Pro-life blog buzz 11-5-13
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- At National Review Online, Wesley Smith wonders why Planned Parenthood has to close so many clinics in Texas due to the new law requiring the abortionist on call to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles:
If abortion was really only 3% of PP – as the organization claims – would a safety restriction of this kind really force 12 PP clinics to close?”
If they were serving women for routine medical needs, STI testing and giving out free birth control, this would not be needed. Time to get your talking points freshened up. It’s all about abortion, abortion, abortion.
- Pro-Life Wisconsin applauds the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the HHS mandate in favor of Catholic business owners:
Justice Janis Rogers Brown nails it when she writes that the burden of the HHS mandate “becomes substantial because the government commands compliance by giving the Gilardis a Hobson’s choice. They can either abide by the sacred tenets of their faith, pay a penalty of over $14 million, and cripple the companies they have spent a lifetime building, or they become complicit in a grave moral wrong…. If that is not ‘substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs,’ we fail to see how the standard could be met.”
Bring on the SCOTUS!!
- Pro-Life in TN reposts a piece by Family Action TN that explains how Tennessee could soon take the mantel from Texas as the pro-life epicenter:
On November 4, 2014, Tennesseans will go to the polls to vote on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would put the constitution back where it was before four activist judges re-wrote it in 2000. If voters approve the amendment, Tennesseans will once again be back in control of what abortion policies our state will have.
- In a shocking exclusive, Abortion State (Washington) reports that a police record it has obtained shows Planned Parenthood Bellington tried to cover up the rape of a 10-year-old by a 31-year-old illegal immigrant:
The police record, authored by Deputy Smith, states the following:
“On the afternoon of 09 18 2012, I contacted Mt. Baker Planned Parenthood to obtain a copy of the records documenting ’s treatment at their care (sic!) facility. I was referred to their records contact…. Sherry who told me Planned Parenthood would not follow the mandated reported (sic) law as codified in RCW 26.44.030.12(b) and refused (to) provide medical records. I then advised Planned Parenthood that I would seek a court order for their records….”
Suzy B explains how Republican Tom Ridge, the pro-abortion former governor of Pennsylvania, has a lot of nerve to set his sights on pro-life conservatives:
Earlier this week… Ridge went on an all-out verbal assault against social conservatives, including pro-lifers, within the Republican Party. He called social conservatives “narcissists and ideologues” that are “too damned self-righteous” and are imposing “tyranny” on the nation. He said that pro-lifers had forgotten about the separation of church and state and he laid the blame for electoral losses at their feet….
Ridge’s own self-righteousness is alarming considering his record on abortion. In the wake of the Kermit Gosnell trial in Philadelphia, many Americans wondered how such a monster could work undetected for such a long period of time. The grand jury in the case placed the blame squarely upon Governor Ridge. Describing Ridge’s administration, they said the following:
“…the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.”
At National Review Online, Michael New picks apart a Politico op ed that tried to say abortion is a winning issue for Texas gubernatorial candidate and late-term abortion supporter Wendy Davis:
Davis’s 13-hour filibuster of a 20-week abortion ban this past June certainly raised her national profile. It may well help her raise money from supporters of legal abortion outside Texas. However, there is little evidence that Senator Davis’s extreme position on abortion has endeared her to Texas voters.
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.
Thank you Justice Brown!
Wesley Smith wonders why Planned Parenthood has to close so many clinics in Texas due to the new law requiring the abortionist on call to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
Mr. Smith’s article is based on what he alleges was posted by a local news station. Mr. Smith quotes that article as saying, “Planned Parenthood will close a dozen clinics on Friday after a federal appeals court reinstated most of the state’s controversial new abortion law. The ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday means that many abortion clinics across the state of Texas are required to stop providing the procedure immediately. What the article actually says is, “Planned Parenthood will stop providing abortions at four clinics on Friday after a federal appeals court reinstated most of the state’s controversial new abortion law. The ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals late Thursday means that many abortion clinics across the state of Texas are required to stop providing the procedure immediately. Even though Planned Parenthood is no longer able to provide abortions at the four locations, their doors will remain open and they will continue to provide birth control, cancer screenings and other preventive care.”
You’d have to contact the news station to find out whether Mr. Smith fabricated the first part of his quotation, or if his quote was accurate but the story has since been updated. Either way, this site is making public statements that are demonstrably false.
WWJD?
Pardon me, LisaC, but… was the last acronym in your post supposed to represent “What Would Jesus Do?”
Interesting story out of Indiana:
http://www.newser.com/story/comments/177114/hunter-chooses-to-die-day-after-accident.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_top
It really is up to the individual and not up to third parties like Randall Terry.
Merit, I don’t find it very interesting that his child will never get a chance to meet him. You seemingly do find taking life intriguing. However, people do have a right to refuse extraordinary medical care. I don’t think it was the right decision though, and it bespeaks the value we give to human life as long as we see it as productive or pleasurable. He’ll never get a chance to rethink it however, I imagine his family will.
You know “merit:” My only concern is the ending of life procedure that involves removal of the breathing tube – who is supposed to do that, the one making the decision or a medical professional who swore the hippocratic oath? This case is nothing more than “assisted” suicide and has nothing to do with one’s decision but the way it is carried out.
Here’s hoping you can discern the difference…
Below are the 16 abortion retailers who have been confirmed closed in Texas…4 of them are PP affiliates.
Local News, it seems, had some trouble making the distinction between national and local brands of abortion providers.
Whole Women’s Health – McAllen
Whole Women’s Health – Austin
Whole Women’s Health – San Antonio
Abortion Advantage – Dallas
Reproductive Services – Harlington (Rio Grande Valley)
Planned Parenthood – Austin
Planned Parenthood – Ft. Worth
Planned Parenthood – Lubbock
Planned Parenthood – Waco
North Park Medical Group – Dallas
Reproductive Services – El Paso
West Side Clinic – Ft. Worth
A Affordable Women’s Medical Center – Houston
Women’s Services – Houston
All Women’s Medical Center – San Antonio
Woman’s Choice Quality – San Antonio
4 closed PP facilities out of a total 16 closures is still 25%. PP would likely have shown a larger percentage if it still operated in western Texas. PP has not had any facilities in west Texas for some years now. They chose to close all clinics in west Texas (6 in El Paso alone) mainly due to financial mismanagement.
Thomas R, call it what you want but the individual and not you or anyone else is entitled to make the decision. BTW, palliative care has become a loophole concerning physician assisted suicide. And, there are the many physicians in the country who will assist with dying if asked. Of course, it’s all underground, but the end is still the same.
BTW, research about the Hippocratic Oath–there are now 79 modern versions, and it is not required in most cases. The crux of the Hippocratic Oath is honesty and confidentiality with the patient. The “do no harm” doesn’t really exist when it comes to the wishes of the patient to die.
“You know “merit:” My only concern is the ending of life procedure that involves removal of the breathing tube – who is supposed to do that, the one making the decision or a medical professional who swore the hippocratic oath? This case is nothing more than “assisted” suicide and has nothing to do with one’s decision but the way it is carried out.”
Just out of curiosity, do you think he should have been forced to keep his breathing tube in? If he was paralyzed it’s not like he could remove it himself. Do you think that people should have to continue life-sustaining interventions if they don’t want them? What do you think about, say, cancer patients who do not take chemo or other types of drugs to “fight” but instead choose to just manage their pain and die naturally? I really try to understand those who want to make people stay alive, but it seems really weird to me to think that people would want to force people to continue life-sustaining care in situations where the person would die naturally if the care was removed.
I believe in natural death Jack. This young men was brought out of coma and obviously was of sound mind to make this decision. I don’t know about anyone else but I would never allow for my wife’s or my kids’ conscience to be burdened with “pulling the plug” if I were of sound mind.
It’s different when a person signs a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order to bi-pass life support measures. This ensures that no-one else is burdened with “pulling the plug” on him/her.
MERIT:
The medical profession exists to support life. That is their sole mission. Nothing more and nothing less. Once life-support measures are started, “pulling the plug” is just it…
Once people start killing themselves and each other legally, that slope slides down to all of us.
If an injured person is “allowed” to die, then why not a 13 year old whose first boyfriend just dumped her? Right? Because who are we to decide?
In the real world, where I still live, suicidal intentions are signs of illness, whether the cause is mental or physical. In the real world, people who are suicidal are not all a bunch of altruistic good Samaritans who only want to end their own lives. In the real world, some people who want to commit suicide also sometimes want to take others with them. Once you decide that death is cool for anyone (Death on Demand Without Apology??), then we are ALL in danger. And before anyone jumps back in with, oh but Johnny’s impulse isn’t as unhealthy as Jane’s, I tell you: once death is cool for everyone, we have no way to treat depression and suicidal ideation IN ANYONE. And, just like in some places it’s now illegal to treat a minor for unwanted same sex attraction, it WILL become ILLEGAL to prevent teen suicide.
That’s not the world I want to live in. I want to live and I want others to live. I pray constantly for people like merit to be healed from the deep and destructive illness that plagues them.
The very act of expressing suicidal intentions is PROOF that one is NOT of sound mind.
So… do you think Jehovah’s Witnesses should be forced to have blood transfusions and organ transplants? Even though it goes against their religious beliefs to take such things into their bodies to sustain life, you think there should be a court order forcing an adult to do so? (I do agree minors should be protected from their parents in cases like this, but an adult is different).
How about Christian Scientists? Should they be forced to take modern medicine against their will? (Again, I think minors should be legally protected from this, adults are another matter).
Should a 90-year-old man who needs a heart transplant be able to decline being on the transplant list, because he’s decided he’s lived a good life and wants scarce hearts to go to younger people? Should people be able to decline cancer treatment, life-saving interventions that would most likely leave them vegetables, or be able to stipulate that they not be kept alive by artificial means in their advance directives? Should people ignore DNR orders, against the wishes of those who don’t want/believe in extraordinary measures?
You can be pro-life from conception to natural death and still acknowledge that people do not have to prolong their lives through artificial means if they don’t wish to.
The very act of expressing suicidal intentions is PROOF that one is NOT of sound mind.
As a person with a psychiatric disorder, I become very nervous when people talk about assisted suicide. Suppose there is a mentally ill person whose family wants him or her gone? It’s not too far-fetched that he or she could be talked into assisted suicide, even though they really don’t want it.
“As a person with a psychiatric disorder, I become very nervous when people talk about assisted suicide. Suppose there is a mentally ill person whose family wants him or her gone? It’s not too far-fetched that he or she could be talked into assisted suicide, even though they really don’t want it. ”
Yes, there was that Belgian transman who was euthanized because he felt like a “freak” and his parents utterly rejected him. I get why assisted suicide is a bad idea, and I’ve tried to commit suicide and I know that mental illness is a very strong thing and easily manipulated. What I don’t get is those that think people in horrific accidents or who are very ill should have medical treatments that they don’t approve of, if they would rather die a natural death. It’s not “assisted suicide” to not want a breathing tube, in my opinion.
Thanks for jumping in there 9ek!!! You are so right!!!
I just cannot understand the discrepancy that is created with starting life support measures ONLY to “pull the plug?” Does the medical profession know something that I am missing?
They are legally required to do life-saving interventions on people who cannot express their consent either way, it’s called “implied consent”. Sometimes the person wakes up and is all “um no, I didn’t want this”. Or it’s later found out that they have an advance directive stating that they do not wish to be kept alive from artificial means.
Let me ask the religious people here this. Do you think that God ends people’s lives, or humans do? I don’t see why letting nature (actually, God, since if you believe in God you do believe that he’s the one who “takes someone home”) take it’s course would be wrong under this belief system. I definitely see why the deliberate taking of your own life (or helping someone deliberately end theirs) is wrong, I just don’t see how it would be immoral or wrong to not avail yourself of medical technology (especially if it’s stuff like chemotherapy, in some kinds of cancers it’s basically just prolonging your life painfully for a few months). I’m not saying I think it’s great if people refuse life-sustaining care, I think it’s tragic, but I don’t see why people seem to think it’s the same as shooting yourself in the head if your girlfriend leaves you.
And someone should answer my questions about Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists, I’m really interested in opinions on that.
“You can be pro-life from conception to natural death and still acknowledge that people do not have to prolong their lives through artificial means if they don’t wish to.”
Its not about prolonging life Jack. This discussion is about societal acceptance of “assisted suicide” that justifies disposing of the infirm. Have I misunderstood?
9ek was equating allowing someone to die naturally to assisted suicide, that is what I was going off of. I don’t think allowing nature to take its course (including removing yourself from artificial means of life support) is anything like deliberately killing yourself.
I also don’t understand the sentiment. Everyone is going to die, it’s not particularly scary, it’s inevitable. If I had something like terminal cancer I’d rather peacefully go while receiving palliative care rather than spend the last six months of my life puking from chemo, tbh. Other people can make their own decisions, but I don’t see in any way how choosing not to extend your life (possibly) through artificial means is equivalent to killing yourself.
I call it the “burn a calorie” rule, Jack. If someone is dying, and I don’t resuscitate, I am not burning a single calorie toward the person’s demise. If I pull the plug, I do. If I administer too much sedative on purpose, I do. Once a person is hooked up to a respirator, and THEN someone wants to pull the plug.. that’s burning a calorie toward their demise. We don’t know if Gary Coleman might have survived his injuries. His estranged wife made sure that we will NEVER know. People also change their minds. A person who thinks he may want to die today because he doesn’t want to be paralyzed MAY change his mind in the future, especially if, for example, he meets a paralytic who has adapted well and who has accepted his new situation.
Not taking action isn’t what I’m afraid of. What I’m afraid of is this: teenagers who can’t even buy alcohol or cigarettes could be allowed to go into a (Belgian) hospital and have themselves killed.
The death meme is infecting our entire planet. It’s like a disease, and we need to heal from it, stat. I don’t have the magic formula to heal everyone’s heart and mind. But I pray for it constantly.
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Part Five: Issues in Care for the Seriously Ill and Dying
56. A person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.
57. A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient’s judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.
58. In principle, there is an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally. This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions (e.g., the “persistent vegetative state”) who can reasonably be expected to live indefinitely if given such care. Medically assisted nutrition and hydration become morally optional when they cannot reasonably be expected to prolong life or when they would be “excessively burdensome for the patient or [would] cause significant physical discomfort, for example resulting from complications in the use of the means employed.” For instance, as a patient draws close to inevitable death from an underlying progressive and fatal condition, certain measures to provide nutrition and hydration may become excessively burdensome and therefore not obligatory in light of their very limited ability to prolong life or provide comfort.
59. The free and informed judgment made by a competent adult patient concerning the use or withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures should always be respected and normally complied with, unless it is contrary to Catholic moral teaching.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
Jack, notice how the decision maker is always the patient while at the same time protecting the conscience of the care provider.
Thank you for the info on the Catholic perspective Tommy R. Do you know if a Catholic hospital would, say, allow me to be removed from life support after being in a coma for six months (when I had an advance directive stating these are my wishes)?
Ninek does that mean you think we should force people to remain hooked to feeding/breathing tubes and such? Even if they were put in without their say-so and it wasn’t something they ever consented to? Even if it’s going to be a short, painful life and even these interventions aren’t going to “help” for long? Even if they have an advance directive that states that they don’t wish to have these interventions?
If a person goes to an emergency room and nobody knows their wishes, and they are put on a respirator.. these are tough situations. I’m afraid that death advocates like merit will exploit these situations, just like they have with abortion. If, if, if, if, then can we kill the baby? Err on the side of life, always. It would be better for the few to have pain relief management than for the many to die because the few were used as a wedge to pry open the Pandora’s box of death. Not everyone will have an advanced directive, but I can tell you right now that some family members absolutely would snuff another and swear all day “It’s what he WOULD have wanted!”
It’s like how I feel about the death penalty: It’s better for many criminals to live in prison than for one innocent man to die by the hands of the state.
Pardon me, LisaC, but… was the last acronym in your post supposed to represent “What Would Jesus Do?”
Yes, it was, in response to Jill’s announcement earlier in the week that “I’m doing this because God gave me the gift to be a servant of Christ Jesus to people who are not pro-life.” Would Jesus want his servants to tell the truth, or falsehoods? Or is it okay to tell falsehoods on this blog because God didn’t say anything about being the servant of Christ Jesus to those who are pro-life?
Below are the 16 abortion retailers who have been confirmed closed in Texas…4 of them are PP affiliates.
They are not “confirmed closed.” I don’t know about all of the clinics, but news reports are saying that the Planned Parenthood clinics are not providing abortions but remain open for other services.
This blog asserts (via Mr. Smith), “If they were serving women for routine medical needs, STI testing and giving out free birth control, this [clinic closures] would not be needed.” So by Mr. Smith/this blog’s own logic, the fact that clinics remain open is evidence that they ARE serving women for routine medical needs and are not “all about abortion, abortion, abortion.”
One way to protect vulnerable patients is this: if you sign an order to pull the plug, you forfeit any and ALL inheritance and any and all financial gain resulting from the victim’s demise. In other words, if you love Granny so much you just have to snuff her, then you don’t get a penny from her estate. If you really love her so much, you would gladly forfeit the money, right?
I can’t help but notice that not a single advocate of “assisted suicide” has ever made such a proposal.
I would have thought that the term ‘assisted suicide’ itself indicates assisting with the patients request, not imposing something. Which would make them not a victim.
What if granny said “if you want an inheritance you’d jolly well better pull that plug in the circumstances I have indicated.”?
Nobody has the “right” to snuff themselves. Wanting to die is sick. Depression is treatable. If my Granny asked me to snuff her, I would have said, “NO.” I didn’t take a penny from her, by the way, because what I inherited from my grandmother can’t be bought. Birthday wishes: free. Hugs and kisses: free. The memory of my grandmother’s love: Priceless.
When a person asks to be killed, that person has just proven they are no longer of sound mind. Now, sometimes depression follows a painful illness or event. Depression is treatable. Death is not a treatment for depression.
But death is completely natural at the end of a terminal illness or after a bad accident. You can fight it, but we all eventually die. Being ready to exit this life when you’re ill isn’t “sick”, it’s realistic. That’s why I don’t get people freaking over people who are terminally ill choosing not to extend their lives or wanting to take themselves off life support.
Jack:
Regarding your November 6, 2013 at 5:34 pm comment in which you discuss palliative care. A person who chooses to enter hospice goes through the process of life uninterrupted allowing nature to take its course. There is no “assisted suicide” and no “pulling the plug” in this circumstance. No external intervention whatsoever.
Your example, although supporting personal choice, does not disprove that “assisted suicide” is our society’s way of disposing of the infirm and unwanted.
And I repeat – medical professionals have no business “pulling the plug.” Personal choice or not, the Hipppocratic Oath (first do no harm) should be their moral guide.
“Do you know if a Catholic hospital would, say, allow me to be removed from life support after being in a coma for six months (when I had an advance directive stating these are my wishes)?”
Jack, I am not a healthcare provider and I am sure others here are, but this is my understanding. The Catholic directives are more like guidelines to be used by the patient and other decision makers than centrally determined marching orders handed down from on high on what to do in each kind of circumstance. There are so many different cases in different times and different places with different resources available around the world. What is “life support”? Air? Water? Food? Does that even count as “medicine” if not taken orally? How about antibiotics and other basic medicine? Is that “life support” or ordinary care? Is an operation like appendectomy extraordinary or ordinary…it depends on the circumstances (which can vary widely throughout the world). This is why no one can write specific universal rules. It is up to the patient and the doctors with general life affirming principles to guide them in deciding…what is the right thing to do…in each individual case. This can be tough.
The problems show up when the “life affirming principles” are simply chucked aside for expediency or convenience or greed or whatever.
LisaC,
All right (so far as it goes)… though I’d gently point out three things:
1) It’s a bit disingenuous to equivocate “falsehood” with “lies”, in your suggestion that “Jesus would want otherwise”, even if the information reported by Jill (which she received from other sources–she did not make them up out of whole cloth, nor did Wesley Smith: if anything, the CBS affiliate was in error, initially, if anything) was inaccurate; Jesus commands that we do not sin (including lying), but He did not (and could not) command that we never make mistaken false claims. Thus, it’s a bit deceptive for you to invoke the “WWJD?” idea.
2) From the reports I’ve seen, at least three PP clinics are closing (two because of budget cuts from earlier, and one because of direct implications of the new law), and one non-PP clinic in your own article is on the verge of closing; and you have admitted that you have no information on the other non-PP clinics. Isn’t it a bit premature for you to be crying “liar, liar” (or, in your case, “falsehood-teller, falsehood-teller”), given that large batch of missing data?
3) In general: don’t you suppose that Jesus has something to say about forbidding the sin of abortion, as well as the sin of lying? And which do you think is the more grave evil? One would think that murder would trump most any lie…
1. Thus, it’s a bit deceptive for you to invoke the “WWJD?” idea.
Well, the beauty of the WWJD abbreviation is that it could also stand for “What Would a Journalist Do?” Jill holds herself out as a source of information for the pro-life movement. When the “top-ranking pro-life blog in the US” shows complete indifference to the accuracy of a story, a cynic might conclude that a reading of the “pro-life pulse” shows that the pro-life movement wants a narrative more than it wants news.
Still, that is not the issue: Jill has never claimed to possess any journalistic professionalism, and so I expect none of her. We will accept as a given that a blogger cannot be expected to lift a finger to verify the accuracy of her stories before posting them. My question is, what should someone to whom “God has given the gift to be a servant of Christ Jesus” do when presented with evidence that an unresearched story she is telling in Christ’s service is false?
2. and you have admitted that you have no information on the other non-PP clinics. Isn’t it a bit premature for you to be crying “liar, liar” (or, in your case, “falsehood-teller, falsehood-teller”), given that large batch of missing data?
Not premature in the slightest. The article’s point is that the putative clinic closures are evidence of Planned Parenthood’s focus on abortion: e.g., “If abortion was really only 3% of PP – as the organization claims – would a safety restriction of this kind really force 12 PP clinics to close?” The answer appears to be that 12 PP clinics have not been forced to close, because most of the clinics in question are not PP clinics. At the time that this article was posted, no PP clinics had been closed in response to the law. Rather, the PP clinics were doing precisely what Smith (and this blog) claimed they were not doing: providing medical care unrelated to abortion. And so yes, what the blog has posted is false.
3. And which do you think is the more grave evil?
I was not aware that Christ told his servants that they didn’t need to avoid committing lesser evils as long as they were struggling against a greater evil, though my ignorance on that point doesn’t mean much. I was raised Catholic, so we neither studied the Bible nor learned how to pray while standing on a street corner.
Update: the video at the bottom of the CBS news story does start out with the news anchor saying that 12 Planned Parenthood clinics have closed, and so Mr. Smith did not fabricate the quote. (Note that I did not say he did, because I don’t report “facts” that I can’t verify). However, the anchor’s statement is proven false both by the rest of the video and the story on the website. Which reaffirms my point above: the narrative is more important than the news. And that is probably why this story remains uncorrected–to reinforce pro-lifers claim that Planned Parenthood = abortion = profit, regardless of whether or not their evidence supports that claim.
A list of clinics that are “confirmed closed” is circulating in the blogosphere. None of those lists–of courses–are sourced. Insofar as I can tell, the “source” is an Operation Rescue press release listing clinics that have stopped providing abortions, not clinics that are closed. See comment above RE narrative vs. news.
If anyone gives credible evidence that 12 PP clinics have closed, I will certainly give them credit for doing so.
LisaC wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Thus, it’s a bit deceptive for you to invoke the “WWJD?” idea.
[LisaC]
Well, the beauty of the WWJD abbreviation is that it could also stand for “What Would a Journalist Do?”
Since you plainly said that you meant “What Would Jesus Do”, and not some alternative (see November 6, 6:32 PM), I do think that’s a bit of a red herring, yes?
Jill holds herself out as a source of information for the pro-life movement. When the “top-ranking pro-life blog in the US” shows complete indifference to the accuracy of a story, a cynic might conclude that a reading of the “pro-life pulse” shows that the pro-life movement wants a narrative more than it wants news.
Perhaps the “cynic” might realise that she’s being rather presumptuous to say that Jill is showing “complete indifference to accuracy”, simply on the basis that she did not immediately edit her account to reflect your initial (and unsupported) complaint? I might also add that “What Would Jesus Do?” and “be a cynic” don’t mesh well; I really do think He’d disapprove of anyone (including you) being a cynic, especially if you’re being rash in doing so. You’re stretching some very scant and inconclusive data mightily and brutally, in order to try to arrive at your claim… and that simply won’t do, especially since that’s precisely what you decry (i.e. such hasty assumption-making) in others (e.g. Jill, Prof. Smith, etc.).
Still, that is not the issue: Jill has never claimed to possess any journalistic professionalism, and so I expect none of her.
Come, now. That statement is nothing but insult-ridden rubbish (logical circles call it a “devil phrase”–an inflammatory statement, weak in content and strong in rhetorical bile, which self-seals [i.e. is a fallacy]. If you expect any sane person to take you seriously, do lay off that sort of thing.
We will accept as a given that a blogger cannot be expected to lift a finger to verify the accuracy of her stories before posting them.
…or a commenter on a blog cannot be expected to avoid hypocrisy, in that she does not “lift a finger to verify the accuracy” of her own criticism? If you do not hold yourself to your own standard, why should anyone else bother about it? (And again: Jill and Prof. Smith are living up to that standard better than you are, at present.)
My question is, what should someone to whom “God has given the gift to be a servant of Christ Jesus” do when presented with evidence that an unresearched story she is telling in Christ’s service is false?
Perhaps you might, like those with good manners, ask Jill politely whether her story was quite accurate, or not–and then clearly explain why you think so? Again: you seem to be hyper-inflating the case (“discrepancy in story” = “inaccuracy” = “uttering falsehoods” = “irresponsibility” = “lying” = “violating the will of Jesus, and being a hypocrite”), and I see no good/logical reason for it. But perhaps your own “narrative” (of promoting legal abortion, and mind-sets which complement it) prevented you from the civil approach (as opposed to the “attack-dog upon the hated pro-lifer” approach)…
[Paladin]
and you have admitted that you have no information on the other non-PP clinics. Isn’t it a bit premature for you to be crying “liar, liar” (or, in your case, “falsehood-teller, falsehood-teller”), given that large batch of missing data?
[LisaC]
Not premature in the slightest. The article’s point is that the putative clinic closures are evidence of Planned Parenthood’s focus on abortion: e.g., “If abortion was really only 3% of PP – as the organization claims – would a safety restriction of this kind really force 12 PP clinics to close?” The answer appears to be that 12 PP clinics have not been forced to close, because most of the clinics in question are not PP clinics.
Now, do consider this reasonably! The main point of the article (i.e. “PP clinics are closing because they lacked these minimum safety standards vis a vis abortion”) would be perfectly intact if EVEN ONE PP CLINIC were to close for that reason… and that is, in fact, the case. Beyond that, see below.
At the time that this article was posted, no PP clinics had been closed in response to the law. Rather, the PP clinics were doing precisely what Smith (and this blog) claimed they were not doing: providing medical care unrelated to abortion. And so yes, what the blog has posted is false.
…and you are apparently indignant at that fact, yes? Please see above, re: how to approach people about alleged inaccuracies politely… especially in light of your own inaccuracies.
[Paladin]
And which do you think is the more grave evil?
[LisaC]
I was not aware that Christ told his servants that they didn’t need to avoid committing lesser evils as long as they were struggling against a greater evil,
That was not my point at all. I was making clear to you that YOU, who presume to invoke the Name and Will of Jesus, are morally obligated not only to avoid deliberate untruths (and again, your accusations against Jill to that effect were rash and nonsensical, with no evidence to support willfulness/deception on her part, whatsoever)… AND that you are morally obligated to avoid the much graver evil of promotion of legalised abortion (i.e. killing of the very children about whom Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them, for to such belong the Kingdom of God”-Mark 10:14, etc.). Does that clarify?
though my ignorance on that point doesn’t mean much. I was raised Catholic, so we neither studied the Bible nor learned how to pray while standing on a street corner.
I assume you’re being mean-spirited and sarcastic, especially in your last phrase (re: praying on a street-corner). I was also raised Catholic, and I was encouraged to study the Bible (for which one can even gain a plenary indulgence, given the normal conditions, if one reads Scripture devotedly for even a half-hour; St. Jerome said it plainly: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”). I grieve (truly–I’m not being ironic, here) the fact that you were offered so little by the Catholics in your life, and that they were apparently so ill-formed in the Faith. But even your “private” reading of Scripture (would I be incorrect in assuming that you study the Bible NOW?) should make clear to you the grave evil of killing children simply to honour the preferences of the mother (or, more likely, the preferences of those who coerced/pressured her with threats of abandonment, censure, physical harm, etc.).
Since you plainly said that you meant “What Would Jesus Do”, and not some alternative (see November 6, 6:32 PM), I do think that’s a bit of a red herring, yes?
No, it worked on both levels from the beginning.
Perhaps the “cynic” might realise that she’s being rather presumptuous to say that Jill is showing “complete indifference to accuracy”, simply on the basis that she did not immediately edit her account to reflect your initial (and unsupported) complaint?
You misunderstand. The non-responsiveness to my post is not the basis of my assertion that the site is indifferent to accuracy. The basis of my assertion lies in the fact that no finger was lifted to check the CBS story up on which Mr. Smith’s article was based. Such a check would have demonstrated that the story did not say what Mr. Smith claimed it said. Failure to follow up on my post was merely supporting evidence.
If you expect any sane person to take you seriously, do lay off that sort of thing.
Fair enough. I would take this blog far more seriously if it had less insult-ridden rubbish.
or a commenter on a blog cannot be expected to avoid hypocrisy, in that she does not “lift a finger to verify the accuracy” of her own criticism?
Of course I verified the accuracy before posting–I have a reputation to consider. However, this site auto-filters posts with multiple links as spam, and so it’s not possible to link to the relevant stories–which no one will read anyway.
I started by reading the CBS story in question, followed up with internet searches and a review of the site that has covered this story most comprehensively (the Texas Tribune) and then reviewed pseudo-news sites like LifeNews to try to locate the origin of the “confirmed closed” clinic list. One Planned Parenthood clinic, the Lubbock location, has closed. That was expected because the clinic lost most of its client base when Texas decided that women in the WHP do not have the right to decide where they’ll get their Pap smears. (This has been widely reported; please Google it for verification.) The other three PP clinics that have been listed in the “closed” list answered their phones and confirmed that they were taking patients.
Perhaps you might, like those with good manners, ask Jill politely whether her story was quite accurate, or not–and then clearly explain why you think so?
There was no reason to inquire about the accuracy of the story–it was demonstrably inaccurate. As for tone–do you read this blog? Courtesy has no place here, and it exists for the purpose of hyper-inflating allegations.
…and you are apparently indignant at that fact, yes? Please see above, re: how to approach people about alleged inaccuracies politely… especially in light of your own inaccuracies.
No, I’m quote happy that the clinics are still providing non-abortion care. I usually request that my own donations to PP not be used for abortion. But there are no inaccuracies in my comments: they stand up to scrutiny, or would if anyone attempted to scrutinize them.
YOU, who presume to invoke the Name and Will of Jesus, are morally obligated…
I inquired about an assertion that Jill specifically made about herself. That’s all.
Sorry about the delay; I thought I’d subscribed to this link! Ah, well…
LisaC wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Since you plainly said that you meant “What Would Jesus Do”, and not some alternative (see November 6, 6:32 PM), I do think that’s a bit of a red herring, yes?
[LisaC]
No, it worked on both levels from the beginning.
You’re not getting my point. You, yourself, admitted that Jill’s quote of Dr. Smith was accurate, and you yourself admitted (in an follow-up post) that Dr. Smith was accurately quoting the video which went with the news article. So your gripe is… what, exactly? That someone had the audacity to quote from another source who quoted from another source which ultimately proved to be less than exact? If you’re so incensed (you’ve certainly spent a great deal of time and energy on it–and your word-choices were certainly neither bland nor civil) about Jill’s supposed “outrageous lack of journalistic professionalism” (I do wonder what you’d think of a Calculus professor who had the audacity to misplace a minus sign while teaching a lesson–would you sputter and call that an “outrageous disgrace to the teaching profession”?), then there must be a rational basis for your outrage, or else your outrage is irrational… yes? And yet, I’ve seen no proportion at all between the alleged “outrageous offense” (i.e. Jill quoted from someone who was quoting from someone whose information may be inaccurate–despite the fact that it didn’t affect the main thrust of the argument at all) and your reaction to it. Frankly, you come across as someone who simply woke on the wrong side of the bed, and took it out on Jill using the flimsiest of pretexts… all, apparently, because you find her opposition to abortion to be so galling.
You misunderstand. The non-responsiveness to my post is not the basis of my assertion that the site is indifferent to accuracy. The basis of my assertion lies in the fact that no finger was lifted to check the CBS story up on which Mr. Smith’s article was based.
The same CBS story which (in the video) announced that 12 PP clinics had closed? And again: are you missing the fact that Dr. Smith’s main point (and Jill’s) is utterly untouched by the number of clinics, so long as it’s above zero?
Such a check would have demonstrated that the story did not say what Mr. Smith claimed it said. Failure to follow up on my post was merely supporting evidence.
And you’ve exerted a great deal of energy to flush out this apparently egregious state of affairs. My own difficulty lies in the proportion (or lack of it) between the apparent “crime” and your reaction… much as one might scream and storm off in a huff, threatening to report a restaurant for sanitary violations on the basis of a single dead fly on the windowsill near your table.
[Paladin]
If you expect any sane person to take you seriously, do lay off that sort of thing.
[LisaC]
Fair enough. I would take this blog far more seriously if it had less insult-ridden rubbish.
Er… I see. So you give yourself permission to throw insult-laden rubbish, on the count that you dislike seeing it elsewhere? Do you always do that which you find reprehensible in others?
[Paladin]
Perhaps you might, like those with good manners, ask Jill politely whether her story was quite accurate, or not–and then clearly explain why you think so?
[LisaC]
There was no reason to inquire about the accuracy of the story–it was demonstrably inaccurate.
Even if that were true (and that is questionable), that has nothing at all to do with my point. See above, re: your outrage and its proportion to the alleged “crime”.
As for tone–do you read this blog? Courtesy has no place here, and it exists for the purpose of hyper-inflating allegations.
Er… I see, again. You seem to be suggesting that your moral conduct lowers itself to the worst of your surroundings. If so, then I’m not sure why you’d find it objectionable. If not, then I’m not sure why you’d use anyone else’s behaviour as an excuse to be uncivil…
Of course I verified the accuracy before posting–I have a reputation to consider.
Was this before, or after, your “update” which you posted immediately after this comment (November 8, 2013 at 8:36 am)?
However, this site auto-filters posts with multiple links as spam, and so it’s not possible to link to the relevant stories–which no one will read anyway.
That’s not quite what I meant. Your original comment included the following: “You’d have to contact the news station to find out whether Mr. Smith fabricated the first part of his quotation, or if his quote was accurate but the story has since been updated.” Apparently that’s not the case… since simply watching the video served equally well, as you admitted. Does “verify the accuracy” of a story include painstaking phone-calling and e-mailing of various news workers, while ignoring the click of a link?
Mind you: under ordinary circumstances, I’d have excused you easily for missing such a thing–it happens, and I’m not sure I’d have thought to do it, myself. But since you started sneering and scorning in all directions–particularly about Jill’s (and Dr. Smith’s) “failure to research and confirm facts”, I do think you should live up to your own “raised bar of standards”, and that it should judge you… yes?
[Paladin]
…and you are apparently indignant at that fact, yes? Please see above, re: how to approach people about alleged inaccuracies politely… especially in light of your own inaccuracies.
[LisaC]
No, I’m quote happy that the clinics are still providing non-abortion care.
You’ve misunderstood my comment; I asked if you were indignant at the “fact” that Jill’s website allegedly had “false information”… and the answer certainly seems to be “yes”, given the steam and tenacity behind your answer(s).
I usually request that my own donations to PP not be used for abortion.
That’s laudable, so far as it goes… but surely you realise that you’re describing a mere accounting gimmick? If you donate $100 and request that it be used exclusively for paying for their internet service, don’t you suppose that–at need–they would oblige you, but turn right around and take $100 from the “internet budget” to pay for any needed abortion-related expenses? The phenomenon is called “fungibility”; you might look it up, when you get a moment.
But there are no inaccuracies in my comments: they stand up to scrutiny, or would if anyone attempted to scrutinize them.
See above, re: your “update”, and re: the heightened standards of “scrutiny” for those who seek to judge the “scrutiny” of others rashly and harshly.
[Paladin]
YOU, who presume to invoke the Name and Will of Jesus, are morally obligated…
[LisaC]
I inquired about an assertion that Jill specifically made about herself. That’s all.
That’s not all you did, friend. As I mentioned earlier: your “inquiry” was not a pure interrogative (I wouldn’t have made a peep, if it’d been nothing but that); you soaked and steeped it in vitriol, contempt, scorn and accusation, and you topped it all by a thoughtless invocation of the Son of God. If you invoke Jesus as a moral authority, you are not free to pick and choose from His teachings, and discard what happens not to satisfy your personal tastes… or else you’re really appealing to *yourself* (i.e. your personal tastes) as the moral authority, with the Holy Name of Jesus invoked (in vain) as a mere pretext. Surely you see that?