« PEER Praise for The State of Sunshine | Main | Jeb Bush Rallies Conservatives »

January 26, 2007

Abortion Clinic Throws Away Live Baby In Miami-Dade County

"The staff began screaming that the baby was alive; at which time [name redacted*] cut the umbilical cord, threw it into a red bag with black printing. [Name redacted*] then swept the baby, with her hands, into the same red bag along with the gauze used during the procedure."

This was the scene at an abortion clinic in Miami-Dade County on July 20, 2006 when a young lady awaiting an abortion procedure gave birth before the “physician” administering the procedure arrived. Witnesses at the clinic, including the mother saw the baby breathing and moving before it was shoveled into what is essentially a trash bag and carried away. The autopsy report with the details can be viewed here.

This story is getting some fresh air this week as a funeral which was planned for the baby has been pushed back while the State continues to hold the body during the investigation against the clinic.

I bring the story up because it provides a perfect example of the attitude the pro-death movement has adopted. The chief argument they make is that unborn children are not children, they are not human, they are not independent life. Because of this view, they advance that a woman’s “choice” is of more value than what they like to think of as just a blob of tissue. What this story reveals, though, is that for some that argument is hollow because they value “choice” over even the life of what is unarguably a living outside the womb.

It may be pointed out that, as the examiner conducting the autopsy pointed out, historically, the survival rate for children born under 24 weeks is 0%. However, what is revealing is the response by the clinic staff.  Rather than making any attempt to help the child, it is swept into a trash bag. Allegedly, the staff then hid the body on the roof of the clinic for a time.

I am certainly not saying that all abortion advocates have this mind set, or would have reacted the same way. However, it is shocking to see such an example that for some and, I fear, too many simply do not value the life of children, whether in the womb or not, when they conflict with that pinnacle of American values, “choice.”

*Name redacted by this post's author


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Abortion Clinic Throws Away Live Baby In Miami-Dade County:


The chief argument they make is that unborn children are not children, they are not human, they are not independent life.

How can they say that?

I have found some evidence that proves that a fetus is a living human being.......

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

And this,

The "born alive" rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". Recent advances in the state of medical science have led to court decisions that have overturned this rule, and in several jurisdictions statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include unborn children.

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

As of 2002, 23 states in the United States still employed the rule, to lesser or greater extent.[2]

The abolition of the rule has proceeded piecemeal, from case to case and from statute to statute, rather than wholesale. One such landmark case with respect to the rule was Commonwealth vs. Cass, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the court held that the stillbirth of an eight-month-old foetus, whose mother had been injured by a motorist, constituted vehicular homicide. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the foetus constituted a "person" for the purposes of the Massachusetts statute relating to vehicular homicide. In the opinion of the justices, "We think that the better rule is that infliction of perinatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable foetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.

If it is right for a man (or woman) to be charged for homicide and sentenced to prison for killing the unborn (and rightfully so) then the unborn should have equil consideration in relation to abortion..

Help me out here I'm confused...............

The problem here is the abortion clinics technically have a license to murder. So even though with modern technology it is proof positive that the "fetus" is in fact a living baby, it is more cost effective for the state to allow the murder of these babies to go on than to be stuck with the responsibility of caring for or finding homes for these "unwanted" babies. Thus the state allows this license to murder to be issued and used so long as the child never breaths air through its nostrils.
The delema now for the state with this case sadly is now they have to answer to the public because this baby took a breath of air. In the public minds-eye we have been brainwashed to believe that this is the point at which a person is deemed alive and now exists. So the question now is how the state will handle this incedent that slipped through the cracks and somehow became public.
Many of us already know and object to the state killing non air-breathing babies. So they will have to do something to keep the rest of us who believe abortion is not murder, but rather a great way out of the consequinces of immorality and responsibility, into believing the state will draw a line somewhere with this license to murder that has been issued.
This is repulsive to me. The whole reason this all came about was because of the instance of rape. It was to tramatizing to a rape victim to have a baby by her assailant. No doubt it is tramatizing, but other options exist (this is still her baby being murdered). How tramatizing do you think it is for this baby to face a death sentance placed by it's own mother, instead of being placed for adoption? But I guess two wrongs make a right in this case, Huh?
Besides if you ask any woman who has had an abortion the Huge majority will tell you they were never even asked if her choice to abort came about as a result of a rape. The fact is a very, very small percentage of abortion is the result of a rape.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

PRFL Contributors


Copyright and Disclaimer