The pro-abortionists at Sanford Health in Sioux Falls must be desperate to keep unrestrained abortion legal in South Dakota.
As the local Black Hills Fox News station reports, a "leaked" internal memo from Sanford Health says the health giant has, um, concerns about the implications of Initiated Measure 11.
Initiated Measure 11, incidentally, is a pro-life measure that would end 98.1% of abortions done in South Dakota. The only abortions allowed would be the ones 75% of South Dakotans said in a 2006 poll that they wanted in an abortion ban: rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.
According to the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health, only 1.9% of abortions performed in South Dakota fall within these exceptions.
So just when you think you've heard it all--even from abortion advocates--Sanford Health comes along and surprises you. The memo makes the preposterous claim that the requirement of the rape exception that the crime of rape be reported to law enforcement authorities so the perpetrator can be pursued may be "detrimental to the woman's emotional well-being and therefore interfere with the physician-patient relationship."
Since when has reporting a crime ever been "detrimental" to anyone's emotional well-being? In most crimes (I'm a former cop), reporting the crime is the beginning of restoration for the victim. It is the first step in restoring their control over whatever the criminal took from them. It is also essential in obtaining justice for the victim. It is also essential to take a dangerous rapist off the street and prevent rapes of other women.
Sanford also makes a streeeeeeeeeetch with regard to the health exception, claiming the health "exception imposes a standard that is not clearly defined." It is remarkable that supposedly educated professionals experience bafflement and confusion by a passage as clear as Section 4 of Initiated Measure 11 is:
No person may be prosecuted under section 2 of this Act if a licensed physician has made a judgment that an abortion is necessary because there is a serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system of the pregnant woman should the pregnancy be continued and which risk could be prevented through an abortion, unless in reaching that judgment the physician knowingly disregards accepted standards of medical practice.
That is only "unclearly defined" when someone wants to find excuses.
And as Voices Carry recently pointed out, those "excuses" may be what Sanford needs to help protect their relationship with Planned Parenthood, and also Sanford's interest in pursuing embryonic stem cell research, which is itself a form of abortion.
I have to wonder, too, about the local Fox coverage of this. Here in Rapid City, over 300 miles away from Sanford Health in Sioux Falls, you don't hear a lot about Sanford out here--even when Denny Sanford made his huge donation to the Sioux Falls area hospital. Given that it's on the other side of the state, most folks out here who don't have an ideological dog in the fight have little reason to talk about what goes on at Sanford.
So it strikes me as a little odd that the local TV station would run this story about this memo from Sanford. Could it be that the local Fox TV news has an ideological dog in this fight? It would be far from unheard of for an "objective" news outlet to take sides.
It used to be that you could count on professionals to put facts, logic and reason objectively ahead of personal interest. Sadly, that day is long past us.
11 comments:
98.1% of abortions would end, huh? So, in countries where abortion is illegal, that must mean that there are no abortions, right?
Wrong. Making abortion illegal does not stop abortions. If Measure 11 passes this November, it will force women who are privileged enough to afford to travel to simply go to a neighboring state that repects a woman's right to choose, which will probably end up forcing her to have am abortion much later than if she were able to receive one in her home state, thus posing a much greater risk to her health. And for those women who are financially unable to travel? Well, either she will be forced to have her child (which the citizens of the state will have to pay for in many cases, since many women terminate their pregnancies because they cannot afford another child), or she will be forced to do something less than safe in her desperation.
Banning abortion does not "end" abortion. It forces women to make alternate decisions, ones that many times are far, far worse than having access to a safe, legal abortion. To assume that women will not do this is a travesty to the health of the women of South Dakota. If you want to cut down the number of abortions, work on prevention! Work on teaching appropriate sex education to your youth! Do not work on shutting down your Plannned Parenthood clinics, where 96% of their services are PREVENTATIVE, preventing abortions!
"If you want to cut down the number of abortions, work on prevention! Work on teaching appropriate sex education to your youth! Do not work on shutting down your Planned Parenthood clinics, where 96% of their services are PREVENTATIVE, preventing abortions!"
This is a very misleading statement and I suspect Roxy knows it. There has not been a shred of credible evidence that sex education reduces the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Quite the contrary, the rate of sexual promiscuity, STDs and pregnancy among our youth has risen exponentially since the introduction of sex ed in public education and especially since Roe v Wade.
Planned Parenthood's income from abortion services accounts for up to 50% of their budget--pretty good for a service accounting for only 2.7% of all their activities.
The truth is PP method of accounting counts every pregnancy test, urinalysis, and packet of pills, pelvic exam, and test for STD, breast exam, etc. as a separate service. So a woman requesting birth control pills may receive a dozen or more discrete "preventative services" while a woman seeking abortion counts for only one service.
Abortion is the business of Planned Parenthood, the other services seem to be loss leaders that help get the real cash customers through the door.
Ending ready, on-demand abortions will not stop all abortion just as outlawing murder doesn't stop all murders, but our society is happier, healthier and safer acknowledging that murder is wrong and enacting laws that dissuade most of us from acting on passions that might otherwise lead to killing another.
roxy5940, 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota will end.
What other states do is up to them. But if we succeed, many states will follow suit.
Banning abortion reduces abortion in the same way banning theft reduces theft; some people will defiantly break the law and do so anyway, but there will be much fewer instances without legal sanction for the practice.
Sex ed has gotten us high teen pregnancy rates. I do agree with you about preventative measures, though. We should provide moral training to our children (which we haven't done much of for decades) to teach them that sex outside of marriage is wrong. And banning abortion is, of course, another great way to prevent abortions.
It's time we ended abortion as a form of birth control, which is what it is. The 84.6% of abortions done in South Dakota for the reason "the mother did not desire to have the child" illustrates that.
Death for convenience is a travesty.
Dr. Theo, you need to check up on your facts. Not a shred of evidence? Wha?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319151225.htm
And you should make yourself familiar with the Guttmacher Institute, who researches topics such as this. Look at any of the articles listed on this site
http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/adolescents.php
All of the research shows that abstinence only education increases teen pregnancy and STD rates, and that comprehensive, age appropriate sex education decreases it. You forget that comp sex ed advocates abstinence as well, but it also is a logical approach to the idea that not all young people decide to abstain, therefore knowledge on how to practice safe sex is extremely beneficial. And your posture, Mr. Ellis, that sex outside of marriage is bad is,I'm sorry to say, outdated and illogical. People are getting married later and later in life; marriage directly out of high school is a thing of the past. People do not wait for their wedding nights to discover sex because it is impractical and unnecessary. Some do, of course, but most do not. See http://www.publichealthreports.org/userfiles/122_1/12_PHR122-1_73-78.pdf
which states that the majority of Americans have sex before marriage.
C'mon guys. Years of failed abstinence only education has gotten us here. People have sex. Kids have sex. Telling them no no no no no bad bad bad bad does not work, as virtually ALL reliable studies have shown. You have to get past this. You have to stop looking at your 16, 17, 18 year old children as babies and incapable of having mature feelings and urges. You must stop it. It is difficult, but it is imperative to their health.
Let me say it again. Of Planned Parenthood services, 96% constitute prevention. PREVENTION. They work harder, every day, at decreasing the number of abortions in this country than either of you do in your whole lives. They provide birth control to low income women, along with PAPs and STI/STD screenings. If you were to look outside of pro-life websites to the facts of Planned Parenthood [i.e. please see http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf]
you would see that abortion services did indeed constitute 3% of services in 2006, with contraception being 38% of services, STD/STI testing and treatment being 29%, cancer screening and prevention 19%, and other services such as pregnancy tests, prenatal care, etc the other 10%. Facts. These are the facts.
And Measure 11 will effectively close the doors to the only PP clinic in Sioux Falls. So, gentlemen, thank you for increasing unplanned pregnancies in South Dakota by advocating for passing Measure 11.
Oh, and....the language of Measure 11 IS vague, and would most likely be challenged as unconstitutional if it passed anyway as being 'void for vagueness.' Do you know of any doctor who would risk such a felony charge under this definition? Probably not. So go ahead, put women's lives at stake by passing this measure. Not to mention the fact that if a woman is pregnant with more than one baby, and cannot carry more than one or she will lose all of them will have no recourse and will lose all her babies. Way to choose life, guys!
A couple of quick points to your 1:53 comment, roxy5930. That article says "might." And it's also, shall we say, an "interesting" coincidence that since we began valueless sex ed, teen pregnancy and STDs have all risen phenomenally. Just a coincidence, though, I'm sure.
You might not be aware, but the Guttmatcher Institute is the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood--the chief purveyor of sexual license and abortion in the country. They are hardly a credible, let alone legitimate, source of reliable information.
My "posture" that sex outside of marriage is immoral is "outdated and illogical," is it? If the "posture" that sex outside of marriage is immoral is "outdated and illogical," then perhaps the "posture" that adult sex with five year olds is also ""outdated and illogical." Maybe should re-evaluate that one in the light of our "modern sensibilities;" I'm sure the folks at NAMBLA would welcome your open mindedness. Perhaps the "posture" that theft is immoral might also be "outdated and illogical;" if so, what is your address--I wouldn't mind checking out your residence to see if your TV is better than mine, or maybe the car in your driveway.
In case it escaped you, right and wrong don't change with poll numbers and public opinion. They are transcendent and unchanging.
I would be tempted to say "You can't possible believe that the people of South Dakota will be bereft and utterly helpless if Planned Parenthood's doors in Sioux Falls close"...but then, I've interacted with enough sexual anarchists and pro-abortionists to realize that you just might be that deluded.
The best way to reduce unplanned pregnancies is to instill moral training in our young people, expect responsibility of them, and require it of them whether they take our advice or not. That includes encouraging them to marry as soon as possible if they produce a child out of wedlock (Why would any self-respecting woman spread her legs for a man who's too worthless to marry in the first place? And why would any self-respecting man park his penis in a woman who is too worthless to marry in the first place?).
That would also include not allowing them to escape responsibility at the expense of an innocent child who would simply like to continue enjoying the right to simply live.
Your excuses to continue the killing are almost as pathetic as those of Sanford Health.
To your 2:15 comment, Roxy5940, I know many doctors who will continue doing exactly what they're doing now under IM 11--because they don't perform elective abortions.
In fact, many of those doctors have spoken publicly at press conferences in Sioux Falls and Rapid City, and on a new commercial.
They would do that because it isn't vague at all. I put the language in this post to show just that.
You know, it's funny how the pro-abortionists talk out of both sides of their mouths. A few weeks ago, they were bellyaching that it was too complicated to understand. Now the tune is "too vague." How can something vague be complicated?
Because it isn't. It's only complicated when you're trying to figure a way to skirt a law that was designed not to be skirted around to continue abortion as birth control. And it's only vague when you want to play dumb and scare people.
Another thing about this campaign is that you have pro-abortionists who are desperate to continue killing over 700 babies a year...crying and whining about the safety of twins with a rare fetal anomaly that affects 0.97 out of every 1,000 pregnancies...and has several treatment methods that don't involve killing one of the twins...and isn't even available in South Dakota anyway.
Pro-abortion folks must thing South Dakotans are morons. At least, they hope so.
"Valueless" sex ed? Teaching high school students to abstain, but if they don't then teaching them how to properly use a condom, keep from getting pregnant and STD's is valueless? Or is it valueless because you think that any sex outside of marriage is valueless? So 90% of Americans are valueless because they had sex before marriage? It isn't realistic. That's the end of it. You have to teach high schoolers how to keep from getting pregnant and STI's. Or they get pregnant and get STI's! Plain and simple, and ignorance doesn't cure teen pregnancy.
Ah, and I am not a "pro-abortionist." I use a more realistic approach- it's called common sense. Common sense tells me (I guess it doesn't speak to everyone) that to decrease abortions (which is my goal, apparently not yours) you must FIRST help people not have unwanted pregnancies! See, you can't throw water on a grease fire. YOu want to take the "easy" road, just banning abortions will not make the problem go away. Proper education and not shutting down facilities where women can get health information and birth control is the way to do this.
South Dakotans are smarter than this ploy to control women. South Dakotan women do not want idealogues making decisions about their bodies.
Oh, and your argument about having sex with 5 year olds...are you kidding? Your "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous and insulting. Equating consenting adults who partake in a natural act outside of marriage to child molestation? You are the one who says that South Dakotans are smarter than this....yet you think people will buy this argument? The sky is NOT falling, chicken little, and sex outside of marriage is NOT dirty. I am a 26 year old lawyer who is not married; how realistic is it that I do not have sex? Or that I am immoral for doing so?
And I can attribute my success to the fact that I received comprehensive sex education and Planned Parenthood was open for me to get free birth control while I was a poor law student. These arguments that you make oppress women; telling them to stop 'spreading their legs' and if they do they better get married is so insulting I can hardly stand it. Your plan would have me with 3 children on welfare and instead I was able to travel to 8 different countries and educate myself for 7 years after high school (and all the while able to have sex with my partner of 5 years *GASP*!). With no thanks to you or your idealistic propaganda. Give the rest of the women of your state the same opportunities I had.
roxy5940, to answer your first question, "valueless" because teaching young people about sex without instilling any moral values regarding sex is "valueless."
That 90% figure is a crock, by the way. I don't believe it now, and I certainly don't believe it back in the 1950s when it is also alleged to have been the case. The unwed birth rate was much less in the 1950s, prior to the advent of the highly reliable oral contraceptive. It defies logic and reason for the unwed birth rate to have been lower when there birth control was far less reliable, if 90% of people were having sex outside of marriage back then. I'm sure it's higher now than it was then (after all, we've had 40 years of valuless sex ed), but I still don't buy the 90% rate.
This is simply another attempt at historical revision on the part of Godless Leftists in order to justify immorality. They think that if they can erase the history of a time when people were more moral and better behaved, that this somehow justifies their current insistence on immoral behavior. They may fool themselves with this childish logic, but God isnt' fooled.
I also don't buy your "I'm not a 'pro-abortionist' garbage, either. If you're for maintaining access to the procedure, you're for the procedure. I used to be pro-abortion (until I took the time to actaully look into the facts of the matter and quit relying on the shallow informormation NBC, CNN and the New York Times were giving me), but at least I had the intellectual honesty to admit that I was pro-abortion. Why don't you have that intellectual honest? Could it be that you already know--even better than I did back then--that abortion really is bad and wrong, so you attempt to escape moral culpability by saying you're really not for it...while you vehemently defend it?
If this was really about controlling women and denying them rights (as I once allowed myself to be misled into believing), I'd be with you. But it isn't. The right of an innocent human being to LIVE always trumps all other rights. When a woman aborts her child, she smashes that child's right to live--which is the first and foremost of all rights; if you don't have the right to live, no other right has any importance.
Contrary to pro-abortion propaganda, the unborn child is NOT a part of the mother's body that she may do with as she wishes. If the child were a part of her body, her body would not need the mechanism which kicks in during pregnancy to prevent her body from attacking the child as a foreign body. Why would her body normally do that? Because the child has, from the moment of conception, unique human DNA. That DNA is human (not pig, not cat, not tree--human), and it is unique from the father or mother or any other human being in the world. Organ transplant recipients must take drugs to prevent their body from rejecting the transplanted organ for the rest of their lives because their body recognizes the transplanted organ isn't a natural part of their body and would reject it otherwise. Likewise, the immune response which a special biological mechanism in the pregnant woman overrides is further proof that the child is NOT a part of her body that she may do with as she wishes, but is instead a separate and unique human being. That unborn child also has all the genetic information it will ever need or the rest of it's life--at the moment of conception. The only thing it lacks in the womb is development; surely you wouldn't argue that a 4 year old girl could be killed because she was less developed than a grown woman and was therefore less valuable and lesser in iherent human dignity.
You don't like my "slippery slope" argument (actually it isn't a "slippery slope" argument at all, but a moral equivalency argument) because it hits too close to truth and you know it. If the 5-year old child consents, would that make sex with a child okay? My statement illustrates that morality does not change based on opion or the passage of time. Killing children in the womb will always will be wrong, just as sex ouside the sanctity of marriage will always be wrong, as theft and pedophilia and every other immoral act will always remain immoral. They aren't up for debate; they are part of the natural law.
I'm sorry you don't like the truth that spreading your legs for a man too worthless to marry, or parking your penis in a woman too worthless to marry, is stupid. It's stupid morally, and it's stupid practically. If you get pregnant or get someone pregnant because of this stupidity, you have two choices: marry someone worthless for the benefit of the child you created, or kill that child. Neither is an attractive option, obviously, but once you've made the decision to do something stupid, you should be a grownup and deal with the consequences instead of killing another human being. Their right to live should always come before your right to escape the consequences of your own stupidity.
If responsiblity is "oppression," then obviously you have a long way to go before you grow up. If you follow your argument to your logical conclusion, you must blame God for oppressing you for creating you a woman--which, incidentally, is why a lof of feminists DO hate God; they've made this fundamentally flawed but otherwise inescapable conclusion.
A better plan than the one you proposed would be to wait until you had done your traveling and obtained your education before finding a man worth marrying, and then have sex with him. Even oral contraceptives fail sometimes--even with proper use--so even married couples using oral contraceptives sometimes get surprised (my wife and I did).
Any other plan puts you at risk of making that lousy choice I mentioned above. And no person should have the murder of their own child on their conscience.
That is what we hope to prevent as much as possible in South Dakota: that lousy choice, and most of all, more killing.
"Pro-abortion folks must thing South Dakotans are morons."
That pretty much says it all.
I challenge you to type between 5,000 and 10,000 words a day and not make a few mistakes.
But then, cheap shots are all you have when trying to defend the morally reprehensible.
Post a Comment