Sorry, baby: Obama administration to force pro-life hospitals, medical professionals to dispense hormonal contraceptives, perform IVF
Actually, there are 3 ways out: Close hospitals, quit or never get into the medical profession, or engage in civil disobedience.
Yesterday Students for Life of America released an important letter it received April 13 from the Department of Health & Human Services.
HHS was responding to a March 22 inquiry SFLA and 3 pro-life medical groups asking whether medical professionals would be protected from being forced to dispense The Pill, emergency contraceptives, or IVF if in violation of their consciences.
In short, the answer is NO, the Obama administration has changed the rules. Click to enlarge…
Such a linquistic pretzel they have constructed. I would sure love for someone to sue or hold congressional hearings on this point: Is or is not a preborn human being potentially killed after his or her mother ingests hormonal contraceptives?
Every hormonal contraceptive labeling says s/he indeed may be. Even the FDA agrees, try as it might to hide the fact. Click to enlarge:
The FDA is a branch of DHHS. The FDA admits hormonal contraceptives may kill conceived humans. But because killing conceived humans before they implant in the wall of their mother’s uterus is not defined as abortion, killing them is not considered killing them, so pro-life medical professionals have no right to opt out. They apparently exist in a 5-9 day long preborn state of the living dead.
But they’re not dead. The Obama administration is telling us to just shut up and kill them.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Pro-life orgs who are neutral on birth control only aid in the stifling of conscience rights. I wish people would demand more from the places they donate their money to.
“Killing pre-born human beings” is still legal. So are cigarettes and alcohol. Does a store clerk have the right to refuse to ring up purchases for these items? And if pharmacists don’t want to distribute a product that is legal, perhaps they should think of getting into another profession. Orthodox Jews don’t work on their Sabbath; but that doesn’t mean that they shut down emergency rooms, at Jewish hospitals, on that day. Why should a Catholic pharmacist, who objects to birth control, have the right to refuse it to a purchaser who might not even be a fellow Catholic?
Obviously, in an urban area, there are places, other than Catholic hospitals, to access emergency contraception for rape victims. But if the Catholic hospital is the only game in town, the rape victim is out of luck and if she becomes pregnant she will either bear the child of the rapist or have an abortion. While you welcome the first outcome, you might have a problem with the second.
But I really want to know about Catholic hospitals having the right to refuse to do an emergency abortion in a case where the woman will die if the fetus isn’t aborted. Is it true that the Catholic hospital will let that happen?
CC, is it your opinion, then, that German Catholic physicians who objected to killing Jews in the Hitler regime should have killed Jews anyway, given that it was legal to do so (and was even a mandate from the government authority)?
Also, there is never an instance where an abortion will save a woman’s life. Catholic hospitals that actually adhere to Catholic teaching see both the woman and the baby as patients; they don’t see the baby as a means to an end.
If it’s an ectopic pregnancy situation, then the principle of double effect applies and the woman’s diseased tube can be removed even if the unintended but foreseen side effect is the baby’s death. Same with premature induction of labor if the placenta is causing problems; as long as the intention is to expel the diseased organ, and not kill the child, it’s acceptable.
However, such cases as the latter are rare as to be non-existent. The problem is that most physicians prefer to do what is easy instead of what is right, because trying to save both mother and child often isn’t cost-effective.
I triple dog dare CC to answer JoAnna’s question.
CC even ardent pro-lifers will consent to an abortion when the mother’s LIFE is in danger. The problem is how is that conclusion reached? It is a VERY rare (less than 1%) circumstance when the mother will actually die if the baby is not removed. A Catholic hospital will do all in its power to save both. If it actually does comes down to the mother will DIE NOW, I believe abortion will be permitted.
Please stop spouting the WOMEN WILL DIE bumper sticker.
How on earth does one justify forcing doctors to participate in IVF?
I understand that with emergency contraception, time is of the essence, and if you don’t take drugs to keep the child from having a food source, he or she might survive long enough they’d have to dismember him instead.
But IVF is carefully planned, not an emergency. And any pro-life doctor worth his salt wouldn’t have a problem treating a woman who was pregnant as a result of IVF; once the child is implanted in the womb, no one objects to that baby and his or her mother receiving medical care. Only specific, highly trained doctors do IVF anyway. Shall we force podiatrists to dispense EC and force ultrasound technicians to dispose of embryos? I couldn’t even get my son’s doctor to tell me whether he needed iron supplements without recourse to a specialist; should abortion be the one thing all doctors must do, however unqualified? Well, looking at those who do it for a living, maybe that would be safer…
How does one decide which procedures are necessary? Doctors decide this. They don’t go purely by patient wishes. If my father in law goes to a doctor and asks for painkillers for his bad back, he can’t just get whatever prescription sounds good. There’s a history taken, and it may take a specialist. If he wants codeine, but the doctor thinks he only needs tylenol, no one is going to force the doctor to dispense codeine. He can get a second opinion, but he can’t get a lawyer and sue the doctor. Even if there were malpractice, a lawsuit wouldn’t force the doctor to give him codeine.
When I was breastfeeding my son, I wanted to be put on metformin, which I have taken (and currently take) to help prevent early miscarriage due to a syndrome I have. My doctor refused to prescribe it while I was breastfeeding, even though it is a very safe drug. The endocrinologist agreed, although my lactation consultant said it was fine and could even help milk production. I could have sought out a different doctor who would prescribe it for me, but I couldn’t force my doctor to prescribe it. I think she was wrong, but I didn’t have legal recourse to force her to prescribe it.
Why is abortion different? Why can’t the doctor just say, “I don’t think this is medically indicated. The risks outweigh the potential benefit, and I won’t take part.” Even a nurse can (and should) refuse to administrate a medicine that she feels would be harmful–say, if she sees a wrong dosage or a possible bad interaction. Why can’t a pharmacist just say, “These synthetic hormones have a risk of causing clots, and I can’t justify filling this prescription for a healthy young women with no symptoms that they would be treating”? Or why can’t a doctor say, “There is no medical indication to perform an abortion on this healthy mother carrying a healthy (or unhealthy) fetus; I cannot in good conscience perform that operation, as the risk of heavy bleeding or uterine perforation far outweighs any potential benefit”? Reputable OBGYNs won’t schedule an early C-Section on just the mother’s say-so, and that might be the mom’s choice; why is it okay to refuse to deliver a 36-week-old baby alive but not okay to refuse to deliver that same baby dead?
What IS SFL’s stance on contraception? I have no idea.
Regarding the abortifacient contraception argument – I was just at a conference where this was addressed, and the speaker noted a study that indicated the possibility of a very quickly developing endometrium due to a surge of estrogen upon conception. This research seemed to indicate that despite the Pill’s effects on the endometrium, that if a woman were to conceive, her hormones would severely spike which would form endometrium by which to facilitate implantation.
I’ve known a lot of Pill babies, so while I’m aware the FDA says a miscarriage of the unborn child is theoretically possible, I wonder if they’ve accounted for this research – and if anyone’s heard of this research and could point me toward it, it would be much appreciated. I’m going to try and contact the speaker about it. I’m just wondering if anyone here has heard of it.
When I went off the Pill, it wasn’t because I was worried about any possible abortifacient properties – it was because I found out the Pill was suppressing ovulation in my pituitary gland, which my doctor had not explained before giving me a prescription for it. No one had explained anything to me about how it worked or about the risks involved (and there are many). I simply had to ask myself if I really thought it was wise to mess with my brain chemistry when technically, there was nothing wrong with me. I could no longer justify my decision to take hormonal contraception.
Kel, a significantly higher percentage of pill pregnancies are ectopic than pregnancies conceived without the the influence of hormonal contraceptives. So either the thinning of the lining makes it less likely for the embryo to implant, or the pill causes ectopic pregnancies (or is correlated with them) in some other way. The effect on the endometrium seems the most likely scenario to me.
No doctor, of any religion, would refuse to help a woman experiencing an ectopic pregnancy.
However, I witnessed with my own eyes and ears a Planned Parenthood staff member refusing to help a woman who had been diagnosed at another PP with the ectopic pregnancy. She wouldn’t even tell the woman to go to the emergency room. She just kept telling her to get out of the office. Finally, A PATIENT SITTING IN THE WAITING ROOM got up and told the woman to go right to an emergency room. The pregnant woman knew that she needed immediate help, but the PP staff was unwilling even to give her the common sense advice to go to a hospital.
CC, still waiting to hear your response to JoAnna’s 2:32 question. All ears…
CC
“Obviously, in an urban area, there are places, other than Catholic hospitals, to access emergency contraception for rape victims. But if the Catholic hospital is the only game in town, the rape victim is out of luck and if she becomes pregnant she will either bear the child of the rapist or have an abortion. While you welcome the first outcome, you might have a problem with the second.”
So if Catholics just “get out of the profession” as you say, people in these rural areas will be better off? Abortion and birth control or nothing? If there are other hospitals that see a market, they could have and certainly would have entered.
“But I really want to know about Catholic hospitals having the right to refuse to do an emergency abortion in a case where the woman will die if the fetus isn’t aborted. Is it true that the Catholic hospital will let that happen?”
In a situation in which the treatment of the mothers condition will result in the death of the fetus (hysterectomy, removing the tube in an ectopic pregnancy) or endanger the fetus (chemotherapy), Catholics recognize the right of the woman to treat her condition even if an unintended effect is the death of the fetus. I have never heard a credible account of a life threatening condition which is treated by abortion (as opposed to induced labor/delivery etc,), but assuming the mythical thing exists, a direct abortion with the intent of killing the fetus is never licit according to Catholic teaching.
“CC, is it your opinion, then, that German Catholic physicians who objected to killing Jews in the Hitler regime should have killed Jews anyway, given that it was legal to do so (and was even a mandate from the government authority)?”
Which German Catholics were those? Any citation here? Hitler, a Roman Catholic, was never officially denounced/excommunicated by the Catholic bishops who said requiem masses for him after his death. Many of the death camp commandants were born Catholic and died Catholic.
BTW, American Jews, the majority of whom are proudly pro-choice, find the comparison of abortion to the Shoah very offensive. Abe Foxman, of the ADL, had opined about that.
CC’s not answering. I think she’s a broken record now. Abe Foxman… pro-choice Jews… blah blah blah…
CC, I notice you avoid the question instead of answering it. If it makes you feel better, call it a hypothetical situation. Is it your opinion, then, that German Catholic physicians who objected to killing Jews in the Hitler regime should have killed Jews anyway, given that it was legal to do so (and was even a mandate from the government authority)?
There were many Catholics killed in the holocaust for the crime of being Catholic (cf. St. Maximilan Kolbe), so I don’t think Hitler was all that devout. In fact, he wasn’t even Christian.
Of course Hitler was never excommunicated by the Church. Like most apostates, he excommunicated himself. Perhaps you should read up on what excommunication is and how it is incurred instead of setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
I also recommend “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David Dalin so you can get rid of some of your misconceptions regarding the Catholic Church and the Holocaust.
“Abe Foxman… pro-choice Jews… blah blah blah”
Inconvenient truth?
And despite the best efforts of the Roman Catholic church to ban abortion and contraception,
“I have never heard a credible account of a life threatening condition which is treated by abortion”
A Catholic nun was excommunicated because, on the advice of doctors at the hospital which she administered, such an abortion was necessary.
Lynn Waddington speaks out on a medically necessary abortion. What say you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMEIlAcJjB4
“For miscarriages in which the fetus is not expelled quickly, doctors often use drugs or surgical procedures to protect the woman from potentially fatal infections and bleeding. But if the fetus still has a heartbeat, some Catholic hospitals refuse to intervene. And the patient has to go to another hospital, sometimes hours away, or wait for the heart to stop”
So the Catholic church would require a woman who might not be Catholic to carry a miscarried fetus even if it means that the woman bleed out and will die. How very pro-life! Gotta love the “Redemptive Suffering.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/AR2011011907539_3.html?sid=ST2011011907548
Why should my tax dollars go to religious hospitals that let women die?
She had her chance and blew it. Still not answering.
And, we’ve all had to remind her and others till our little keyboard fingers hurt, ALL of them were ex-communicated as a group. Even if Hilter had been ex-communicated with a fancy personal letter, with gilt edges and an embossed seal, CC still wouldn’t be able to answer the question:
Would she advise a German to kill a Jew if it went against his conscience?
Why should a Catholic pharmacist, who objects to birth control, have the right to refuse it to a purchaser who might not even be a fellow Catholic? This is just one of the illogical sentences in her comment which shows CC has no idea what an objection really is. If I don’t believe in killing children, why would it matter whether the other person is Catholic, Buddhist, or pagan? Duh!! So, if the Dalai Lama were working at a drugstore, he’d dispense abortion drugs to all the Christians, but withhold them from the Buddhists because he objected?? Really? I thought all the overgrown clumps of cells in New England were soooo well edjumacated. Golly, I guess I’m lucky to have made it through 8th grade. LOL!
“Is it your opinion, then, that German Catholic physicians who objected to killing Jews in the Hitler regime should have killed Jews anyway, given that it was legal to do so (and was even a mandate from the government authority)?”
Again, mass murdering Jews is very different from abortion in which a woman makes a decision about her OWN body. And again, talk to some Jews about this if you don’t believe me. And regarding Rabbi Dalin, apologist for “Hitler’s Pope” – Jewish historians aren’t exactly in agreement with him.
CC, I notice you avoid the question instead of answering it. If it makes you feel better, call it a hypothetical situation. Is it your opinion, then, that German Catholic physicians who objected to killing Jews in the Hitler regime should have killed Jews anyway, given that it was legal to do so (and was even a mandate from the government authority)?
Also, CC, I live in the Phoenix diocese. The abortion performed in the case you cite was not necessary. The woman in question was still in the L&D ward, not in the ICU. The hospital could have chosen to induce labor the expel the placenta instead of directly attacking the child, or they could have done a c-section to deliver the placenta, but they did not. There were non-Catholic hospitals within ten minutes that would have killed her baby for her, but the now ex-Catholic hospital chose to do it themselves. They violated the tenets they swore to abide by, thus they are no longer Catholic.
As for Lynn Waddington, she’s talking about a miscarriage — a case in which the baby has ALREADY died of natural causes. Removing a dead baby’s body from a woman’s body is not an abortion. I had such a procedure done myself when my 2nd child died in my womb; I had to have a D&C to remove his/her body. (We then gave him/her a Catholic burial.) It is not Catholic teaching that a woman cannot remove a dead baby (one that died of natural causes, like mine) from her body. The Church merely teaches that no one can deliberately murder that baby.
“If I don’t believe in killing children, why would it matter whether the other person is Catholic, Buddhist, or pagan”
Most folks, even Catholics, don’t believe that birth control is “killing children.” Certainly the law doesn’t recognize it. But answer my question. If a sales clerk is a Mormon, should they be allowed to refuse to ring up alcohol sales? If somebody is working for CVS, then they should be required to sell any and all things sold by CVS or whatever company they work for. A woman should not be required to drive to another town for contraception that some religious zealot denies her.
The abortion performed in the case you cite was not necessary.
Your link is a biased Catholic source. Got anything from actual medical authorities?
Why should my tax dollars go to Cecile’s place at a $35K dinner with her celebrity president??????????
Again, mass murdering Jews is very different from abortion in which a woman makes a decision about her OWN body.
And Hitler’s regime considered exterminating Jews to be no different than exterminating rodents. Many disagreed and refused to comply (and were killed for their trouble). Do you think that physicians should have killed Jews even if they objected, since it was legal to do so at the time and mandated by government authority?
Rabbi Dalin sources all of his claims very well, CC. Why don’t you read the book for yourself?
Why should my tax dollars go to a business that kills children??????
CC,
What proof do you have that Dr. William Chavira is not competent?
Another example of Papal compassion:
“Morrison and other critics cite cases such as one in which a woman 15-weeks pregnant with twins sought help at Sierra Vista in November after miscarrying one twin at home. After doctors concluded there was no hope for the second twin, the woman and her husband agreed to terminate the pregnancy. But the hospital refused, requiring the couple to travel more than 70 miles to Tuscon for the procedure”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/19/AR2011011907539_3.html?sid=ST2011011907548
Wait a minute, was my brother’s penis part of my mother’s body??
Wow, those skools in Nuu Englind really teach a funny form of beye-ologee.
“Why should my tax dollars go to a business that kills children??????”
It’s legal. Letting women bleed to death is medical negligence based on religious views not held by all Americans.
But while we’re on tax dollars. Why should my tax dollars go to subsidizing Catholic school students?
“Wait a minute, was my brother’s penis part of my mother’s body??”
It was part of a fetus that needed your mother’s body to exist. Hey Ninek, do you know that accredited medical schools teach future doctors to do abortions? They don’t tell their students that abortion is murder? I know that’s a difficult concept for you to grasp but it’s true. And do you know that embryology texts don’t weigh in on the morality of whether the fetus is a “pre-born human.”
As we speak, medical schools are graduating doctors who will perform abortions. Oh, nooooo…….
So, can we conclude that CC would in fact advise a German of any religion to go ahead and kill a Jew if instructed to do so, regardless of his personal convictions?
Or, in CC’s case, would that be “irregardless?” LOL!!!
Uh, I’m sorry, but if it’s my brother’s body, then it’s NOT my mother’s body.
The slogan, miss thang, is “MY BODY MY CHOICE” not “MY KIDS BODY MY CHOICE.” Please, CC, get your bumper stickers straight.
Ah CC – but those killed via abortion is considered mass-murder – just one pre-born person at a time. Number of Jews lost in the Holocaust: 6 million. Number of pre-born children dead at the hands of abortion: over 50 million, in the USA alone. Mass-murder – for sure. Over 8 times the Jews killed in Europe. And growing daily.
If Hitler was baptized Catholic – he certainly excommunicated himself with his immoral behavior. Just as Judas betrayed Jesus, so did Hitler. One either chooses to follow the Teacher, the Teaching, or goes against Him. Nice try.
Conscience clauses are to protect individuals from having to perform duties they find morally objectionable. For Catholics – and official bodies that are to embody Catholic Teaching – that means not violating their teaching and individual consciences.
I thought we lived in the land of the free. What is free by forcing a whole segment of society to do what they know is morally objectionable for them. What happened to pro-abortion people being for choice? …. oh, that’s right … it’s all about the ONLY choices that pro-choice people want, not others. So much for evenness of treatment.
Yes but a far more basic point is the directly harmful effects of contraceptives against women themselves, which issue is more direct and fundamental than whether or not it harms nascent human life.
“abortion in which a woman makes a decision about her OWN body”
Your words, honeypie, so guess what, that means you think a penis is part of the mother’s body??? Please clarify because I’m just so uneducated and all, I need to know.
“So, can we conclude that CC would in fact advise a German of any religion to go ahead and kill a Jew if instructed to do so, regardless of his personal convictions”
Encore, comparing killing Jews to abortion and selling birth control pills is ridiculous and offensive to Jews. This type of thinking is one of the many reasons why American Jews are not pro-life and are (I know Ninek will put her fingers in her ears and say I can’t hear you) on Planned Parenthood Boards and other fund raising organizations connected to Planned Parenthood.)
But Ninek, go talk to some Jews if you don’t believe me.
Neither abortion nor birth control are murder. Botton line.
“Your words, honeypie, so guess what, that means you think a penis is part of the mother’s body??? Please clarify because I’m just so uneducated and all, I need to know”
Fetus – dependent on a host; i.e. mother. And what’s with this penis thing? Strange….
“Yes but a far more basic point is the directly harmful effects of contraceptives against women themselves, which issue is more direct and fundamental than whether or not it harms nascent human life”
That’s up to the FDA and not the Catholic Church which has a moral objection to birth control. So far the benefits of contraceptive outweigh the risks.
“it’s all about the ONLY choices that pro-choice people want, not others. So much for evenness of treatment”
We live in a free market system. If the employer requires certain things to be done, according to the free market system, that’s it – unless there are union agreements that allow for non compliance.
So far, nobody has answered my question about a Mormon who refuses to ring up an alcohol purchase.
But great, go after IV-F and birth control pills and your movement will be even further stigmatized. The attack on contraception just underscores how the pro-life movement is all about subjugating women so that they are no more than compliant breeders.
Go for it. (And you really should set up protests in front of IV-F clinics and labs for greater exposure)
Ok, I’m just so durn stoopid, I need more smarterer people to help me: My body, my choice means I can do anything I want with my body. But wait, CC says I can do anything I want with my kid’s body as long as he’s depending on me for life…
‘K, so, then, since my 14 month old depends on me for survival (he can’t reach the microwave or open a can), does that mean I can kill him???!!!
Maybe she’s having trouble with logic, so let me help: If I object to giving an abortion drug (emergency already-conception), but its the law to go ahead and dispense it,
then, if I am a German who objects to killing a Jew, and it’s the law and part of my job, would CC tell me that I have to do it??
Last chance, snooky-ookums, let’s see what you can do with it:
For those of you other readers, I just want to go over a teeny point I learned in biology class: humans make babies by having sexual intercourse. I know this is coming as a shock to some of you, but it’s ok, take some deep breaths and you’ll be ok.
Now, when men and women have sexual intercourse, they might get pregnant, even if they use a condom which is not 100% effective.
Compliant breeders come in two types: those gals who are so desperate for money that they hire out their wombs (such as the young women in India who have babies for affluent Western women), or those gals who aren’t that desperate but just want the money so they hire out their wombs (such as Elton John’s or Sarah Parker’s surrogates). OK, back to our regular programming..
CC, how’s that advice to the German coming along..is it soup yet??
“So far, nobody has answered my question about a Mormon who refuses to ring up an alcohol purchase.”
Quid pro quo, Clarice, quid pro quo.
Well about birth control pills having the poetential of having an abortifacient mechanism, it is a speculation and pro-life doctors are split on that so basically there is no evidence for an abortifacient effect and here is the link to 4 doctors disputing that fact that the birth control pill is a abortifacient…. http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/hormone-contraceptives-controversies-and-clarifications/
Hitler, a Roman Catholic, was never officially denounced/excommunicated by the Catholic bishops who said requiem masses for him after his death.
Wrong. Hitler, along with every active member of the Nazi party, was excommunicated by the Catholic church in 1931. This was discussed on this blog earlier. I suspect you saw it and just kept quiet on that article hoping we’d all forget and you could go back to using this talking point as if it weren’t an outright lie.
The very idea of “conscience protections” in the medical field is really quite unprecedented anyway. I can’t think of anything comparable in any other discipline. If medical providers are not prepared to set aside their personal misgivings and meet their professional obligations, then they should seek employment in a different capacity. Why should the line be drawn at so-called “life issues” anyway? What if a surgeon decided that he felt his personal moral convictions were violated by having to operate on people of different races? Would anyone defend a “conscience protection” for something like that?
Alice, thank you! When someone tries to argue a point while hoping that the listener doesn’t know the facts, that is called “argumentum ignoratum.” It’s a technique extremely popular in pro-abortion circles.
Chris, the pills that cause miscarriage are constantly referred to as “emergency contraception” even though they are administered without peforming a pregnancy test and often used well beyond the time in which they’ve been medically approved for use. Sometimes the mother is already pregnant, and sometimes a woman is not pregnant, but still gets very ill and bleeds for a few weeks. So nice.
A barrier method that prevents the sperm from reaching the egg is indeed a ‘contraception.’ But, a method that may allow conception to occur but inhibits the body’s ability to maintain a sufficient uterine lining is called ‘abortifacient.’
Wow. The trolls they are a trollin
If a doctor refuses to do a late term abortion(8 months)should he be FORCED to kill that child, Joan?
Why?
“then, if I am a German who objects to killing a Jew, and it’s the law and part of my job, would CC tell me that I have to do it??”
If you want to keep that job, you certainly do. The morally lucid thing to do here, of course, would not be to refuse to kill Jews after taking a job where “killing Jews” is part of the job description, but to refuse to take such a job in the first place, or in the event that it suddenly becomes part of the job description after the fact, quitting that job and finding employment elsewhere. What an absurd little strawman this is.
“If a doctor refuses to do a late term abortion(8 months)should he be FORCED to kill that child, Joan?”
If he is trained to perform abortions as part of his job, and it’s legal and within the appropriate regulations of his branch of medicine, then why not? Of course, he should not be literally forced against his will to do it, but if he’s unwilling to, then he should find employment elsewhere.
From CC
It was part of a fetus that needed your mother’s body to exist. Hey Ninek, do you know that accredited medical schools teach future doctors to do abortions? They don’t tell their students that abortion is murder? I know that’s a difficult concept for you to grasp but it’s true. And do you know that embryology texts don’t weigh in on the morality of whether the fetus is a “pre-born human.”
As we speak, medical schools are graduating doctors who will perform abortions. Oh, nooooo…….
******************************
You are wrong about that, CC.
With the population of abortionists quickly aging, the abortion industry is in a panic. A story in today’sWashington Post delves into the phenomenon that while more and more abortionists are retiring, there are few younger abortionists to take their place.
“Our doctors are graying and are not being replaced,” said Susan Hill, president of the National Women’s Health Foundation in Raleigh, N.C. “We need young doctors and we need them badly,” said Hill. “The situation is pretty grave, pretty dire.”
There are an abounding number of reasons as to why so many young people are shying away from the bloody profession. With polls showing that younger generations are trending more and more toward the pro-life position, the realization for Planned Parenthood et al is this: young adults are rejecting their lies about abortion.
This rising generation of medical students has grown up knowing what life looks like in the womb, thanks to the impact of ultrasound images. They recognize that it is a living human being and not a blob of tissue, as the abortion industry would have us believe. They have heard the heartbreaking stories of women whose lives were forever altered by abortion.
The abortion industry, however, will never admit that its own practices drive away young people. So how do they explain it? The Washington Post interviewed Devin Miller, an aspiring abortionist and president of Medical Students for Choice at Virginia Commonwealth University, about why some students are hesitant to go into the business of ending life:
“I think for a lot of students right now, it’s very hard to be confronted with the constant negative energy and constant fighting” that surrounds abortion, said Miller.
Thirty-six years after it was legalized, abortion remains one of the most common procedures in American medicine — and the most stigmatized. “There’s this feeling it’s dirty and should not be spoken about,” said Miller. “It’s hard to be brave and seek everything out yourself.”
Ah, so pro-lifers are to blame. If what Miller suggests is true, that abortion is considered “dirty,” then this movement is doing its job. But Miller hit upon something that the pro-life movement should heartily support: abortion should be talked about more openly. Only then will Americans understand that it does end a human life, it does hold devastating effects for women, and it does present an ugly reality.
But perhaps the reason the abortion industry can’t find many “young doctors” is that they killed millions of them before they were born.
In that case, why the organized opposition to abortion rights at all? Apparently there will be no more abortionists in some indeterminate amount of time, so why not just wait it out?
There’s no such thing as abortion ‘rights’ Joan/CC.
Why not wait it out? Gee, why don’t pregnant mothers just “wait out” their pregnancies? Why the need for abortion when in just a few months they will give birth and won’t be pregnant anymore?
joan 7:34PM,
In case you have never noticed, people conduct their businesses according to religion and conscience all the time. Hindu grocers do not sell meat. Muslim grocers do not sell pork or alcohol. Kosher Jewish butchers must meet very rigid religious standards. I have heard of grocers who hire Muslim employees who do not handle pork products to tend to Muslim customers.
joan 8:03PM
Speaking of absurd little strawmen, don’t you think the person should object to the killing of Jews instead of just refusing to be involved in it?
Why not wait? When children are snuffed out and some of their moms are harmed? Any life lost is one too many. Any Mom’s hurt is one too many. We will keep going.
Good there is a stigma on abortion work. They can teach it all they want in Medical School – but students are not happy to learn it and don’t generally want to work as an abortionist.
I am not sure if there is a conscience clause for medical students if they do not want to learn to perform abortions…
looks also like Obama doesn’t want Catholic Charities to provide health care. I thought he was all about health care? Why make it hard for doctors, nurses and even hospitals to operate and provide basic health for the general population?
Maybe he is not about health care at all – but fervently about abortion and everything that supports abortion. Just a thought.
Hi joyfromillinois,
Over the years I have observed that while abortionists are tolerated by other doctors, they are not particularly respected. Sure, I know of a few doctor’s mistresses who have paid discreet after hours visits to the local abortionist, but its like the drug dealer. Sure “respectable” people will buy their drugs from him/her, but consider them an equal or have any respect for them? No.
Also, while doctors will pay lip service, someone else can do the dirty work as they are not about to dirty their own hands.
This whole thing is a total nonissue. A woman can go to the pharmacy, or send a friend or relative, to pick up the “morning after” pill. The hospital need not dispense it. IVF is usually performed by specialists in clinics. Not all hospitals perform certain services. Some do not provide emergency care or obstetrical services. Some provide only psychiatric and burn care. How then can Obama mandate what services a hospital must provide if they do not provide a service such as emergency or obstetrical to begin with?
I think they should object to the killing of Jews in addition to refusing to be involved in it, Mary. What do you think, joan?
CC 2:09PM
A store owner has every right to refuse to sell cigarettes and alcohol. Pharmacists have every right to make a judgment call and refuse to fill a prescription they do not feel is safe. A pharmacist has the right to determine if his private pharmacy will not dispense certain items, and that includes birth control, just as a Muslim grocer can determine his store will not sell pork or alcohol or a Christian store owner will not sell Hustler magazine. Live with it CC. I have never heard of ERs of any faith hospital shutting down on a certain day.
Emergency contraception for rape victims can be obtained at a drug store by the victim or a friend or family member. When I worked ER, patients for the most part obtained any needed meds or prescriptions outside the hospital. The whole argument is a non issue.
CC, please get your facts straight concerning Catholic hospitals. Abortions will be performed to save a woman’s life. No one is going to stand and twiddle their thumbs while a pregnant woman’s life hangs in the balance. Thankfully in this day and age it rarely comes down to the mother’s life versus that of her unborn child.
“In case you have never noticed, people conduct their businesses according to religion and conscience all the time. Hindu grocers do not sell meat. Muslim grocers do not sell pork or alcohol. Kosher Jewish butchers must meet very rigid religious standards. I have heard of grocers who hire Muslim employees who do not handle pork products to tend to Muslim customers.”
Refusing to sell meat or alcohol does not violate the professional standards and requirements of the food retail industry.
“I think they should object to the killing of Jews in addition to refusing to be involved in it, Mary. What do you think, joan?”
I think you’re missing the point. You don’t take a job with the full knowledge that you may have to perform certain tasks that you find morally objectionable and then demand to be exempted from performing those tasks.
“A store owner has every right to refuse to sell cigarettes and alcohol. Pharmacists have every right to make a judgment call and refuse to fill a prescription they do not feel is safe. A pharmacist has the right to determine if his private pharmacy will not dispense certain items, and that includes birth control, just as a Muslim grocer can determine his store will not sell pork or alcohol or a Christian store owner will not sell Hustler magazine.”
Pharmacists are licensed by medical regulatory boards. Grocers and store owners are not.
The FDA lies in the above quote. The egg does NOT implant in the uterus. The egg disintegrates within 24 hours of ovulation if not fertilized.
If the egg IS fertilized, the resulting embryo takes about five days to migrate down the Fallopian tube before it enters the uterus. Thus, what is prevented from implantation is an embryo, not an egg. An unfertilized egg will disintegrate long before it could ach the uterus, and it could never implant even if it did.
FDA knows this better than anyone, and lies to prevent the revelation that the pill acts as an abortifacient.
Yes – and thankfully many pharmacists’ conscience protections are still in place. And Grocers and store owners still have to follow the prescribed methods of safety and ordinances. If they decide to sell tainted meat, they won’t meet code.
Forcing doctors to do procedures and practices they are not comfortable performing due to their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. If we want good doctors, we can not scare them away from the profession by unconscionable demands against their own beliefs.
joan 9:49PM
Not so fast. We are discussing the right of conscience and religious conviction. It doesn’t just apply where it suits you.
If I am an elderly or disabled diabetic and the Hindu grocer doesn’t sell meat products that are essential to my diet, it may be a huge inconvenience to me to go to another grocer. What right does he have to force his beliefs on me, a non-Hindu? Tough break, right? The Hindu grocer has the right to consicence however inconvenient it is for me.
Please answer my question. Would you feel a moral obligation to object to Jews being killed even though it was legal?
“Pharmacists are licensed by medical regulatory boards. Grocers and store owners are not”
Not the point joan. A pharmacist running his own business may have any number of products and items he doesn’t sell. For instance he may choose to sell only natural hormonal replacement products and not synthetic, as compounding pharmacies do. Its his business and his choice. Live with it.
“Forcing doctors to do procedures and practices they are not comfortable performing due to their religious beliefs is unconstitutional. If we want good doctors, we can not scare them away from the profession by unconscionable demands against their own beliefs.”
A good doctor is capable of setting aside his personal beliefs and providing the medical services his patients need. I’m sure there are plenty of doctors who personally find some of the things discussed on this site to be wrong, yet they still provide them when needed.
“Not so fast. We are discussing the right of conscience and religious conviction. It doesn’t just apply where it suits you.”
These “rights” are not without limitation. What would stop a gynecologist from declaring that he suddenly finds it immoral to do all the things that gynecologists are expected to do, but because it is a result of his “religious conviction”, he should not be dismissed from his job or have his license to practice that particular form of medicine revoked?
“Please answer my question. Would you feel a moral obligation to Jews being killed even though it was legal?”
I’m not sure exactly what it is you’re trying to ask here, but I have a feeling it’s totally irrelevant either way.
“Not the point joan. A pharmacist running his own business may have any number of products and items he doesn’t sell. For instance he may choose to sell only natural hormonal replacement products and not synthetic, as compounding pharmacies do. Its his business and his choice. Live with it.”
As long as he’s acting within the standards and regulations he is legally and professionally required to observe, that’s fine.
Refusing to sell meat or alcohol does not violate the professional standards and requirements of the food retail industry.
Does refusing to perform abortions now violate the professional standards and requirements of the medical profession?
joan,
As I have pointed out, lip service is one thing, dirtying one’s hands quite another. Abortionists are tolerated, much like the person who provides one with the illegal drugs one so enjoys. I don’t consider myself, well, like him/her but gee, I like the service they provide.
A good doctor also has a conscience and does not violate his/her ethics or do to a patient what they do not consider safe or acceptable.
“Please answer my question. Would you feel a moral obligation to Jews being killed even though it was legal?”
I’m not sure exactly what it is you’re trying to ask here, but I have a feeling it’s totally irrelevant either way.
Interesting how you think the taking of innocent human life is “irrelevant.”
Oh, joan, you make me smile.
Obama, his team and all pro-abortion AMERICANS are worst than Osama Bin Laden! “They allow”, “accessories”, “advocates”, “proponents”, “conspirators”, etc., leading to the death of million babies/fetus thru ABORTIONS! SHAME ON YOU! You’re a real DEVIL’s advocates.
joan 10:17PM
Exactly what are all GYNs expected to do? I know one GYN who specializes only in the treatment of cancer. I know doctors in all specialties who curtail their practices to a very limited number of procedures and patients. Patients just have to look elsewhere. I’ve been told more than once a practice was closed or that a doctor does not treat a particular problem.
I am glad we agree that pharmacists have a right to run their businesses as they see fit and dispense, or not dispense, whatever products they choose.
Actually there are 3 ways out: Close hospitals, quit or never get into the medical profession or engage in civil disobedience.
And the fourth way would be to vote for someone who supports the conscience clause correct. Once we have a pro-life President can’t that person make sure that the conscience clause works.
Off topic: Does anyone know if there’s a way on Facebook to block a specific person’s posts from showing up in your newsfeed, without un-friending the person? I need to block some posts for a while.
Rachel, go to your newsfeed, click ‘most recent’ until you see an arrow pointing down. Click on it and you’ll see a menu of options, choose Edit options and voila! you can block friends without un-friending them. They’ll never know. I’ve got a couple friends like that who’s profiles I check when I’m in the mood.
In Soviet Russia, shop owners couldn’t decide what to sell or not. Joan/CC might like to get in their Tardis and go live somewhere more oppressive, where people can obey the state no matter how murderous rather than their own conscience to live and let live.
Joan/CC has typed right here that a) pregnant mothers in China who are arrested, assaulted, and their children forcibly aborted deserved what they got and b) that a German should in fact kill a Jew in the past if instructed to do so, despite the fact that he knows it’s morally wrong. So there you have it, the bottom of the morality barrel. The good news is that human nature reaches out to be healed. Humankind innately wants to heal and will. No matter how zealous and murderous abortion advocates are, abortion will end.
I wonder if Joan and CC, et al, have thoroughly considered the effect of eliminating ALL Catholic or “religious” hospitals, clinics and providers which advocate for life, rather than allowing those providers to follow their collective and individual moral conscience concerning the taking of innocent life. That Life being conception to natural death, of course. Religious health care systems are the backbone of medical care in the US, ESPECIALLY in rural settings. Catholic Hospitals WILL close rather than be forced to compromise.
I’ll bet CC and crew are thinking “Well, great! Then “our” providers can just move in and take over those facilities'” Really? What do you think will happen when pro-life doctors and health care workers quit? Who do you think is going to fill the gap? Some of Planned Parenthood’s unskilled front desk help, umm, I mean “counselors?”
The pro-death camp is getting weirder and weirder, IMHO. Cut off their nose…
@ninek: TARDIS! *does a very geeky dance of glee* :)
It is a bit moot, however, since Plan-B is already OTC. Doctors and pharmacists do not make the decisions on it any longer, since the federal government thought it was a good idea to provide powerful and dangerous medications over-the-counter and without professional oversight. The result? According to my pharmacist friends, the fastest mover on overnight shifts in local pharmacies is Plan-B to young women. All they need is to prove they are of age, and no other questions need to be answered. For the pharmacist, the saving grace in this instance is the fact that they do not have enough control or information to be morally culpable. Since levonorgestrel can act either as an anovulant or an interceptive, depending on whether the woman has experienced an LH surge, the pharmacist does not know the impact of the medication. Even so, now that the drug is OTC, they do not have the right to know that either, since the woman is under no obligation to state either her intentions nor her physiological status. The government has removed pharmacists from the chain in order to provide potentially dangerous and abortifacient medications to young women. That is the epitome of negligence on behalf of our “dear leaders” in Washington.
In addition, Catholic hospitals may certainly provide Plan-B for anovulant purposes, but only in cases of sexual assault and ONLY if the victim has not experienced an LH surge. Once an LH surge has been detected (by means of a simple ovulation test), the only way Plan-B will work is as an interceptive (abortifacient). In that case, the hospital may not dispense the drug (and has legal right not to, since the drug will no longer work as a contraceptive, but rather as an abortifacient), but can offer the woman prenatal care and get her in touch with a crisis pregnancy center. If she would rather have an abortion or seek an abortifacient drug, she is free to do so anywhere else. In fact, there are far more non-Catholic hospitals and drug stores (i.e. Walgreens) than there are Catholic ones, and the fact that Plan-B is OTC means that there is no longer any barriers to access. To those who argue that Catholic hospitals should not be allowed to practice as according to their convictions because of access, you actually do not have a case, since these drugs are actually more accessible than they ever have been before. You can even get them online and shipped overnight if need be. So that point is moot as well. The bottom line is this: IF a Catholic hospital tests the LH of the patient first, and finds that a surge has occurred, according to science, Plan-B will only work as an abortion drug, and therefore they have a legal right to refuse to dispense it. This does not stop the woman from getting it elsewhere. In this case, neither side is compromised.
One small comment to Bruce’s excellent points.
Even CC, joan and the rest of their ilk must certainly acknowledge that the OTC availability of “Plan B” is celebrated by statutory rapists and incestuous men everywhere.
Also, I sure hope CC is of Jewish descent, or at least married to someone who is; otherwise his/her speaking on behalf of Jews everywhere is FAR more offensive than what he/she is accusing us of.
Not to mention all the straw man building going on. Hey joan: “Refusing to sell meat or alcohol does not violate the professional standards and requirements of the food retail industry.”
What professional standards, exactly, are being violated by Doctors who refuse to kill babies? S T R A W M A N much? I can’t be the Hippocratic oath, because when they take that they promise to uphold life and never dispense a pessary:
“Historically, pessaries may have been used to perform abortions, as demonstrated in the original text of the Hippocratic Oath.” (wikipedia)
Or how about some hyperbole?
“These “rights” are not without limitation. What would stop a gynecologist from declaring that he suddenly finds it immoral to do all the things that gynecologists are expected to do, but because it is a result of his “religious conviction”, he should not be dismissed from his job or have his license to practice that particular form of medicine revoked?”
Whatever it is, you should quit smoking it.
“Joan/CC has typed right here that a) pregnant mothers in China who are arrested, assaulted, and their children forcibly aborted deserved what they got and b) that a German should in fact kill a Jew in the past if instructed to do so, despite the fact that he knows it’s morally wrong.”
There you go again, Ninek, putting words in our comments that don’t exist. At no point have Joan or I ever said that women in China “deserve what they got” or that Germans should kill Jews. And if we did, please show documentation. What we did point out was the irrelevence of your question; because killing Jews is not comparable to “conscience clause” issues involving birth control/abortion/IV-F.
The letter which Ms. Stanek alludes to is in response to an inquiry regarding objections to birth control and IV-F vis-a-vis the new “conscience clause” policy enacted by the Obama administration. Abortion was not part of the discussion. The HHS representative noted that the existing “conscience clause” rules (regarding abortion) stay in effect. It is stated, in the letter, that under the “conscience” policy, contraceptive and IV-F are not defined as abortions. And that’s it. Despite what posters here seem to believe, Obama is not dismantling this system, is not requiring Catholic hospitals to close, is not forcing doctors to perform abortions.
What the Obama administration did change was ”a rule that was widely interpreted as shielding workers who refuse to participate in a range of medical services, such as providing birth control pills, caring for gay men with AIDS and performing in-vitro fertilization for lesbians or single women…Without the rescission of this regulation, we would see tremendous discrimination against patients based on their behavior and based just on who they are,” said Susan Berke Fogel of the National Health Law Program, an advocacy group based in the District. We would see real people suffer, and more women could die. The new rule leaves intact only long-standing “conscience” protections for doctors and nurses who do not want to perform abortions or sterilizations. It also retains the process for allowing health workers whose rights are violated to file complaints.”
The new rule also requires HHS to investigate any complaints brought by those who claim their rights are violated.
Obviously, a pharmacy owner can set up his business so that no contraceptives are offered. A Catholic pharmacy in Virginia did not offer birth control. (It has since gone out of business). That is, as noted on the thread, acceptable. What isn’t acceptable is an individual pharmacist, working for a business, to refuse to fill a birth control perscription or a hospital which refuses to dispense Plan B. Massachusetts requires all hospitals to administer Plan B and guess what – the Catholic hospitals are complying.
I don’t understand the IV-F concern as that is not the kind of emergency represented by those who have been raped and need the “morning after” pill. If an in-vitro provider refuses to do the process for lesbians, that’s a civil rights issue and not covered by the new conscience exemption.
As Joan noted, “conscience clauses” have their limitations. Should pro-life firefighters be able to refuse to put out a fire at a Planned Parenthood?
“Doctors who refuse to kill babies?”
Under current law and medical practice, abortion is legal and not defined as “killing babies.” But we’re not talking abortion here, we’re talking birth control and those who refuse to provide it under certain circumstances. Cigarettes “kill” lung tissue; but they’re not illegal and if a non smoking store clerk refuses to sell them, they’ll be looking for another job.
“For miscarriages in which the fetus is not expelled quickly, doctors often use drugs or surgical procedures to protect the woman from potentially fatal infections and bleeding. But if the fetus still has a heartbeat, some Catholic hospitals refuse to intervene. And the patient has to go to another hospital, sometimes hours away, or wait for the heart to stop
So the Catholic church would require a woman who might not be Catholic to carry a miscarried fetus even if it means that the woman bleed out and will die. How very pro-life! Gotta love the ‘Redemptive Suffering.'”
Um, you seem very confused here. A miscarriage could mean that the child has died. Or it could mean that the child was expelled (and before 20 weeks death would probably be inevitable even if the child did not die before birth). But there is no such thing as a miscarriage in which a living child remains in the womb. Miscarriage could be impending or even inevitable. There might be some danger of infection (death wouldn’t be likely) to the mother if the amniotic sac has broken. But it is intellectually dishonest and factually inaccurate to call it a miscarriage if a living child is in his or her mother’s womb. And if the child were dead, pro-lifers have no objection to a procedure to remove his or her body.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2010/10/aljazeera-infiltrates-chinese-hospital-to-report-on-macabre-abortion-of-8-mo-old-baby/#comment-284676
Joan stated the following on Oct. 22, 2010, 10:53 am:
This offends our western, liberal sensibilities. It’s only natural that it does, of course. However, we should also be mindful of the huge gulf that exists between what is right and acceptable in western societies and what is right and acceptable in Chinese society, and the factors that inform these differences. The social and demographic situation in China is unlike anything a western observer could even conceive. Literally one quarter of the world’s population lives in China, a direct result of traditional Chinese norms that emphasize large immediate families for agricultural and social reasons. Without robust mechanisms for population control, the size of the population would spiral out of control and the situation would become untenable. Forced abortion and sterilization is one of these mechanisms. You can argue about the ethical quandaries that these things imply, but they’re serving an essential interest of Chinese society. As for the woman herself, she lives there and she knows the law, and if she had abided by the law, this unfortunate incident wouldn’t have happened.
I find it interesting that while CC and Joan think that women deserve access to contraceptives and abortion-friendly doctors just because they want them, they don’t acknowledge the rights of pro-life women to see pro-life professionals. I do not want a pro-choice OBGYN. Unfortunately, I don’t live where I have access to a pro-life obstetrician. Hopefully if I get pregnant again I can find a pro-life midwife. However, I would rather go it on my own than have a doctor who did not think my child was a human being with rights. Of course, my choice doesn’t matter. Any doctor who would take this position should be weeded out in medical school, according to those who support a right to dismember one’s offspring prenatally.
And of course, Joan is not okay with natural attrition leading there to be no abortionists. No, she supports forcing those who object to kill babies just so that babies will continue to be killed. The right of a woman to a dead baby trumps the right of doctors to not be involved in that child’s death. Look around, Joan. We have shortages of nurses and doctors. In my area, some doctors left one group and went to another; the group they were in originally couldn’t replace them, so now we see out of network doctors. Only one doctor in the group can accept new patients. Do you think perhaps all of the restrictions being placed on medical professionals could have something to do with the shortages?
Also, CC and Joan have neglected my argument that doctors don’t do whatever their patients tell them to. If I have a broken arm, and I tell the doctor I need a cast, but in their judgment I only need a sling, I don’t get a cast just because I think it would look cool. Not even if sometimes they give casts to other patients. Why can’t doctors use their professional judgment and refuse to do an elective procedure or prescribe an unnecessary drug? Should a doctor who rebuilds penises for little boys with birth defects or circumcision injuries be forced to build one on a woman just because she wants one? Or more close to the situation–doing procedures on a minor child due to the parents’ wishes–should they build a penis for a baby girl because her parents wanted a boy instead? Should any person be able to get a prescription for any drug they want? I’ve never had morning sickness, but other people get zofran when they’re pregnant, so wouldn’t it be fair if I could get it when I was pregnant too?
Please explain why women can decide to get an elective abortion against doctor’s advice by a doctor who doesn’t want to perform one, but can’t force a doctor to do an early elective C-section?
It’s almost as if the only choice it’s important to support is the right to kill babies.
Under current law and medical practice, abortion is legal and not defined as “killing babies.”
Wow. The denial really does run deep, doesn’t it?
You know those babies Gosnell butchered? I suppose they weren’t “babies” before they got fully beyond that magical, mystery vaginal canal. If he’d have severed their spinal cords before they emerged, he’d be walking around free right now, most likely. Do you believe, CC, that those children were NOT humans just seconds before he butchered them, just prior to their full emergence from the birth canal?
Just trying to see how utterly unscientific you can be here in order to defend the practice of killing children.
As a side note, isn’t it interesting how people who really hate religion to begin with like to hide behind it when it suits their position of baby killing? I wonder if Mr. Foxman knows how many times he has been used to defend the practice of killing unborn baby Jews.
More gems from joan:
joan says:
October 22, 2010 at 11:19 am (Edit)
And if my comment “chills you to the bone”, it should, in the same way that looking at the Chernobyl disaster chills people who are concerned with safe nuclear energy, in a “that could have been us” sort of way. The example of China should be instructive to us. The Chinese people were unable or unwilling to change their breeding habits on their own and the government had to step in and take charge of things to prevent it from becoming a serious problem. By contrast, western societies have voluntarily stabilized their population growth rates, and so things like mandatory abortion are unnecessary.
See, it’s not really about “women’s rights” in China, now is it? Hmm?
Thanks Ninek, I wasn’t aware of that feature! :)
“Please explain why women can decide to get an elective abortion against doctor’s advice by a doctor who doesn’t want to perform one, but can’t force a doctor to do an early elective C-section?”
If a doctor doesn’t want to do abortions, that’s up to him or her. But if a woman elects to have an abortion, she has a right to have this procedure done by a physician who will do it. It’s just like any other elected surgery such as breast augmentation, stomach stapling, tubaligations etc. And if one doctor advises against any of these surgeries, there is the option of second opinions.
And no “pro-life doctors available. I’m amazed. I thought the whole country was turning pro-life.
CC
And no “pro-life doctors available. I’m amazed. I thought the whole country was turning pro-life.
I’m thinking when your really going to be amazed is when your as vulnerable as a pre-born and your heros decide you don’t need rescueing either.
Lots of misinformation in some of these comments. First off, Catholic hospitals can carry and dispense emergency contraceptives to sexual assault victims. This complies with Directive 36 of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care. A woman has the right to defend herself against the continuation of the assault by preventing unwanted conception. The Church’s ban on contraception refers to acts freely consented to. Acts of aggression, in which a victim is raped are of a different nature, and the victim has the right to protect her fertility from the aggressor’s. This is also clearly explained by the National Catholic Bioethics Center, who helped create and explain these directives. What a Catholic hospital may not do, however, is provide abortions or dispense “abortion” pills. Emergency contraceptives, such as levonorgestrel, can work either way depending on the victim’s physiological state. If she has not experienced an LH surge, there is no reasonably foreseeable risk of abortion. If she has, it is likely that the drug will act as an abortifacient, and should then not be given. The victim is then given the opportunity to obtain prenatal care and pregnancy/adoption help, or seek abortifacient drugs elsewhere. A Catholic hospital who does this actually gives the victim MORE choices than those who do not. Since 78-89% of sexual assault victims later regret their abortions, it is truly harmful to deny these women the right to A.) know their physiological status and B.) Keep their baby should they choose to do so. To suggest otherwise is to take choices and rights AWAY from women.
Kel, you rock!!! Thank you!!!
I wonder about Joan/CC’s memory; “they” seem not to remember “their” own comments, but if you press “them” they will parrot basically this: Abortion uber alles. (Abortion above all else).
I have a pro-choice friend who is so much like Joan/CC that they could nearly write the same comments. I find my friend’s rationales very similar. The only solution to any problem in all the world is, for them, abortion. National leaders are corrupt and won’t facilitate the distribution of food? Abort more babies. Women are sexually assaulted by strangers, friends, or relatives? Abort more babies. Women don’t make the same money as men for the same job? Abort more babies.
Kel
That’s a relief I thought it was you speaking so rudely about the Chinese.
If you read her post it’s almost like getting a glimpse of that beautiful future they have planned for all the women there protecting. I’m 47 so I need something a little bit more age appropriate than an eye roll.
Joan
I’m not sure if you have children or not and it’s none of my business but how can you justify the presumptious mindset that says it’s o.k. to force a woman to have an abortion. These are my conclusions that you’ve never been subjected to real bullying and just don’t understand how chilling it must be for a mom to be forced to allow someone to kill her baby and/or you just really believe that women don’t have the capability to think for themselves.
But if a woman elects to have an abortion, she has a right to have this procedure done by a physician who will do it. It’s just like any other elected surgery such as breast augmentation, stomach stapling, tubaligations etc.
You aren’t this stupid, CC. You and all other pro-choicers are well aware that abortion is NOT just like any other elected surgery.
If you want to tie your tubes, augment your breasts, or staple your stomach, know the risks. But I won’t be out there to protest against it. It’s your body.
The child growing within a woman’s womb is NOT her body. It’s called pregnancy, CC. Pregnancy and abortion do not equal a boob job.
Ninek, you’re welcome. ;)
I have an environmentalist friend who defended PP on the basis of the world’s overpopulation. Save the trees, kill the babies!
Then she told me how PP would help the world become a better place for my children.
I told her this world is not going to get better, only worse, due to man’s sin. She was mortified that I could possibly think we humans (the ones allowed to survive, that is!) would only make the future world worse for our children. Heh.
This is the same woman who likes to preach to me about the real character of Jesus Christ (you know, that Jesus who never spoke out against anything and just loved everyone and was a cool teacher and all that stuff – but certainly NOT God incarnate!). If it weren’t so sad, I’d laugh.
Ninek, Joan and CC are different people. CC is a bitter old clinic escort who killed her own child before it was legal and is unrepentent. Her standard tactic is to say that Jews are pro-choice and being pro-life is antiSemitic. Joan pretty much has no moral compass beyond that abortion is always good and should always be legal. Anything that helps bolster that argument is good with her–governments and parents forcing people to abort, insulting handicapped people (born or unborn), etc. I think CC is actually against forcing women to abort, at least in theory.
They seem to be two people, but always comment in tandem and never address each other.
But I agree that escorts are guilty of coercion. It’s like a religious cult or one of those landmark forum things: you don’t get a moment to think and aren’t allowed a moment of hesitation. Abortion is so dire, and so final- it’s beyond inhumane the way women are railroaded into it when maybe they just need a little time.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/12/verdict-expected-demjanjuk-case/?test=latestnews
Trolls, like Sand People, are easily startled, but they will soon be back and in greater numbers. ;-)
Rachael C.,
Love your STAR WARS references.
“Trolls, like Sand People, are easily startled, but they will soon be back and in greater numbers.”
LOL, very insightful, Rachael! But unfortunately Biggz isn’ easily startled!
JoAnna says:
May 11, 2011 at 6:12 pm
CC,
What proof do you have that Dr. William Chavira is not competent?
I didn’t know Billy was involved in that case! (Used to work L&D at St. Joe’s… left there about 5 years ago. I know the nun involved and am not surprised by her stance.) Dr. Chavira is a fantastic doctor and highly skilled.
As for the concept that a woman could have miscarried but there is still a heartbeat, if there is a heartbeat, the baby is alive. Miscarriage may yet happen, but it hasn’t happened yet.
And as someone who actually is Jewish (a Messianic Jew) and who has walked through the killing chambers of Auschwitz and Dachau, I think the analogy is spot on. And I agree with those who say that CC had better be of Jewish descent if speaking on behalf of Jews because THIS Jew does not agree with the so called “offense” between comparing one Holocaust to another Holocaust. When ANY group of human beings is considered “less than human”… we are all diminished.
Okay, may not be able to catch up on comments until later… need to get some sleep before I go to work at the CATHOLIC hospital I work at now in rural Idaho on the night shift… and one of my favorite aspects of my job is delivering babies. As last week I got to oversee care for several women experiencing miscarriages (even as far as a D&C… in a Catholic hospital!… for a miscarriage that had occurred but was not leaving the uterus properly) before going through my own 9 week miscarriage this past week… I’m hoping for a happy set of weekend night shifts of chubby newborn babes instead.
Thanks guys! I enjoy this! Ithought of the quote on my way home last night while listening to the Star Wars: ANH Radio Drama. Which, by the way, if you’ve not listened to it, I highly recommend doing so as it has some of the original voice talents from the movie and a lot of missing scenes and backstories (cut out of the movie due to time or budget constraints), such as the Luke & Biggs scene on Tatooine, Operation Skyhook, and the race down Beggar’s Canyon when Luke banged up his T-16 skyhopper :)
Elisabeth, Dr. Chavira opines about the case in the article I posted for CC (who, incidentally, has never answered my question as to why she believes Dr. Chavira to be incompetent).
I’m so sorry for your loss. :(
With my second pregnancy, I went in for my first prenatal appointment at 12 weeks and the midwife did an ultrasound… the baby had no heartbeat and was only measuring 8 weeks. :( Since it had been 4 weeks since the baby had died, and there was no indication my body was doing anything to expel the baby, I had a D&C. We were able to bury the baby in a Catholic cemetery, with a graveside service and a memorial Mass, so I’m grateful for that, at least.
By the way, are you in the Phoenix metro area? If so, so am I. :)
Elisabeth, so sorry to hear about your baby. God bless you.
Elisabeth, I’m so sorry for the loss of your baby. :(
Elizabeth – Sorry about the loos of your baby. Hope you are able to have a burial and/or Mass for our little one. God bless.
I believe that this ruling will be the determining factor for many in the health care field where they stand on the issue. There are plenty of other fields to go into or one can challenge these things. Principles and values will have to be evaluated and each person will have to do what their heart tells them to do. I would encourage each person who has to face this issue on their job is to live their life true. Compromise can not be made on those things that are truly heartfelt convictions and they should not have to be made but this is the world after all.
Should a pharmacist that becomes a member of the Christian Science Church be able to refuse to dispense any medication at all?