Pro-life blog buzz 11-19-13
by Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- At Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal shares some thoughts on the abortion industry’s opposition to admitting privileges and certification for abortionists:
… [D]o we see the surgeons militating for lower standards of care, less accountability, no admitting privileges? These are the truly essential, not optional, lifesaving surgeries.And what of the cosmetic surgeons, whose procedures are elective? Do we see them militating for lower standards of accountability?
Why is it that the abortion lobby consistently militates for lower standards of care, of accountability?…
Wasn’t this supposed to be about taking abortions out of the hands of butchers and providing the highest standard of care for women?
- American Life League’s Judie Brown has an excellent piece exposing the “charity” of billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates, who attach their charitable giving to population control efforts throughout the world:
Astounding though this may sound, the truth is that, for the Gates Foundation, like so many others in the population control business, the theory that it is charitable to make sure that poor families do not have babies is a primary incentive. Not only that, but such attitudes extend to the concept that if a needy woman does experience a pregnancy, the baby should not live to be born….
If indeed Bill and Melinda Gates are driving the billionaire club’s bus, just exactly what is the agenda going to be in the future? A scenario that could involve population control as the world has never seen it before is not beyond imagination.
- Fletcher Armstrong shares a comment he posted recently, declaring that pro-lifers will stop comparing abortion to the Holocaust “if the abortion industry and their apologists would quit saying and doing things that remind us so much of the Nazi era….”
- Big Blue Wave compares Canadian abortion restrictions with those of China and North Korea.
- Josh Brahm shares a great quote from pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf:
Christian pro-life advocates aren’t “imposing” their views any more than abolitionist Christians were imposing theirs or the Reverend King was imposing his. Rather, they’re “proposing” them in hopes their fellow citizens will vote them into law. That’s how a constitutional republic like ours works. We’re not looking to establish a theocracy that we impose on non-Christians, only a more just society for the weakest members of the human family.
- At A Culture of Life, Frank J. Fischer discusses the AIDS/HIV epidemic and condom use:
… [I]n 2011 (the last year we have records for) the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV was higher than for any year during the 1990?s…. So why isn’t condom promotion stopping the epidemic in New Zealand and around the world?
- Speaking of HIV/AIDS, Down on the Pharm shares an interesting PBS graphic which compares the HIV rates of various locations in Africa to the rate in Washington, D.C., which has recently been touted as “the gayest place in America” (click to enlarge graphic):
[Gates photo via shaungroves.com]
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.
Hello Dr. Nadal,
On the NRL website they have an article concerning admitting privileges and credentialing for surgeons, physicians, and practitioners of various levels.
The site listed at least a dozen plus professional organizations representing surgeons, OB/GYNS, plastic surgeons, podiatrists, radiologists, eye surgeons, and dermatologists to name a view.
They were unanimous in their support that:
1. All physicians, surgeons, and practitioners practicing in outpatient surgery settings must be board certified.
2. They must all have admitting privileges, or have a pre-arrangement with a physician who has admitting privileges. It is not acceptable to just dump your patients on the ER doctor and the physician on call.
So where are the cries that this is unconstitutional? About the hardship it poses on patients? The great distances some patients must travel to get care.
Also, this excuse that the abortionists can’t get privileges is hogwash. I have seen abortionists get privileges in Catholic hospitals, though of course they couldn’t do abortions.
They were board certified, practiced OB/GYN, admitted these pts. to the hospital, and cared for their own abortion complications.
Credentialing and admitting privileges must be applied for and maintained and criteria must be met, privileges are not just handed out. If abortionists aren’t getting privileges or don’t want them, its most likely because they would not meet the requirements or don’t want to bother with them.
Such a shame about Bill and Melinda Gates. As the unofficial population control mantra goes, “Just enough of me, way too much of you.”
Big money and liberal/libertine politics often go together in our culture of death as the piece on Bill and Melinda Gates illustrates. It is also significant, according to the Down on the Pharm post, that Washington, D.C should now be a capital of the homosexual movement as well as our national capital. They are an important constituency of the culture of death and they are very aggressive in their political and cultural activism.
So does this mean that Dr. Nadal agrees with the American College of Surgeons that procedures done under local anesthesia or minimal sedation do not need to be regulated as office-based surgery?
LisaC
I know cosmetic surgeons who do eyelid surgery and mini facelifts in their offices. Patients take oral sedation and are monitored carefully. There is emergency equipment in their offices.
These surgeons are board certified and have admitting privileges. Should there be any complications they can admit the patient. If another doctor is needed, they can give the vital information needed. They are responsible for their patients. They don’t dump their patients on the ER doctor or the physician on call. They don’t perform procedures then skip town or send the patient home with no follow up or physician back up.
I think that is Dr. Nadal’s point.
The Supreme Court has refused to stop Texas from implementing its law concerning hospital privileges.
“We may not vacate a stay entered by a court of appeals unless that court clearly and ‘demonstrably’ erred in its application of ‘accepted standards,'” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in support of Tuesday’s order.
“Reasonable minds can perhaps disagree about whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a stay in this case. But there is no doubt that the applicants have not carried their heavy burden of showing that doing so was a clear violation of accepted legal standards — which do not include a special ‘status quo’ standard for laws affecting abortion,” he wrote.
I wholeheartedly agree.
LisaC,
Mary’s comments adequately answer your questions. My point in the article is to question why, how, where did abortion proponents abandon the mantra of “safe and legal?” Where did safety go?
Why oppose admitting privileges?
Why oppose requiring abortionists to be board certified Ob/Gyn’s in good standing?
Why push for nurses, PA’s, midwives to do first trimester abortions?
Why not RAISE the standard of care for women?
If you want to know what Dr. Nadal is saying, there it is. Now, are there any pro-choice advocates willling to answer these questions and the rest I raise in my article, or will you all duck until this one moves off the front page?
Now, are there any pro-choice advocates willling to answer these questions and the rest I raise in my article, or will you all duck until this one moves off the front page?
I’ve never heard of any pro-choice organization saying that the guidelines established by the ACS should not be followed. Abortion procedures that require moderate sedation or beyond should be regulated in the same manner as any other procedure requiring moderate sedation or beyond. And I think that most pro-lifers who are quoting the ACS “Patient Safety Principles for Office-based Surgery Utilizing Moderate Sedation/Analgesia, Deep Sedation/Analgesia, or General Anesthesia” are too dumb to understand that these principles by definition do not support their case, because most abortion procedures are done with the local anesthesia and/or minimal sedation that the ACS excludes from the definition of office-based surgery. I’m pretty sure that you are not that dumb, but I guess you deserve credit for knowing your audience.