The editorial in last week’s issue said: “The 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court upholding the federal ban on partial-birth abortion is a historic ruling that could change the course of the abortion debate and, with it, the course of our nation. Or then again, it might be only a temporary setback as the big business of abortion continues to get exactly what it wants from American politics and jurisprudence. It all depends on what pro-lifers do next.”

The editorial suggested four things that pro-lifers should do, and promised a follow-up on each:

1. Quote the Supreme Court decision’s description of partial-birth abortion.

2. Name the defenders of partial-birth abortion.

3. Quote the court’s words on the importance of protecting human life and women’s emotional well-being.

4. Ban more procedures, immediately.

Of the four, this first follow-up is the most painful to read and the most regrettable to have to publish. The Register takes no joy in describing these two ugly abortion procedures. But it is precisely because it is painful to describe them that we must describe them.

Since many people automatically delete political or religious e-mails, the editorial tries to avoid language that would raise red flags. This is one case where to simply describe a procedure is to explain why it is illegitimate, and so that is all the editorial does.

We pray for healing for the women who have undergone these procedures — both in elective abortion and, in the case of the second procedure we describe, in a miscarriage. And we pray for healing for our nation, a healing that can only begin once the travesty of the denial of the right-to-life is ended.

This series is one example of how the Register equips our readers to engage the culture of death. Help us to continue this work — see the ad on the opposite page about our annual fundraising drive for more information.