From:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec03/abortion_11-05.html<snip>
GWEN IFILL: Do you think, Dr. Hillard, that if this law is allowed to stand it will be the first brick in the wall or brick out of the wall in Roe V. Wade?
DR. PAULA HILLARD: I think that that's very clearly the intent of those who bring this law to us.
GWEN IFILL: Dr. Cook, is that the intent?
DR. CURTIS COOK: No, not at all. Dr. Hillard is correct there's no specific language or gestational age. This is trying merely to prohibit a certain type of heinous procedure from being performed. And that's all it's intended to do. I do think we need to correct the misinformation that's put out there oftentimes.
This is done not on just emergency basis, not just abnormal babies or sick mothers. These are done predominantly on healthy babies and healthy mothers. Every medical expert that has testified has said the same thing. Even pro abortion advocates including the national director of abortion providers has admitted that. These are done predominantly on healthy mothers and healthy babies.
GWEN IFILL: If the law is overturned by the Supreme Court, if the court is consistent and acts the way it did in the Nebraska case last year, what will have been the purpose of getting this passed and signed?
DR. CURTIS COOK: Well, the law differs significantly from the Nebraska law in two areas. First of all it differs specifically in the way that it defines the procedure narrowly, which is different than the previous decision that went forward in the Sternberg decision. Also it comes forward with increasing support for medical information showing that there is no protection of a woman's health and may put her health at risk.
<snip>
And what I wish Gwen would have said at this point, is, "Dr. Cook, so do I take you to mean the 'partial-birth abotion' is THE ONLY procedure you oppose, and that if Roe v. Wade were to be attacked in total, you'd find yourself supporting a pro-choice position????
Damn Gwen, what an opportunity!!!
:argh: