The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Pro-life bill moves forward in Nebraska

by Esther Eaton
Posted 8/05/20, 06:06 pm

Lawmakers in Nebraska broke a filibuster on Wednesday to move forward a bill protecting babies from dismemberment abortions. Most abortions after the first trimester use “dilation and evacuation,” or pulling babies from the womb limb by limb. The bill would allow suction abortions but keep abortionists from using forceps, tongs, and other commonly used instruments for dilation and evacuation.

What’s next for the bill? It faces two more votes in Nebraska’s unicameral legislative body before heading to the desk of the Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts, who supports it. The state has three days left in its legislative session. After becoming law, the measure might face legal trouble—several other states have passed similar laws that courts have struck down as unconstitutional.

Dig deeper: Read Rachel Lynn Aldrich’s report on legal challenges to pro-life heartbeat laws.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • My Two Cents
    Posted: Wed, 08/05/2020 08:49 pm

    Dismemberment abortion is barbaric, as is all abortion. I fail to see how suction is any better, however. The end result is still a dead baby. How is this remotely considered a prolife bill?

  • Steve Shive
    Posted: Thu, 08/06/2020 03:50 am

    I agree with you, 2¢. I understand incremenatlism might be the best we can do. But let's not call this a "Pro-life bill." That the votes would be this close and that there is any opposition at all is beyond belief!

    Very curious since the mantra is that we should protect the hallowed sanctity of a woman's body. She should do with it as she pleases. And yet this bill admittedly shows that abortions often tear unborn babies to pieces. And they are hoping to scale it back so as to only suck them out!!! And this is a woman's body? By what anatomic logic can that be said!!! And we know these babies move, feel, have heart beats, and avoid painful stimuli (when they aren't being torn to pieces).

    What steps of insane logic move so many to defend this deadly despicable procedure. The heavens shake at this.

  • FC
    Posted: Wed, 10/21/2020 08:25 pm

    When will Marvin Olasky, my hero in responsible journalism, come to his senses.  When will he add to the World stylebook that Pro-Birth is different than Pro-Life?  Pro-Life means people care about the 225,000 and counting deaths from COVID-19 without an adequate Federal Government response.  Many who call themselves Pro-Life do not take personal responsibility to stop the spread and insist restrictions violate their liberties.  Do they care about the thousands of immigrants who die trying to get to the United States or in camps here waiting for processing?  Are they concerned about the thousands killed by guns in crimes and by police and do not support reasonable gun control policies that will let most Americans own a weapon for protection, sport, or a well-regulated militia (whatever that means today)?  Any new controls will not stop all criminals, but maybe just the one who may cost you your life.  Is there concern for the hundreds of dead when their health insurance canceled because of changes this administration made to health regulations?  Is there concern about militarism rhetoric?  I recall our President calling for “fire and fury,” or a nuke on Iran if they develop a nuke.  How many innocent people will die from that action?  Not to mention the hypocrisy of us being the world leader in nuclear weapons.  Is there concern for the many dead from capital punishment when state and federal laws are inconsistently applied and just one innocent person may have slipped through the cracks?  When talking about abortion those people should be called Pro-Birth.  Pro-Life is supporting  ALL life from birth until natural death.  I think I heard a President say those words at a Pro-Birth rally in Washington.  All of the aforementioned issues are related to people dying before “natural death.”.  I battled news directors who had complaints because I used the word “homosexual” in my reports on LG issues (the rest of the alphabet was not there at the time).  The complainers wanted me to use the word “gay.”  I told my boss, “I do not know if you know, but I am gay.”  Slightly stunned by my admission he said he did not realize that.  Then I said, “But I am not homosexual.”  He agreed with my word usage.  The same happened when he got complaints about me using the word “baby” in fetal research stories.  The complainers wanted me to use the word “fetus.”  I explained to my news director that words are important and should be used correctly.  My wife was pregnant at the time and I told him when I go home I ask, “How are you and the baby today?”  I do not ask, “How are you and the fetus?”  He agreed.  Words matter.  Pro-Birth is not Pro-Life.  And this President is not Pro-Life.​