In other words, those “thousands” of hospitals Romney is unwilling to defund all commit abortions
A media storm has erupted over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to sign Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge.
But I have yet to see any address the huge story Romney’s balk exposed. Right now thousands of hospital CEOs are holding their collective breath, hoping none will.
In his June 18 National Review Online op ed, Romney stated he had two problems with SBA List’s pledge.
One was that Romney didn’t want to be hamstrung from appointing pro-abortion ideologues to his cabinet or other important positions, a topic worthy of its own discussion, although not in this post.
The other, quoting Romney:
[I]ts well-meaning pledge is overly broad and would have unintended consequences. That is why I could not sign it. It is one thing to end federal funding for an organization like Planned Parenthood; it is entirely another to end all federal funding for thousands of hospitals across America. That is precisely what the pledge would demand and require of a president who signed it.
By that comment Romney was acknowledging he knows there are thousands of hospitals across America that receive government funding that also commit elective abortions.
In other words, thousands of hospitals across America operate no differently in practice than those hundreds of Planned Parenthoods we pro-lifers have been targeting for defunding.
I know this because I worked at one, and I am well aware that in just about every large and small community across the country there are indeed thousands of other hospitals doing the same.
This is not to say these hospitals are violating the Hyde Amendment by receiving Medicaid reimbursements for abortions other than for rape, incest, or life of the mother.
This is to say these hospitals get taxpayer dollars for doing good things in one room, floor, or wing, while receiving private or insurance funding to abort in another room, floor, or wing.
Here is SBA List’s verbiage that was problematic to Romney:
Advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions.
Such as Christ Hospital, where I worked, never mind university hospitals, which do worse than commit abortions, they teach how to commit abortions, like the University of New Mexico and the University of California at San Francisco.
I wonder if Romney’s opponents understood SBA List’s pledge to mean what I believe Romney correctly understood it to mean. It would be great, if so.
And if so, SBA List has just launched an opening salvo what will dwarf the fight to defund Planned Parenthood.
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.
Right, launch a crusade to defund thousands of hospitals across the country, and tell me how that works out. After the anti-abortion movement’s resounding success in cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, I’m sure it will have lots of luck in attempting the same with hospitals.
Hi Jane,
I deleted your post. I am sure you can read the lists of Do’s and Do Not’s and figure out why I would do something like that.
Brush up on the rules and try again.
I think that if a candidate is going to be pro-life then they should be pro-life 100%. Period! Romney just lost any consideration that I would have had to vote for him. As far as the funding issue goes, it is absolutely positively WRONG to ask people who are against abortion for moral reasons to fund any organization that commits abortions. It is not the taxpayers duty to help people kill their children. All the pro-aborts like to scream “my body my choice and keep your rosary off my ovaries”. Well, now we are screaming,keep our tax dollars off your body, your ovaries, your whatever! We don’t want to fund killing innocents in any way and we are determined to stop it. Way to go Susan B.!
@Joan, the only reason that our efforts failed last time is because Obama and the Mrs. are buddy buddy with the C.E.O. Of PP. If we had an HONEST leader who had the American people’s interest at heart instead of some special interest group that campaigned for him as trade off then it would have been defunded pronto.
So the pro-life movement wants a totally pro-life government? Is there any wonder why they’re called the “American Taliban?”
The “American Taliban”? Yea, that’s us, being all mean, not wanting babies to die for no reason and all that nonsense. Sorry bunch we are! We should just shut up and let you guys do what you want without hindrance. That way you could hurry to the next crowd that are vulnerable and do away with them. You know, the disabled and the elderly and those bothersome terminally ill people. No sense in keeping them around breathing up the air meant for the valuable ones. Silly pro-lifers trying to put rules on everyone! Just like The Taliban!
The truth is that if it comes down to Romney v Obama, pro-life people must support Romney. It’s better to have a guy that believes in killing a few than a guy who believes in killing many.
“instead of some special interest group” – and pro-life activists are?
I still believe that some of you would vote for someone like Idi Amin on an anti-choice platform than someone like Nelson Mandela on a pro-choice platform.
Let me start by saying, I work in Cardiology & I have also volunteered for a Prolife pregnancy clinic for about 11yrs.
I whole-heartedly support de-funding Planned Parenthood but I believe we have to be VERY careful about “not giving funding to hospitals who perform abortions”. I believe it is ignorant to assume it an even possible expectation. Most hospitals can have various departments & specialties that work completely separate from one another. So, are we going to strip cancer research & cardiac research funding from some hospitals because a physician with hospital privileges in another department does on site abortions? Do we punish EVERYONE from the community because the hospital allows a procedure that unfortunately is still legal. Do we punish the patients benefiting from research & endowment programs. Do we take the jobs away from Dr’s, nurses and medical staff who are working hard in their specialty that has nothing to do with abortion?
As I said, I work in Cardiology. I work at a VERY large hospital that employees almost 10,000 individuals. There are multiple departments that all work separately. Does the hospital I work for allow abortions on site–unfortunately, yes. Do I think that my patients & their families should loose any funding because of this–absolutely not. The whole point of being Pro-life is PROTECTING LIFE. Defunding any cardiac programs when Heart Disease is the #1 killer of men/women in the U.S. is NOT protecting life.
As to Romney refusing to make a pledge that he would not put anyone Pro-abortion on his cabinet–again let’s be realistic. I consider Condi Rice one of the most intelligent individuals on foreign affairs and I wish she was back in DC serving our country in some capacity. But, Condi does support abortion in the 1st trimester with some restrictions on age/parental notification. So, with this type of arbitrary “No cabinet members who aren’t 100% pro-life” pledge, you miss out from putting the best person for that job. I don’t believe that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense needs to be 100% pro-life to do an excellent job in serving/protecting our country.
I am not a huge Romney fan (in fact the current pickings are once again slim). But I have to say, he actually got points from me because of his answer.
@Lou , I agree
@Reality, I don’t vote for candidates who advocate for the killing of babies. This is my 1st criteria for looking at a candidate.
@Jenny2, I don’t think taxpayer money should go to hospitals that do abortions unless they stop doing them.
@Deanna, so if they advocated the death penalty for a vast range of crimes, including homosexuality, set up a tax scheme where the poorest paid more than the rich, with no welfare at all and where women couldn’t vote – you’d still vote for them rather than someone who said “I will allow women to have a choice”?
“As far as the funding issue goes, it is absolutely positively WRONG to ask people who are against abortion for moral reasons to fund any organization that commits abortions.”
Why stop there? Is it wrong to ask people who are against war for moral reasons to fund the government’s war-making efforts? There are any number of examples like this where taxes are used to fund things that some people (or even many people) find immoral. I don’t see why an exception should be made for your pet issue.
Reality@ Thats never going to happen. I guess if it did I just wouldn’t vote at all because it wouldn’t matter we would have all gone crazy!
Joan@ War is not a “choice” that people make to suit their particular situation like abortion is. Abortion is a 100% elective procedure, a choice. Why should I fund your choice? Fund it yourself! You want to kill your kid? Don’t ask me to help you.
You’re missing the point. Your claim is that people who believe something is immoral should not be compelled to fund it in any way through the taxes they pay. Your argument essentially boils down to “I find abortion extremely objectionable, for such and such reasons; therefore, it’s wrong to force me to indirectly fund it through my taxes.” Someone who opposes war on moral grounds could use the exact same argument.
Religion is a choice that those who don’t participate are forced to partly fund.
Creationism is a choice that costs people of science and reason money when evangelicals attempt to force it into school science courses.
The death penalty is a choice which taxpayers are forced to pay for when they are against it.
@Deanna–if you believe that you do not benefit medically from research done from hospitals around the country who have allowed abortion on site–then you are very naive.
If you or a family member has ever been treated for cancer, cardiac issues, if you have children who have received immunizations or antibiotics,…if you are basically still alive and not dead from staph, strep, and ecoli infections that could have snowballed into pandemic proportions if it wasn’t for research/development over the past 3 decades in hospitals to combat the pathogens—then YOU have benefited from govt funded research at hospitals that allow abortions. So, unless you plan to forgo any other said medical benefits for yourself or your family–then your blanket statements about where tax $ should go is hypocritical.
Again, as I said, I am Prolife. It is such a missional part of my life that I have spent the past 11yrs volunteering at a prolife pregnancy clinic. I pray daily that the genocide of the unborn would be stopped. But, to defund any/all hospital programs if they allow abortion on site is signing the death certificate of MILLIONS of others. And I will not trade one life in the hopes of saving another. And those that take that approach, I believe do nothing but give the pro-life movement a heartless face.
@ Reality
1. The majority of public school science books do NOT include creationism or intelligent design. Please remember that the Theory of Evolution is by name–a THEORY. It has not been proved false, yet has not been proven fact. Creationism and intelligent design by scientific standards are ALSO theories. I personally see no reason why children can’t be shown what all theories on the matter are–that is education. Only presenting one theory is indoctrination.
2. Your arguments regarding tax payer funding alternative scenarios vs. abortions are not in the same league. You compared the death penalty, a punishment that is determined by each state. The legality of Abortion has not been allowed to be decided by each state. That is a key difference in your example.
3. Not quite sure how you fund “Religion” through your tax $$…unless you are referring to so called religious shock art of a crucifix submerged in urine and such. And I am all for defunding that.
Creationism and intelligent design simply aren’t scientific theories. They are unfalsifiable and untestable. Can’t really teach them as science.
I agree about not defunding hospitals though. There isn’t any reason to cause all that death.
so, just as Planned Parenthood can choose to spin off it’s abortion business elsewhere, so could hospitals. No need for the health providers to put the lives of their patients at risk over abortion. After all – that’s not health care – it’s death to the baby purposely.
Health institutions can get along just fine without abortion, and according to Planned Parenthood itself, abortion is only 3% of their business, and it’s raking in donations right and left to keep it’s Title X money.
How about we just leave abortion behind? Women can still have health care, people can still have health care in their hospitals and even in emergencies, the patients are taken care of.
That is, unless all one wants is abortion. But then that would mean that all the pro-choice arguments were really about promoting abortion, not making it rare.
Jenny2@
Here is the problem. We have Planned Parenthood on the one hand doing good but then on the other killing babies and likewise we have hospitals on the one hand doing good but then on the other killing babies. There is no difference. A dead baby is a dead baby no matter if the hospital that kills it cures cancer or not. As pro-lifers we cannot pick and choose which babies live and which ones die to suit our needs. Are cancer screenings and pap smears enough to justify killing a baby at Planned Parenthood? Are diabetes and cancer studies enough to justify killing a baby at a hospital? To say that one justifies the other is to say that none matter. Either all of them matter or none of them matter. They cannot be important to us based on OUR need for medical treatment. They are important because they are human and deserve to live. If it takes defunding the hospitals to get them to stop killing the babies then so be it. But I don’t think it would come to that anyway. The hospitals aren’t going to give up millions of $ of funding a year over this issue. It’s all a bark with no bite.
“1. The majority of public school science books do NOT include creationism or intelligent design. Please remember that the Theory of Evolution is by name–a THEORY. It has not been proved false, yet has not been proven fact. Creationism and intelligent design by scientific standards are ALSO theories. I personally see no reason why children can’t be shown what all theories on the matter are–that is education. Only presenting one theory is indoctrination.”
Creationism and intelligent design are not theories, they are (fringe) religious beliefs. Yes, evolution is a theory. So is gravity. Both of them are well-established and have withstood significant scientific scrutiny.
Deanna,
1. Not for want of trying. People who are committed to creation/ID have joined the boards of education in various states and tried all sorts of tactics to get creationism included on school science curriculums (as well as re-writing some historical texts). It takes concerted efforts to stop this happening. There have also been court cases dealing with the issue. Gravity is also a ‘theory’, do you dispute that? Day by day, science continues to prove evolution and further displace creationism. Creationism is no more a science compared to evolution than astrology is compared to astronomy. Presenting false information is indoctrination.
2. It doesn’t change the fact that taxpayers are forced to pay for the death penalty.
3. You are kidding right? Taxpayers do support religious activities.
This is really easy. Catholic hospitals tend to segregate the un-catholic stuff whenever it is discovered. Sometimes they just sneak it in at night. Other times an artificial division is created to allow the un-catholic stuff to go on, formally segregated from the other activities. A building does not have to contain only one corporation. It’s very easy to rent out a section to another corporation which does the unfundable activity while the rest of the institution qualifies for federal funds.
This can be done for a hundred thousand bucks or less in some cases. Hospitals at this time are turning themselves inside out, spending millions upgrading technology to remain qualified for medicare and medicaid funds.
Segregating the abortions sufficiently to remain qualified is no big deal for most institutions, other than the problem of having some of their benefactors discover that it was being done.
Romney wouldn’t sign? Well, I am hoping Rick Perry jumps into the race and soon. I like his strong conservative convictions and he ain’t hard on the eyes either.
Wait till you get a look at him ladies! mm mm mm.
Deanna and other die-hard pro-lifers.- I would urge you to stop going to medical facilities all together. If the reasoning is that planned parenthood must be completely defunded, even branches that don’t have abortions performed there, because a dollar in is support of the whole system…then surely you can’t spend money at a medical facility or your hands are as dirty as somebody who directly gets an abortion. So stop getting medical care!
@Deanna–I honestly don’t know where to start with you. I really feel that people such as yourself who try to debate the prolife argument with such ignorant blanket statements only hurt our cause. Do you even have a CLUE how hospitals are run and how departments have nothing to do with one another?
Let me try to break this down as easily as possible for you. You have a major hospital such as the one I work with that has about 10,000 employees. Now separate that into specialties/departments: oncology, cardiology, pediatrics, radiology, med/surg,… Some hospitals can have DOZENS of different departments and sub specialties. Now take the one department that you have issue with–OB/GYN’s. Say there are 100 physicians from that specialty given hospital privileges & then out of that 100, 40 of them will perform abortions. You are basically talking about defunding whole hospitals departments, punishing the 9,960 other employees & THEIR patients because of what a small fraction practice. Let’s not even get into the fact that the diagnosis bill code for abortion is the same for a woman who had a miscarriage & needs a D&C–so, basically by your stringent standards for federal funding, NO Ob/GYN could get hospital privileges or they would have to refer their patients to outside sources for anything but a healthy baby delivery.
And your comparison of Planned Parenthood to hospitals is completely wrong. Planned Parenthood whatever they want to admit as far as the # of abortions they perform in relation to other services take that tax$ to fund their ENTIRE organization. So, their argument that tax$ do not fund abortion is wrong because it funds their whole company that allows that to continue to be provided. It pays the same doctors salaries. In a hospital, EACH department has totally separate department budgets and grant/research money is VERY strictly adhered to to only fund what it was proposed to. In fact, as I said, I work in Cardiology which is a very broad specialty. If there is a grant to research patients with abnormal heart rythms, then funds can’t be filtered to patients with heart valve disorders—even though they are within the same specialty. So, there is NO way a department like Oncology or Pediatrics getting fed tax$ has any bearing on the procedure of abortion. Totally different Dr’s, nurses, wings of a hospital.
I NEVER said that funding research for oncology, cardiology, ped’s “JUSTIFIES” the killing of babies. What I said is that I will not trade 1 life in hopes of saving another. Because that is what it would come down to, the “hope” of saving that baby. You have defunded the hospital but you have not changed that girls heart to not seek abortion. You have signed the death certificate of MILLIONS in defunding other specialty programs and gained nothing but a sanctimonious “it didn’t die here”. No, it wasn’t killed in the hospital, but the baby would still be killed. That is what you fail to recognize.
Again, I don’t think people will truly understand this part of the prolife argument if they don’t already work in the healthcare field. We are taught to FIRST DO NO HARM. And Defunding programs that continue cancer research and lowering the incidence of heart disease is doing harm.
Mary,
Waiting to hear what Perry is going to do!!!
Slightly off-topic, but people keep saying gravity is a theory, trying to compare the evolution/creation debate to gravity. It’s been a while since I was in school, but I was taught the LAW of Gravity. There are no instances that I know of where gravity does not perform in a predictable manner.
I have no problem with the THEORY of evolution and the THEORY of creation being taught side by side in the classroom (even tho I personally believe in Creation by a Divine Intelligent Creator and will teach my children about Him).
If you’re so big on choice, let the students make a fully informed CHOICE which THEORY they want to believe in.
A choice between scientific theory and religious dogma is a false choice. They cannot be taught “side by side” in the classroom because only one of them belongs in the classroom to begin with. They are not two sides of the same coin, or two different competing theories, any more than chemotherapy and new age holistic medicine are two equally valid treatments for cancer. But suppose that biblical creationism somehow was a plausible alternative to evolution (despite being subject to none of the rigorous, long-term empirical scrutiny that evolution has been, since it makes no falsifiable claims to explore), simply by virtue of the fact that it provides an explanation for the origins of life. Using that criteria, there are any number of other alternative explanations for same that draw from the teachings of other religions; would you have those taught alongside evolution and biblical “intelligent design” in schools, in order to let students make an informed choice about what to believe?
Simple solution: make elective abortion illegal. There. Problem solved. No one, hospital or otherwise, should be killing healthy babies in the wombs of healthy mothers. That’s a no-brainer. Of course, we need hospitals to treat women for ectopic pregnancy, or perform early c-section delivery in emergencies. But killing healthy babies on purpose? There should be a law against that.
Hospitals are for healing, not killing.
Jenny2, but you are saying that you would ” trade 1 life in hopes of saving another.” The only distinction you seem to be making is that it is acceptable to provide funding that will be used to kill a child if it can be “reasonably” surmised that the child would be killed anyway.
Hi Carla 8:41am
I’ve been impressed so far by what I have heard. He sounds like he actually has convictions. But in the meantime Carla, feast your eyes!
I have been impressed as well but I only have eyes for my husband. :)
Does the hospital I work for allow abortions on site–unfortunately, yes.
That’s something I’ve never understood. My mom used to work for an OB/GYN. Recently we were talking about abortion (the fact that I am VEHEMENTLY anti-abortion, as she is), and she told me that the doctor she used to work for performed abortions. I couldn’t believe it. I asked her why she continued to work there after she learned they did this, and told her that I would’ve left on the spot after learning of such a thing. She couldn’t explain it and said in retrospect it had been a mistake. I just don’t understand how a pro-life person can have any professional affiliation with those who kill gestating humans for a living.
Now, about the original topic: I bet a lot fewer hospitals would continue to commit abortions in any capacity if you started giving them a cash incentive not to do so. Romney is a poseur.
p.s.- I don’t trust anyone with plastic hair. See: John Edwards.
Ex GOP@
Good idea! I never knowingly go to any doctor or facility that does abortions and I check them out first.
Jenny2@ You don’t have to break it down for me.I know how hospitals are run. I just think that if we are going to be pro-life then we need to do it all the way. Why boycott Ford and The Gap and other groups that support abortion if we support it ourselves by funding the hospitals that do them? (or working at them)? I am 100% unapologetically pro-life 100% of the time. I will not pick and choose who deserves to get tax dollars to kill babies with based on my own personal needs, medical or not.
xalisae@ I agree! i would never work for a hospital or anyone else who did abortions. It’s the same as doing them in my opinion.
@michael–There is no funding going towards the killing of the child from other departments! That is what you and others do not seem to understand. I have tried to explain how separate hospital department fundings have NOTHING to do with other departments. Funding for oncology, cardiology, pediatric research… in hospitals do not go into the OB/GYN department finances. That is what you people don’t seem to understand. It is NOT the same as Planned Parenthood that works from one big budget where federal funds pay the same doctors/nurses who perform abortions.
What I am saying is you don’t take away funding from other departments which effect those doctors/nurses and their patients/families lives because you want to punish the hospital as a whole because out of maybe 50 major medical departments, 1 department has doctors on staff that perform abortions. By all means defund abortion, but defunding other specialties and entire hospitals in some warped ignorant effort to hold hostage federal funding till abortion is stopped is wrong. You hijack innocent people’s lives in order to save other innocent people’s lives. It is NOT the 67yro Grandmother with cardiac problems fault that abortion is performed at the same hospital that she must go to for medical care because no other hospital in a 100 mile radius offers the same treatment. And defunding her cardiac needs program, putting her life at risk, robbing her and her family in the hopes that if abortion is not performed at that hospital a girl will give up and not go elsewhere—is playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives and it is disgusting.
I HATE abortion. But people need to Fight the law, volunteer at crisis pregnancy center’s, pray and counsel young teens regarding sex and pregnancy and the lies they are fed. But do NOT punish MILLIONS of people who have nothing to do with the abortion issue. In seeking that type of extremist battle tactic, you will make people such as myself who have been core pro-lifers & health care providers who have donated thousands of hours to the cause, distance themselves from you publicly and denounce your tactics.
Deanna – yeah, I was totally kidding – my point is, using the reasoning laid out, you’d never be able to receive medical care because there’s always going to be some dirty connection.
Jenny2,
Sorry, I reject your premise. I do not accept that in order to have an Oncology department a hospital must also have a murder ward.
As far as funding goes, I’m pretty sure that it is not quite as distinct as you seem to think. Every one of my dollars that the Federal Government gives to your hospital’s Cardiac department is a dollar that they do not need to seek elsewhere. This frees up money that can be distributed to other departments – including the one that happily butchers babies.
Finally, you attempt at moral equivalence falls flat. There is no comparison between a hypothetical grandmother not receiving “proper” cardiac case and the deliberate, willful, barbaric and evil act of murder of the most innocent.
If they really really really REALLY wanna get the money for grandma back, they’ll stop dismembering grandbaby on the other side of the building. Simple as that.
@Michael–
1. “You’re pretty sure that funding is not as distinct as I have laid out”— Ok, please tell me what information you base your statement from. Are you a doctor, nurse or other health care provider? Do you work in hospital administration and see budgets? Have you seen published hospital reports that would back up your ignorant, uninformed opinion? No…you post on a blog your opinion with no facts to back them up. You are someone with an ideal but has done no research on the this part of the subject you are debating.
2. You say “Every one of my dollars that the Federal Government gives to your hospital’s Cardiac department is a dollar that they do not need to seek elsewhere” Again, it shows your ignorance on what research funding is. It is ADDED funding to each department to do programs over and above what it normally can provide to patients. Each department has its own budget normally coinciding with the amount of revenue it brings in from insurance claims. Because an oncology department has a grant or federal $ for research does NOT mean that they then have their other normal budget $ redistributed to where abortion goes. THIS does NOT happen. And you and everyone else who keeps debating this premise after being told such is either mentally incapable of understanding facts or your “zeal for the cause” has made you become heartless & stubborn.
3. You say “There is no comparison between a hypothetical grandmother not receiving “proper” cardiac case and the deliberate, willful, barbaric and evil act of murder of the most innocent.” First off the 69yro woman is actually not a hypothetical but one of my patients who is part of a research program that if it was taken away–it would most likely be signing her death certificate. Second, the murder of the “most innocent”… I fully agree that abortion is murder. But, I believe that ALL have sinned & fallen short of God’s glory. A baby in the womb is no more innocent than an elderly woman. Neither are “innocent”, but Both are human life, God’s creation, and deserve protection and respect of their life. YOU seem to be fine with putting this woman & millions of others on the line to stop the genocide that has NOTHING to do with the medical care they are seeking. And as far as my comparison between the 69yro woman, I KNOW with research/development programs such as the one she is a part of–I can keep her alive. The difference is, until Roe v Wade is overturned and abortion is not an option for women–I can’t guarantee that baby will still not be aborted somewhere else if the mother’s heart is not changed on the matter. So, then, I have lost TWO lives, the 69yro AND the baby. This is what you people don’t seem to grasp. You are willing to sacrifice others for the cause & it is disgusting and wrong. And most of you have no problem spouting off your “if they really want to get grandma’s funding back, they’ll stop dismembering babies”. Well, easy to say when you aren’t the grandma, it’s not your grandma, your wife/mother–or your patient that you have to watch die needlessly. You should ALL be ASHAMED to be so callous in talking of human life. This does NOT honor the prolife cause and it does NOT honor the God of all life.
Jenny2,
You have confused my comments with someone else’s, not that it is a big deal because I happen to largely agree with them. That being said, you are willing to allow the sacrifice a baby (note that I said “the most innocent”, not “innocent”) in order to increase the survival likeliehood of the grandmother. You said that without funding “it would most likely be signing her death certificate”. You do not seem to grasp that with funding the baby will definitely be killed. I understand that you cannot “guarantee” that the baby will not be killed elsewhere, but neither can you guarantee that the grandmother will not die any way, despite your best efforts. Why, in one case are you willing do do everything possible – including turning a blind eye to the sacrifice to Moloch – in order to increase an individual’s chances but in the other you are not.
Finally, before dismissing my speculation as “ignorant and uninformed” due to lack of experience, cite your own. You’ve made vague references that could easily be claimed by the janitor who sweeps the hall in a hospital’s cardiology department. There is nothing wrong with this, as it is a good and honorableprofession, but it does not bring any particular expertise in Hospital budgets. As you made some rather absolute statements regarding what can and cannot be done, you must be directly involved with creation and approval of budges. So, show me the numbers. I’ve no doubt that it is possible that funds are not taken from one department and given to another, but your assertion that Title X funds are “added” funds is not how it works anywhere else in the world. Show me the operating expense budget of the cardiology department with and without Title X funds.
Why, in one case are you willing do do everything possible – including turning a blind eye to the sacrifice to Moloch – in order to increase an individual’s chances but in the other you are not?
Because she gets paid for that instance, which makes it easier to ignore what’s going on in the other ward. She’s financially invested in saying “Oh well. Poor babies, but it’s gonna happen one way or another anyway.” I think a career change would resolve her perspective problem. Also, temporary removal of Title X funds until they stop killing their other patients.
Yeah, Hitler was a bad guy that did a lot of bad stuff, but he was a vegetarian who loved animals and did a lot for them in Germany at a time when it was acceptable to abuse animals routinely!
I am going to make this brief because I really feel that further time commenting is basically “casting pearl before swine”. I have lost MAJOR respect for Jill if this is her “core following”.
@Michael–RN/Cardiology x14yr, not janitor…With inside info from multiple friends who work in hospital administration budgeting and grant writers/receivers. And again, where were YOU basing your info?
@Xalisae–Please provide what YOUR prolife credentials are? I mean other than spouting your uninformed opinions on blogs. Do you volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers? Do you mentor/counsel teens regarding sex/abstinence? Do you volunteer at mom/baby programs for young women? Because your comment about my “financial vesting” being tied to abortion & comparison to Hitler is disgusting. ELEVEN YEARS I have volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center. I specialize in volunteering to junior high/high schools lecturing to teens on sex education with a focus on abstinence. I also train nursing students & health education students at 2 different colleges on current STI trends & the importance of reaching teens with the message of abstinence. I can “boast” speaking to more than 9,000 teens and know of many babies that were saved because of having the privilege of God using me. Last wkd alone I was the guest speaker at a conference where I donated the entire “speaker fee” to the crisis pregnancy center I’m involved with. But, I guess I do all those things because I say “Oh well, poor babies, but its gonna happen one way or another anyway” as you post.
I doubt the majority of you have even spent one day ministering to a pregnant abortion minded girl. You know the rest of us actually have to do the REAL work in saving babies & caring for these girls–its not just about holding a sign and shouting.
I doubt the majority of you have even spent one day ministering to a pregnant abortion minded girl. You know the rest of us actually have to do the REAL work in saving babies & caring for these girls–its not just about holding a sign and shouting.
Hi Jenny2 – I don’t know what’s going on in this thread with your comments to Michael and Xalisae, but thank you for your pro-life work.
As for your quote above, you would be mistaken. Most of Jill’s “core following” here have either been sidewalk counselors, CPC volunteers, CPC directors, post-abortion ministry counselors, and adoptive parents. Oh… and RNs and other medical personnel. So, you are in good company.
P.S. – If you are insinuating that sidewalk counselors merely “hold a sign” and “shout,” then that is also incorrect.
Jenny,
I applaud your efforts. Truth be told, you have done more “hands-on” work than I.
That is still entirely beside the point.
We are debating whether the hospital you work for should continue to receive federal (that is, your money and my money)grant money if it is unwilling or unable to stop performing abortions.
You say yes, citing the harm patients could experience since they would no longer receive the benefits of advanced research. Another reason you cite is that it would do no good since the baby would be killed anyway somewhere else. I’ll grant that you probably did not intend this to be as callous and mercenary as it sounds, but you did say it.
Now, I agree with the principle of double effect you seem to be using, but not with your application of it. In order to morally allow an evil (abortion) the good sought (increased funding for medical research) must outweigh the evil allowed, and the evil act must be unavoidable. Neither of those are present in this case.
You are suggesting (and I sincerely doubt if you think of it in these terms) that we must allow abortion to continue at your hospital because of the potential of lowering the incidence of heart disease through additional research.
I completely understand the stance of Jenny2, Michael, and Xalisae. I have a child with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome. I am staunchly pro-life for the unborn and the born. Since my child is still alive, it can be said that he has benefited tremendously by research. So with that said I hope that my words hold some water. Defunding a hospital of federal tax dollars is a double edge sword. Where the scale tips for me is that if a hospital provides abortions, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the hospital to not offer the “service” of abortion in order to continue to get funding? At the end of the day the hospital is a business and is trying to make the most money it can. While many of it’s employees are there to help and heal and do right by preserving life, why is it important to keep the abortion service when there is so much more money to lose from federal funding? Doesn’t common sense point to the obvious solution!?! And maybe the word “abortion” should be redefined and not used in terms of a D and C in the case a women miscarries or has a tubal pregnancy. There is a difference between a choice abortion and a women needing a D and C because of a natural loss.