Allison Stevens is the Washington Bureau Chief for Women eNews. She has an article about her experience as a pregnant woman covering the U.S. Supreme Court decision on the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. The last paragraph is another solid example that some people just don't get it regarding what the Supreme Court justices should base their rulings on. I'm also consistently amazed at how an abortion procedure (partial-birth abortion) which abortion advocates at first tried to claim was hardly ever performed and only done in really rare circumstances is now this great procedure which is the safest procedure for some women at certain stages of pregnancy and is less gruesome than a D & E.
Stevens also brings up Tammy Watts and claims the fact that Tammy's unborn child had Trisomy-13 endangered Tammy's life. Except it didn't. Same with Vicki Wilson and Vicki Stella. Plus, if they needed the procedure to save their lives today then they could still abort their children in that manner since the partial-birth abortion ban has a life exception.
A couple in Britain is hoping the blood from their unborn child's umbilical cord will match and be able to help treat the unborn child's half-brother who is suffering from motor neurone disease. The child was not conceived with this purpose in mind.
Father Frank Pavone has a story of a doctor who treated a woman who took the first drug in the RU-486 cocktail but then decided she didn't want to have an abortion.
In the Nation, Samuel Berger tries to make a progressive case of carefully contemplating regulating future reproductive choices including human cloning, PGD, sperm sorting, etc. Not to save unborn human beings, mind you, but because "(t)he choices they make will thus significantly affect the structure of society." Berger advises regulation and suggests the creation of a governmental agency to regulate reproductive technologies but isn't sure which principle reasons should be used to regulate various reproductive choices.