS TOLD

By Barbara L. Lyons

Executive Director, Wisconsin Right to Life

It was a day unlike any day I have spent in my 25 years of involvement in the pro-life movement, sitting in U.S. District Judge John Shabaz's courtroom listening to five practitioners of abortion describe in excruciating detail the various brutal ways by which they kill tiny babies. The glorious warm, sunny late May day in Madison, Wisconsin, was in stark contrast to the cold and emotionless testimony inside the court, as Judge Shabaz presided over a trial to determine if Wisconsin's partial-birth abortion ban is constitutional.

The detail was so gruesome and graphic that I don't know at what particular moment the sickening feeling began. I only know it lingers days after the event.

First, there was the testimony of abortionist Martin Haskell. It was Haskell's 1992 paper describing the then publicly unknown partial-birth abortion procedure that detonated the raging debate which continues today.

Then there were several abortionists who stated that their job was to end the woman's pregnancy and the death of the baby was simply a "byproduct" of that procedure. One observed, "We are not adversaries to the fetus. As part and parcel to giving the woman what she wants, the fetus is sacrificed to that."

An abortionist added, "When or how the fetus dies is of no real consequence."

The responses of the witnesses under questioning by the opposing attorneys were revealing. The proponents of abortion were so desperate to claim that the Wisconsin law prohibits the performance of abortions by any method at any stage of pregnancy, they candidly exposed their knowledge that they are indeed killing a living human being.

Because the Wisconsin law applies only when the child killed is "living," the abortionists under direct questioning responded that an unborn child even in the early months of pregnancy is living because of the detected heartbeat. One was left to wonder how the commonly described "blob of tissue" had suddenly become a living child.

There was a great deal of comparison between what is known as a "D&E" abortion procedure, in which the baby is dismembered in utero, and partial-birth abortion, in which the baby is delivered intact and killed while a part of the baby is still inside the mother's body. Under questioning, the abortionists discussed when and how the baby is killed.

There were no pretenses here - - the attorneys and abortionists freely used the term "kill" and several used the term "child" in relation to the killing. They pondered over whether the child was killed when the skull was crushed or when the brains were suctioned out.

Did the child die when a limb was severed from the body? they were asked. Could a baby whose limbs are severed be considered an "intact" baby? Did the baby's head sometimes become detached in a dismemberment procedure? Which of these horrendous acts was most painful to the child? When genetic studies are needed, is an intact child complete with brains more valuable than a dismembered child or one whose brains have been suctioned out?

In the end, the judge ruled Wisconsin's law banning partial-birth abortion is constitutional. Our joy was overshadowed, however, by the gruesomeness of the discussion experienced.

It was nothing short of surreal to be in an institution of justice listening to the cold, clinical, and emotionless detailing of acts so heinous that one would have to be totally insensitive or inhumane not to recognize the grave human rights abuses described.

Strangely, I am not angry. I am sickened and bewildered and left with profound sadness over the lack of awareness, empathy, and outrage.

Why do we as a people poignantly and justly grieve over a black man who is dragged to death, or innocent children who are gunned down in school, but remain emotionally paralyzed over the killing of 4,000 human beings each day? What will it take for America to end this long and evil nightmare?