See "Notes on the US Law" at the foot of this report 
June. 27 (DP.net).─ The Catholic Church, other Christian denominations and some other religions campaign to ban abortion on moral grounds or to limit the conditions required for it to be allowed. Their moral and political position on this issue is known as "Pro Life".
Among the most firm opponents to the leniency of present abortion laws in the United States is the non-for-profit organization known as Priests for Life, who openly oppose abortion and euthanasia. They work in tandem with several other organizations, such as Deacons for Life, Silent No More Awareness Campaign, African-American Outreach, Life on the Line, etc.
One of the most recent actions was to send a letter dated June 18, 2013, to Nancy Pelosi, former House Speaker and present Minority Leader. This letter was prompted by a question asked to Ms. Pelosi during a press briefing on June 13. They asked her: "What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?"
Priests for Life argue in this letter that she did not answer the question but «resorted to judgmental ad hominem attacks on the reporter who asked it, saying, "You obviously have an agenda. You're not interested in having an answer."»
And they challenge her to give proper answers about what she understands as legal medical procedure, how far a doctor may go to suppress a human life and what the health, human and moral reasons are to do so. Priest for Life felt insulted when she underlined in her reply to the press on June 13 that: «As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don't think it should have anything to do with politics.»
Ms Pelosi reaction to the June 18 letter appears in an interview conducted by Aviva Shen, an Obama campaign activist, last June 24 and published in ThinkProgress.org. This reporter raised the issue about Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), the sponsor of a recent abortion ban, who "originally planned to apply it only to women in Washington, DC, but was emboldened by the recently publicized horror story of backdoor Pennsylvania abortion provider Kermit Gosnell to impose the ban on all Americans", as Ms Shen informs in her report.
Ms. Pelosi dismissed this latest justification as a mask for "a poverty of ideas":
«This is what they do all the time...Everybody knows Gosnell is an atrocity. It's really a ridiculous connection for them to make. But it's what they do. ... But they have no agenda, so they have to go to cultural issues. So that's what they're about. They have a poverty of ideas. They just don't exist.»
The reporter goes on to say that "Pelosi also laughed off a letter issued by Priests for Life last week". The congresswoman said she has no problem reconciling her faith with her "pro-choice" stance:
«My faith is very deep and has been my whole life. I love my faith and my faith has nothing to do with whoever he is. The arrogance of it all! It's like something ancient, medieval...The Church taught me as I was growing up that every person has a free will and has the responsibility to live up to a moral standard. And I respect women's judgment and values to do that. Whether this priest thinks his judgment should be another woman's judgment is absolutely ridiculous to me. But nonetheless it's what they say. I grant the Church where they are on abortion. That's where they are, that's where they have to be. But my faith isn't about what their position is. My faith is about, Christ is my savior, the church is his church, and has nothing to do with Priests for Life...I wouldn't even dignify whatever it is they said. It was a highly emotional statement that they made. If it were more intellectual I might have paid attention to it. He was acting hysterically.»
[ Ms Pelosi interview ]
[ Priests for Life letter ]
Notes on the US Law: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law established limits on abortion banning intact dilation and extraction, which opponents of abortion rights referred to as "partial-birth abortion," and stipulated that anyone breaking the law would get a prison sentence up to 2.5 years. One aspect of the legal abortion regime now in place has been determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and therefore subject to being protected by the State). In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade (the previous abortion law), viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Advances over the past three decades have allowed fetuses that are a few weeks less than 24 weeks old to survive outside the mother's womb. These scientific achievements have complicated the determination of being "viable", as it is practically impossible to establish a clear time limit. Partial-Birth Abortion is a procedure in which the abortionist pulls a living baby feet-first out of the womb and into the birth canal (vagina), except for the head, which the abortionist purposely keeps lodged just inside the cervix (the opening to the womb). The abortionist punctures the base of the baby's skull with a surgical instrument, such as a long surgical scissors or a pointed hollow metal tube called a trochar. He then inserts a catheter (tube) into the wound, and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the skull to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now-dead baby.