The house votes to stop funding for Planned Parenthood

I recognize not all atheists are ‘pro-choice’, and many atheists are conservative. However, while there are very valid secular arguments, the primary voice of the ‘pro-life’ movement is religion. The house of representatives recently voted to stop funding for Planned Parenthood. Of course, their argument will be that “they respect the law, they just don’t want their taxpayer dollars used for something they don’t believe in.” Independent of the abortion debate, this ultimately could lead to a lack of life-saving services. This also prohibits low income families from getting, besides life-saving services, abortions. In effect, the group that would be in most dire need would be denied.

Democrats argued Planned Parenthood provided important access to contraception, medical exams and counseling, while Republicans argued the organization is too insistent about performing abortions.

… Continue reading…

Captivating article on pregnancy, abortion and Christian medicine

For that woman at the Christian adoption center, it was more important to deny medical access that might conflict with her religious views than to help a scared teenager with no support system find the services she needed. That was the Christian thing to do.

Read more

Arizona hospital loses catholic status over surgery

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life. Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center — recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices — violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops. “In the decision to abort, the equal dignity of mother and her baby were not both upheld,” Olmsted said at a news conference announcing the decision. “The mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease, St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be directly killed.

In a statement, St. Joseph’s President Linda Hunt said the hospital will comply with Olmsted’s decision, but she defended its actions. “If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case,” Hunt said. “Morally, ethically, and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save.” The woman is in her 20s had a history of abnormally high blood pressure when she learned of her pregnancy. After she was admitted to the hospital with worsening symptoms, doctors determined her risk of death was nearly 100%. The hospital’s ethics team concluded the pregnancy could be ended under the church’s ethical directives because “the goal was not to end the pregnancy but save the mother’s life,” the hospital said.

Source: USA Today

Abortion clinic protesting

There is still big tension in this country over the issue of abortion, and many politicians use the issue to polarize voters. There is not so much, however, a debate on the issue; most people seem pretty set in their ways about this issue. Let me turn, instead, to another issue of appropriateness when disagreeing. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, protests funerals of soldiers holding signs saying ‘God Hates Fags’, and I would submit that this is an inappropriate means of disagreement. Likewise, many religious people hold signs in front of ‘abortion clinics’ to disagree with abortion. Except, the thing is, it would be incorrect to even call the places these people protest against ‘abortion clinics’. Below is a graph from the Planned Parenthood 2008 report depicting the total services they offer to people who come to them:

Secondly, I would direct you to a cell phone video and article that have been generating some buzz lately. Alternet.org posted this article of a husband who confronted protesters, holding a Jesus sign of course, about how they treated his wife who was getting an abortion for a baby that was guaranteed to die at birth. You can see one of his cell phone videos here:

Even if you disagree with a woman’s right to choose, or you are ‘pro-life’, this method of disagreement needs to stop. This does nothing but harass people who are looking after their own health and getting help. These protesters yell at anyone — the woman who is about to abort a still-born baby, the man who was just cheated on by his wife who is checking for an STD, and the woman who found a lump in her breast. These protesters might seem like an easy target to point a finger at and condemn, but society does not do enough to shun such behavior. Religious organizations, in their typical dogmatic way, prefer black and white and fail to see the real picture. This reminds me of a previous story we covered where a nun at a hospital authorized an abortion to save the life of a mother and the church still excommunicated her (Nun demoted for participating in a life saving abortion, Responses to excommunicated nun story). One can only hope that there is a greater movement towards reason and sanity in this country — if only I were more optimistic about Jon Stewart’s upcoming rally.

Nun demoted for participating in a life saving abortion

A nun at St. Joseph’s hospital in Arizona was demoted for helping save the life of a mother who received an abortion. The mother, 11 weeks pregnant, had a rare problem that causes severe complications with birth and is often fatal to the mother. One health care group is cited as saying that “the pregnancy … carried a nearly certain risk of death for the mother.” Supervising members of the Church and the Archdiocese have a zero tolerance, no exceptions, policy on performing abortions. Perhaps in their minds if the mother died during pregnancy it was God’s will. The full article can be found here.

Archdiocese sues city for mandating explicit notices in pregnancy centers

The Archdiocese of Baltimore is pursuing a lawsuit against the city of Baltimore because their pregnancy centers are now required to display signs indicating that they do not recommend abortion or birth control. The Baltimore Sun recently reported that lawyers for the archdiocese have filed a suit over what they consider is discriminatory targeting of four pregnancy centers that provide beneficial services to citizens. The Archdiocese argues that the ordinance infringes on their rights to freedom of speech and religion.

The bill that mandated these signs passed last November in the City Council. If a center fails to post a notice it may be fined up to $150 per day. The City Council believes the explicit posts are necessary on the issue of public health.

City Solicitor George Nilson commented after the passage that he knew a lawsuit was coming, but was certain that the law would not be struck down because of the type of speech it covers.

“…while you can’t make people engage in speech that expresses a point of view,” he said, “that’s not what the bill does. It’s just like a bill that requires hours of operations.”

Mark Graber, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, compared the law to those mandating health warnings on cigarette packs. Advertisements, he says, fall under different laws than political speech.

Planned Parenthood of Maryland expressed concern over the lawsuit because they feel the signs allow women to better know the truth and understand that they are not being informed of all of the choices legally available to them.