Previous post
Next post
Is there a more despicable crime than murdering a baby? I mean, really… think hard. Murder is always apalling and deplorable and sickening. But no matter what, murdering a baby would be, in my book, the most disgusting, horrible thing a person could do. And in this particular situation, I’m not talking about abortion. I’m talking about a baby living independently, out of the womb, under the age of 1 year. Killing any child is evil, but to sink that low? A baby has no ability to defend themselves, no way to escape the horror that will be inflicted upon it. A baby cannot run away or fight back. A baby is completely reliant upon its parents to care for it, and for one of those parents to then murder it… is there anything more evil than that?
Any mother who kills their own baby deserves to be put to death. I do not care how deranged she is, how stressed out she may be, or how much pain she may be in from the aftermath of labor. Murder is murder, and murdering an infant is especially horrible.
Of course, leave it to a rabid pro-abortionist like Jessica Ferrar to see otherwise. She’s a Texas state representative, recently honored by Planned Parenthood and the proud owner of a 100% NARAL approval rating. She’s currently trying to force through a bill that would make Catholic hospitals be required to dispense the morning-after pill. Her latest bright idea? To decriminalize infanticide. Introducing Texas HB 3318, the first of its kind in the entire country, known as “the infanticide bill”. It defines infanticide as:
A person commits an offense if the person wilfully by an act or omission causes the death of a child to whom the person gave birth within the 12-month period preceding the child’s death
The bill says that infanticide should not be prosecuted as murder, though, as long as:
… at the time of the act or omission, the person’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth.
Infanticide would become a felony, punishable by no more than two years in prison, with a minimum of 180 days, and/or a fine of no more than $10,000.
Are you sick to your stomach yet?
This bill was passed by the Texas State Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 7 to 1 on April 28th. It’s currently on the way to the Calendars Committee.
Right now, murder of a child under the age of six in the state if Texas is capital murder. And this evil woman, Jessica Ferrar (who, by the way, calls herself a Catholic — yeah right), wants the punishment for murdering an infant to be little more than a slap on the wrist. And why? Because if the child is under a year old, they’re worth less than a child aged 1 – 6?
What has happened to this country? It is as if we are losing our very soul, as if the values we once held are completely dead and gone.
If our elected representatives will not fight to save this country, then it is up to us to.
Call the Calendars Committee today and tell them to vote NO on HB 3318. I called every single one of them to find out their positions on this monstrosity, and only two — Brian McCall and Edmund Kuempel — said they were opposed. Jim McReynolds’ office took my information and said they’d be in touch. But all the rest of them, aside from McCall and Kuempel, are apparently as of yet undecided. Sickening.
Call all of them. Be polite and respectful, but be firm. Make it clear that HB 3318 cannot be allowed to pass.
Brian McCall-Chair: 512-463-0594
Eddie Lucio-Vice Chair: 512-463-0606
Norma Chavez: 512-463-0622
Garnett Coleman: 512-463-0524
Byron Cook: 512-463-0730
Brandon Creighton: 512-463-0726
Charlie Geren: 512-463-0610
Jim Keffer: 512-463-0656
Lois Kolkhorst: 512-463-0600
Edmund Kuempel: 512-463-0602
Jim McReynolds: 512-463-0490
Alan Ritter: 512-463-0706
Burt Solomons: 512-463-0478
OffendedMan says: So if you’re going to kill your baby, do it in the first 12 months? Nice.
I seriously doubt this bill will get very far, if it is not scheduled for floor debate by may 11th, the bill is dead. They have six days. I doubt this is going to make it onto the floor, and even if by some miracle it does, it won’t pass, but even if it did, it still has to go to the Senate for a vote too. This bill has absolutely no chance of passage. (I know, never say never, but still..) Infanticide is absolutely reprehensible and nobody is going to want this on their voting record. Their opponents would have a field day with it. Farrar is going to have trouble defending this herself when she comes up for re-election. (I plan to make sure this won’t be forgotten.)
Warren says: Thanks for putting this up. Thought I’d mention that you got linked at a blog I read regularly:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/197541.php
Warren
Bob says: Cassy, Cassy Cassy….
I don’t think you read the text of the article. This is something that is ONLY allowable as a defense IF the murderer is the mother AND has already been found guilty of the crime.
“and instead authorizes a defendant, at the punishment stage of a trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of murder for causing the death of a child to whom the defendant gave birth within the 12-month period preceding the child’s death, to raise the issue as to whether the defendant caused the child’s death because the defendant’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following birth, and makes such a murder a state jail felony if the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence”
If the mother fails to prove it, BAM, it’s still a felony.
This really has little to do with the babies and more to do with feminism unhinged once again. They are now trying to allow postpartum depression and “effects of lactation following birth” as an allowable defense for the murder of your own infant.
Skip the baby issue entirely, and go after it because it’s something else giving women a free pass out of serious jail time.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/analysis/html/HB03318H.htm
Thank you for bringing this to light. I have facebooked it and intend to spend the evening sharing it across Texas. It’s 5 here in Texas now, but I plan on getting the phones fired up in the morning.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Sam
I called every one of them.
I also have this info on the committee members:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/220.htm
Note that the barbarian Jessica Ferrar is not even on the committee.
I am going to find the names of who assigns committee membership and ask why these 7 were ever assigned to this committee.
balay that. This is the current list:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/committees/list81/220.htm
Here are the seven (7) committee members who voted in favor of HB 3188:
Representative Pete Gallego (512) 463-0566 Alpine, TX Democrat
Representative Carol Kent 512) 463-0454 Dallas, TX Democrat
Representative Robert Miklos (512) 463-0464 Mesquite, TX Democrat
Representative Paula Pierson (512) 463-0562 Arlington, TX Democrat
Representative Debbie Riddle (512) 463-0572 Houston, TX Republican
Representative Allen Vaught (512) 463-0244 Dallas, TX Democrat
Representative Hubert Vo (512) 463-0568 Houston, TX Democrat
They should be on the Mop Committee next legislative session
This is the TX House member who voted against HB 3318 in committee:
Representative Wayne Christian (512) 463-0556 Nacogdoches, TX Republican
He is a real hero and I’ve called his office which was incredibly helpful in identifying the members who voted in favor of HB 3318
Salute, Rep Christian.
Cassy,
Infanticide has been with us as long as there have been humans, but as we have become more civilized it has become rarer. You may want to review this material: http://family.jrank.org/pages/879/Infanticide-Acceptability-Legality.html
It’s not just modern liberal feminists who are lenient with mothers who kill their babies — most societies throughout most of the world in most eras are loathe to punish such women. Look at the sentencing recommendations for the UK: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/infanticide/
The provocation for infanticide is the same as the provocation for abortion — and the antidote is the same: better maternal support. Few prosecutors have the stomach for taking an infanticide case to trial — there’s almost no upside. The only sensible approach is to stop it from happening in the first place.
Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
OK, I’m in the middle of a long discussion with this member’s office:
Representative Debbie Riddle (512) 463-0572 Houston, TX Republican
She withdrew her name from HB 3318. Unfortunately there is no way to confirm via the Lege web pages that Rep Riddle has withdrawn her name. In other words, it still looks like she is (and was) one of the 7 monsters who voted in committee in favor of this bill.
Sad. Rep Riddle is going to take a huge political hit out of this. She should have known better than to get sucked into going along with the likes of Ferrar and Naishtat, a co author … (check him out if you want to witness a political monster).
I am now going to call the vice chair’s office to verify that Rep Riddle did indeed withdraw from this bill.
The Vice Chair’s office confirms that Rep Riddle has withdrawn her name as co-author of the bill. She does not support it.
So, guess what … it’s all DEMs now.
tnxplant says: This is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard – that “the effects of lactation following the birth” would cause a birth mother to kill her baby! Lactation produces prolactin and oxytocin.
“Oxytocin helps us in our emotional, as well as our physical, transition to motherhood. From the first weeks of pregnancy, oxytocin helps us to be more emotionally open and more receptive to social contact and support.
… prolactin has effects on emotion and behaviour. Prolactin helps us to put our babies’ needs first in all situations by increasing submissiveness, anxiety and vigilance.
When prolactin is combined with oxytocin, as it is soon after birth and during breastfeeding, it encourages a relaxed and selfless devotion to the baby that contributes to a mother’s satisfaction and her baby’s physical and emotional health.”
– Dr Sarah J Buckley 2005 http://www.sarahjbuckley.com
The author of this bill is woefully ignorant of the role and effects of lactation hormones.
Paul: “Pro-Life Catholics for Choice” is like saying “Abolitionists for Slave States.” If you are pro-life, you cannot be for “choice,” which, these days, means abortion.
As for the bill itself: insanity is always a defence to crimes. Problematically, this bill gives a particular defence to only one group of people, for use against one particular group of victims. I’m sure that there is an Equal Protection issue in there, somewhere (states that legislate on the basis of age must meet intermediate scrutiny – i.e. the distinction has to be reasonably related to a compelling state interest).
We could all be sarcastic and point out that partial-birth abortion is only the beginning for those who seek to classify all children as sub-human, but some people seem to be intent on proving that to be the case.
Almost nobody here, including the original poster, seems to have any idea how the bill actually works. That would seem to be a prerequisite to objecting to it, but, apparently, not here.
The bill does not “legalize” infanticide, and it does not reduce the penalty for it. Bob, in comment #4, almost gets it right, but lets misogyny warp his little brain until he also runs off the rails. As he notes, the bill creates a procedure which only comes into effect during sentencing, after the defendant has already been convicted, but he is wrong that it removes the felony conviction, and, as any normal person would imagine, he is also wrong that it creates an “allowable defense for the murder of your own child”. (Think, Bob: if they’ve already been convicted, then no more “defenses” are possible.) It does none of that.
The bill simply allows a defendant to offer post-partum depression as one of the mitigating circumstances any defendant may offer, before sentencing, to reduce the severity of the sentence. The defendant remains convicted of a felony, but, if it is proven that she did suffer post-partum depression – a recognized and well-documented medical condition – and that that did contribute to the crime, the conviction is reduced to a lower degree of felony with a sentence of a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of two years.
In short, it has no effect whatsoever on the law regarding infanticide, or on the defenses available to the charge of infanticide. It simply states that a certain type of evidence may be offered after conviction, before sentencing, that the judge must take into account in setting the sentence. Basically, it says that judges have to recognize post-partum depression as a mitigating factor if it is proven that it actually was a factor, rather than leave it up to their discretion.
That seems perfectly reasonable, though of course it helps if you understand it first.
I guess Fr. Jenkins has found his replacement for Mary Ann Glendon. She would be perfect for the Medal, after all her record echoes the president.
Theresa says: I snickered when I read your supposed concern and care about our “values” and “where this country is headed” with a photo of yourself proudly aiming a pistol at god knows what. I think we should get more outraged at all of the wacko fathers out there who are murdering their wives/girlfriends/children in droves. Nah. That would mean taking their pistols away from them and then what would nice conservative women like yourself have to pose with?
It decriminalizes an act by…providing for sentence mitigation after a criminal conviction that would still result in substantial jail time, and would only apply to a very specific subset of infant murderers (i.e., their mothers) pleading extreme post-partum depression.
So, other than the fact that you haven’t read the statute, have no idea what it says, and have misrepresented its content, you’re right on here. Why am I not surprised that these elected officials aren’t taking you seriously?
CaptDMO says: Wow.
In My Humble Opinion-
#23 Even the traditional non-sequitur ad hominem is sophist buffoonery.
#24 Defenseless,unfounded, subjective.
Liar.
BOTH. Catastrophic fail for further consideration by THIS reader.
Where does this ilk of criticism breed?
No matter, this is not attempted character assassination, consider this my postpartum abortion of inconvenient vandalism.
Kelly Greene says: Even for a wingnut, Fiano, you’re pretty goddamn stupid.
I don’t think you quite understand the law at issue here. Kevin does a good job of actually explaining it, but I’ll just add that it sounds like an intermediate measure between either convicting someone of murder and imprisoning them the rest of their lives, or finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity. This measure would allow people to be jailed who a sympathetic jury might otherwise let off the hook, at least if I’m understanding it correctly.
Roxeanne de Luca Says:
Paul: “Pro-Life Catholics for Choice” is like saying “Abolitionists for Slave States.” If you are pro-life, you cannot be for “choice,” which, these days, means abortion.
Roxeanne,
What you say is simply not true. Being for ‘choice’ does not mean you support abortion. It means you support a person’s right to decide not to become a parent if that is what she or he wants. It also means that, in the event that a woman who would prefer not to have a child finds that she has become a mother she deserves to have choices opened up to her that 1) allow her child to live and 2) support her desires and interests. “Pro-Life” means that you want the society to protect the lives of the unborn (it also suggests a stance on other issues such as capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research, suicide, unjust war, end-of-life issues and so forth). Some people believe that the best way to protect the unborn is to restrict a woman’s access to abortion, other people believe that the best way to protect the unborn is to help people who don’t want to become parents from inadvertently producing a child and by assisting women in the distress of an unintended pregnancy. Some people believe that tough laws are the answer. Other people believe that education is the answer.
We must protect the unborn. We must also protect neonates and infants. The risk of infanticide is actually quite low but it can be lowered further — fiddling with the infanticide laws isn’t going to do anything one way or another. Support for mothers could provide more protection for babies.
Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
an intermediate measure between either convicting someone of murder and imprisoning them the rest of their lives, or finding someone not guilty by reason of insanity
I’ve got your intermediate measure right here, pal:
hang them from a tree if they murder their babies.
Tristramshanty says: Please, for the love of God, whenever you comment about the purpose of legislation make sure you read the legislative history. (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/billlookup/text.aspx?LegSess=81R&Bill=HB3318) A reading of both the analysis and the bill itself reveal the purpose of the law is to deal with cases where the mother kills her child while suffering from postpartum depression. This in no way resembles the unfair and intellectually dishonest manner in which you painted the bill.
As the Texas law currently stands, defendants may raise the insanity defense if they suffered from a mental disorder at the time they committed a murder. The purpose behind this is to prevent the conviction of individuals who didn’t know what they are doing at the time of the murder, and who were incapable of forming the requisite malice. Obviously, a mother suffering from postpartum psychosis meets this requirement and is free to raise the defense without this law being passed. If a jury finds that the mother was suffering from postpartum depression, she will be found innocent and then probably committed to a mental institution to get the help she needs.
Now, it is important to note that the bill is completely stupid for another reason: it is unnecessary. In Texas the defendant bears the burden of proving their insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. So, if a defendant is found guilty despite raising an insanity defense, a jury would have found that the evidence of their insanity did not raise to a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, this law is absolutely pointless because there is no way a jury could possibly find that the evidence meets the preponderance standard for the guilt-and-innocence phase of the trial and not the sentencing phase. Even assuming that evidence barred at trial is admissible at the sentencing phase, the law still makes no sense. After all, a determination of sanity is usually based on expert testimony that the jury would have already heard at the trial phase.
Furthermore, although I appreciate the intent of the law, it is misguided. If a women is truly suffering from postpartum psychosis she needs mental health care. Although prisons may provide such assistance, it is not the best environment for recovery. Additionally, because a person suffering from a mental disorder cannot legally commit murder, the law effectively sends innocent people to jail. After all, as noted above, if a defendant meets the standard for the lower sentence, she also meets the standard for innocence.
We should be able to do better than giving lower sentences to those suffering from mental disorders. We should be able to give them the medical help they need.
Bob says: Kevin T. Keith Says:
Hey Kevin, thank you for the correction. I did read it and obviously misunderstood it slightly. But next time, you can leave off the “misogyny warp his little brain” types of comments as they really add nothing to the discussion.
I realize that they’ve already been convicted, I was figuring that it would come up in an immediate appeal.
Just so all of you know before you start feeding the trolls, the left-wing idiots coming out in force to defend this insane bill — the ones calling me “goddamn stupid” and talking about misogyny and stupid crap like that — are from Pandagon. And despite what these idiots are saying, that I don’t understand the bill, I do. I understand it. I never said infanticide would no longer be a crime, I said:
The bill says that infanticide should not be prosecuted as murder, though, as long as:
… at the time of the act or omission, the person’s judgment was impaired as a result of the effects of giving birth or the effects of lactation following the birth.
Infanticide would become a felony, punishable by no more than two years in prison, with a minimum of 180 days, and/or a fine of no more than $10,000.
I didn’t misunderstand. I understand perfectly what this bill is doing, and I am still against it. Just because you’re suffering from post-partum depression or had to deal with some tough breast feeding — awwww — it doesn’t mean you should get off the hook for MURDERING AN INFANT, even though idiots with no morals like Jessica Ferrar and these libtards think it should. Thanks, though, libs, for letting us know where you stand and how low your principles are.
Randbot says: “I never said infanticide would no longer be a crime.”
Yeah, except where you used the term “decriminalize” twice, including IN THE TITLE OF THE POST…
Tristramshanty says: Cass,
First, the title of you post is “Texas infanticide bill would decriminalize murdering an infant.” So, although your post may have clarified your point, the title belies your claim that you never stated infanticide would no longer be a crime. (Of course, you might know of a definition for decriminalize that means lessen the punishment, but Black’s Dictionary would say you were wrong.)
Second, you clearly misunderstand the criminal law. In order to be guilty of murder one must knowingly commit the act and do so with malice. A person suffering from a mental disorder is incapable of both and so cannot be found guilty. The defense is available no matter who the victim is and what his relationship to the murderer is.
Third, our criminal justice system not only has retribution as one of its principles but also rehabilitation. Justice is being served if we get people the mental health care they need. Furthermore, retribution is not served by punishing someone for something that they did not knowingly do.
Finally, mock postpartum psychosis all you want, the science is there. Punishing people who are suffering from a mental disorder for acts committed due to that disorder is barbaric. We can’t cure a horrendous wrong by committing a heinous act.
Cass, from all the calls I made last night, it certainly appears that HB 3318 is dead on arrival at the Calendars Committee.
Now we go on to the fight to see that Speaker Straus never puts any of the yes-voters on the Criminal Jurisprudence committee ever again. And in fact puts them at most on the Mop Closet Committee.
Justin says: Tristramshanty,
You seem to be confusing postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. They are not the same thing. Postpartum psychosis is very rare, can apparently happen to anyone who gives birth, and is a true case of insanity. Someone who is suffering from postpartum psychosis is incapable of judging the difference between right and wrong. An example of a woman suffering postpartum depression would be someone who heard the voice of the devil saying he’d drag her children into hell, and so she kills them so that they can go to heaven.
Postpartum depression is merely a bout of severe depression, not actual insanity (it’s also tied to women with a long history of depression, unlike postpartum psychosis). Someone suffering from postpartum depression is capable of judging right from wrong. As I read the legislation, it would protect women who suffer from postpartum depression. Hence, it is not unnecessary as you claim.
Severe depression does not usually work for an insanity plea, as someone who is depressed is still capable of differentiating right from wrong (There have been some cases where that sort of defense has worked, but it is the exception rather than the rule). Thus, a mother who does not meet the standards of insanity could still get the reduced joke of a sentence because her judgment was impaired by her depression.
I do agree with you that it is a stupid law. This is the equivalent of a man coming before a court and saying “Gee, sorry I stalked and killed my ex. But I was really depressed after she broke up with me”, and getting a tremendously mitigated sentence because of it. The same logic would get nearly all mass murderers off the hook as well.
I also agree when you say that it is barbaric to punish an insane person for something they cannot control. I’ve noticed that a lot of tough on crime people don’t give any consideration to the insane, and call for their death just as readily as any other criminal. Anyone can lose their mind. If they do something bad because of it, it really isn’t their fault.
CaptDMO says: Tristramshanty Says:
Please, for the love of God, whenever you comment about the purpose of legislation make sure you read the legislative history.
Please, for the love of God, understand that road to hell is paved with legislative “history”, and the final “as voted” and “enacted with further correction AFTER the vote” is what sings the song.
ie.
Roe v Wade is ALL ABOUT medical privacy.
Title IX is ALL ABOUT “equality” in academics.
VAWA is ALL ABOUT “special protections” for women suffering battery
from their spouses.
PLEASE!Vastly abating the penalty for crimes is decriminalization,
not “Legalizing” as so many seem to accuse Ms. Fiano of proclaiming.Granted, if Casey had simply implied ANY outragious baldfaced lie,
and disingenuously ended it with a question mark (see: NYT style book), then it would be an affirmative defense against experts proclaiming politically correct “interpretation” of weasle words.Sure, she (and make no mistake, this “bill is ALL ABOUT “she”)”suffers from mental issues so bad that she murders a living human being. Fine, let folks of such magnitude of mental issues be removed from society FOR THE SAFETY OF THE REST OF THE CHILDREN.
A lifetime of mandatory “reporting”, and public “awareness” publication (a la “for the safety of our children”) must be included once appointed humanities evaluators, independent from ANY
Judicial/Penal experts decide release from supervised institutionalization won’t result in recidivist threat, and a large scarlet letter be predominately displayed upon “her” outermost clothing.
Cassy
Your headline reads: “Texas infanticide bill would decriminalize murdering an infant”.
This is not the case. And this is why the liberal blog has come after you.
This bill is not intended to change the law regarding conviction for infanticide. It is offering up the concept of post-birth depression [which is a proven fact with some women] and wants to get judges [during sentencing] to consider this as one reason for the murder of the baby.
Your headline should read: “Texas infanticide bill recommends shorter sentences for some women who murder their new born due to post-birth depression”. Not as Drudge-like, I know, but more accurate.
BTW if it did pass I am pretty sure that few judges would change sentencing.
Knott Buyinit says: As a matter of fact, legally, to ‘decriminalize’ an offense means exactly to reduce (or abolish) the penalties for engaging in a particular criminal act (you could look it up), so I don’t see what these hair-splitting liberals are on about.
However, as they have been at some pains to point out, a person may already claim insanity as a defense, or, if already convicted, as a reason for mitigation of their penalty. I assume Jessica Ferrar knew that perfectly well, so why did she feel the bill was needed?
I suspect it was because Ms. Ferrar wanted to take the ‘judgment’ away from the judges, forcing them to sentence based on, no doubt, medical advice from the felon’s doctor. (These would be the same doctors who can always ‘prove’ that carrying a baby to term would ‘harm’ the mother, allowing an abortion to take place at any time up to birthday minus 1.)
Yeah, Cassy’s right, this is “Sickening”.
Tristramshanty says: Knott,
From Black’s Law Dictionary (2006)– decriminalization (n): The legislative act or process of legalizing an illegal act.
The bill also will not force judges to sentence based advise from the defendant’s experts. The prosectuion will have a chance to bring forward its own experts to counter the defense. Based on all this, the judge or jury will then make a determination as to whether the evidence presented is sufficient (a preponderance of the evidence) to warrant the lower sentence. This is similar to what goes on at trials where the insanity defense is raised, or during the sentencing phase of a death penalty case.
Nonetheless, the bill is pointless. Furthermore, based on the prior version of the bill, appears to have been poorly thought through.
Ish Ka-Bibble says: “Smoking hot”? On what planet?
Hunter Hutchinson says: Bring on the insurrection!!! Overthrow the government!!! Save children!!!
TXTaxpayer says: Don’t believe in abortion? Don’t have one. In the mean time keep your filthy stinking paws off my body. And thank God for Representative Farrar.
Sara says: I’m in full support if this bill being passed and believe that individuals need to start looking at the crime of infanticide from a different view. The crime of neoinfanticde and infanticide is extremely complex and involves a great deal of factors. Women who commit these unthinkable crimes all have a lot in common. They are often young women, poor, in unstable relationships, do not have strong suuport systems, and suffer from mental illness (such as the extremely rare, yet devasating condition of postpartum psychosis).Infanticide is not a rare or exceptional crime committed by deranged or devilish mothers; rather, it happens frequently in our society by mothers who are pushed to the point of committing heinous crimes. But we cannot solely blame mothers. As a society we need to change our tendencies and look at the societies which foster these crimes. With limited options for adoption, contraception, abortion and single parenthood, the unthinkable crime of infanticide becomes a devastating reality. I urge you to support this bill and think about the bigger picture and circumstances that unfortunately push women to commit this crime.
I agree on you..that it is crime, and it is really crime to kill babies..well..they are angels..and why should we kill those angels?They may have good future..they maybe one of the heroes in the future..but what will happen if we will be killing them..it’s like we are killing the future..I hope that there would be people who will prevent this kind of immoral habit?..like those doctors in china..who kill Babies..to eat…who buy..fetus just to cook?..what are those people/..what kind f people they are?
This plain and simple B.S.. pardon my language. What the heck are they smoking if they’re thinking of passing such a bill? How can anyone in their right mind think of absolving someone from the murder of a tiny, defence less baby?
53 Comments