In a never ending barrage of baloney against Michigan's Legal Birth Definition Act, the Detroit Free Press features this editorial by Desiree Cooper, who is married to the scandalized former head of Michigan's Democratic Party. It makes me wonder 1. If Ms. Cooper has taken the 2 minutes necessary to read the law (if she has - she is an unabashed liar, if she hasn't - then she has no business writing a column about a one-page law she's never read) 2. If Ms. Cooper has been brainwashed by Planned Parenthood 3. If the Detroit Free Press has editors who monitor the truthfulness of their columnists.
The editorial is filled with so much ignorance and/or lies it is hard to find a place to start so I thought I'd start with the first sentence. Ms. Cooper's writing will get the honor of being in red.
Michigan was scheduled to become one of the most regressive states in the union when the Legal Birth Definition Act became law March 30.
How is defining birth and protecting a child who is partially outside her mom "regressive?" Is infanticide progressive? Since when is outlawing the killing of children who are born regressive?
Motivated by the opponents of a rare procedure called late-term abortion....
Called "late-term abortion?" Do you mean partial-birth abortion? It's a procedure usually performed midway/late in pregnancy and it is known by most everyone as partial-birth abortion. No one calls it "late-term abortion." This statement makes me think that Ms. Cooper is more on the ignorant side then deceptive side.
....the new law says that life begins when any part of the fetus is delivered past the vaginal opening, and that fetus has a heartbeat, is breathing or shows spontaneous movement.
The law defines the beginning of birth not life. Hence the name Legal Birth Definition Act instead of Legal Life Definition Act.
If a medical procedure injures or kills a perinate -- even if the procedure is to benefit the health of the mother -- a doctor may be subject to criminal charges.
Anyone who has read the LBDA will know that it provides immunity to doctors whose actions attempt "to save the life of the mother and every reasonable effort was made to preserve the life of both the mother and the perinate" and "to avert an imminent threat to the physical health of the mother, and any harm to the perinate was incidental to treating the mother and not a known or intended result of the procedure performed."
Later Cooper and a doctor she interviewed discuss some things (cancer, severe toxemia) that could endanger a woman's life or health. They, however, can't explain how those ailments would cause a doctor to partially deliver a child and then kill that child.
That's why a group of doctors are plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed last week in federal court in Detroit.
The suit, which seeks to stop the law from going into effect, is being pressed by obstetricians and gynecologists from Beaumont Hospital, the University of Michigan Medical School, Sinai-Grace Hospital and Henry Ford Hospital. That's not a rabid bunch of radicals, but a group of respected physicians who want to be able to exercise their expertise to protect the health of Michigan's women.
"Desiree, thanks for not mentioning us. It's better that the Free Press readers just think that it's a bunch of Michigan doctors taking the law to court - not pro-choice organizations (some of whom aren't even located in Michigan). Make sure you don't let your readers know about that 'physician's reasonable medical judgment and in compliance with the applicable standard of practice and care' phrase. Thanks again. " - the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights