1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

as i'll probably be dead by then, i could care less department...

Discussion in 'The OT' started by jrjcd, Jul 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 27, 2002 #61 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    ...but the situation is much worse today,
    thanks largely to the use of ultrasound
    for sex selection abortions, along with
    coercive population control policies which
    usually allow only one child per couple to
    live!
     
  2. Aug 27, 2002 #62 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] Florida Adoption Law Drives Women to Have Abortions
    Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:39:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Sent from the Internet (Details)
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: Florida Adoption Law Drives Women to Have Abortions
    Source: National Post; August 26, 2002

    Florida Adoption Law Drives Women to Have Abortions

    Tallahassee, FL -- Many Florida women are choosing to have abortions rather than submit to a law forcing them to publish details of their sex lives before they can offer a child for adoption, according to lawyers fighting the law.

    The 106-page adoption legislation was passed with little fanfare last October but is now fuelling a growing controversy. Yesterday, it was brought to an appeals court after a lower court ruled that its provisions do not apply in cases of forcible rape, but do in other cases.

    The law applies to women who offer a child for adoption when the father is not identified. It requires that they publish details of every sexual encounter that could have caused the pregnancy, along with names -- if possible -- and descriptions of the men, in the local newspaper where the incident took place, so any men who may be the father and want to contest the adoption can come forward.

    Charlotte Danciu, a lawyer representing six women challenging the law, calls it "horrific."

    She has refused to place any ads in local papers and says as many as 15 of her clients have decided to have abortions rather than face public humiliation.

    Jeanne Tate, another adoption lawyer, has placed more than 50 such ads around the state.

    She also says some of her clients are choosing abortion, which requires no consent, over the new and intrusive adoption process.

    Several adoption agencies in Florida have noticed a dramatic drop-off in the number of babies being put up for adoption. Before the law, there were between 5,000 and 7,000 adoptions a year in Florida.

    Further complicating the situation, many newspapers are refusing to run the ads, which appear in small print far in the back, creating a "legal impossibility" for those women who decide to go through with adoption despite the indignity, Ms. Danciu said.

    The law's backers say it was intended to ensure that fathers are not excluded from the adoption process, noting several high-profile cases where a father showed up years later and wanted to have an adoption reversed.

    "Allowing mothers to put their children up for adoption without notifying the father is just another attempt to take the father out of the picture," said David Wilson, founder of Fathers Awareness of Rights and Custody Equality in Cocoa Beach, Fla.

    The law arose from the case of baby Emily, who was the subject of a notorious three-year legal battle after her father, a convicted rapist, tried to contest her adoption long after the event. The court eventually ruled against him.

    But the bill was plagued with so many problems that Jeb Bush, Florida's pro-life Governor, let it become law without his signature, only refraining from a veto because he was promised it would be quickly amended -- something that has not yet happened.

    Even the legislators who sponsored the law are rapidly backing away from it.

    State Senator Walter "Skip" Campbell, a powerful Democrat, refuses to do any more interviews on the subject and in a letter to the Senate's president last week, conceded the law "contains some significant unintended consequences."

    He blamed his staff for doing a bad job of drafting the law's language.

    The issue has had the unprecedented effect of uniting pro- and anti-abortion groups.

    Reverend Jerry Falwell called it a "bad law," which will "encourage abortion rather than adoption." The pro-abortion National Organization for Women is also onside. The Catholic Church, which supported the bill, is also rethinking its position.

    Some men's groups are also having second thoughts, no more thrilled than women at having their sex lives appear in print.

    Danciu thinks there is a good chance the appeals court will find the law violates constitutional privacy protections, and even if it does not, the Florida legislature will likely take up the issue when it meets next on March 4.

    In Canada, fathers have to be consulted before a child can be placed for adoption, but the onus is on the father to prove paternity in a reasonable amount of time, said Judy Grove, executive director of the Adoption Council of Canada.

    "Nothing here is the equivalent of the Florida law," she said.
    --
    Pregnancy Centers Online
    http://www.pregnancycenters.org
     
  3. Sep 9, 2002 #63 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: Friday Fax/Earth Summit Declared a Pro-Life Victory
    Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:44:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
    From: "Austin Ruse -- C-FAM"<c-fam@c-fam.org>
    To: email@domain
    Reply-To: austinruse@c-fam.org
    Sent from the Internet (Details)

    Dear Colleague,

    Radical feminists are crowing all over the world that they "won" the outcome of the Earth Summit just concluded in South Africa. In fact, they lost and lost badly. Population control was not mentioned in the document. Moreover, "reproductive health" is tied tightly to religious and cultural values. One diplomat said the radical feminist claims of victory are either a sign of a moderated position, which is highly unlikely, or greatly reduced expectations at the international level, which --- because of the Bush Administration --- is spot on.

    Spread the word.

    Yours sincerely,

    Austin Ruse
    President

    Action Item: Write to President Bush and thank him for another strong showing at the UN. Write from every country: president@whitehouse.gov
    __________________________________________________________________________
    FRIDAY FAX

    September 6, 2002
    Volume 5, Number 37

    Sustainable Development Summit declared a pro-life victory

    As the World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa drew to a close this week, pro-life/pro-family delegates were satisfied with the outcome document, and some even expressed guarded optimism that their opponents may now be lowering their own expectations for such UN meetings, or even moderating their positions.

    For instance, population control was left off of the agenda, a point noted by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest abortion provider. According to IPPF, this was because a new consensus is beginning to emerge that population growth is not the root cause of development problems. "A virtual silence on rapid world population growth at the Earth Summit reflects a change in the way governments and society view the question of how to tackle poverty and protect the planet, delegates said. Rising world population was at the centre of talks at the last such UN summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago but was scarcely mentioned in Johannesburg". Silence on population was a recognition that more people do not always mean more poverty," IPPF said in a press release.

    The WSSD document does not mention abortion, nor does it possess language that can be used to advance an abortion-rights agenda, one delegate told the Friday Fax. The phrase "reproductive and sexual health," which pro-life observers have long suspected of including abortion, was here included within a paragraph on basic health care and the prevention of diseases, thereby making it nearly impossible for the phrase to refer to abortion.

    It was also agreed that healthcare would be promoted "consistent with national laws and cultural and religious values," which provides individual nations substantial protection from any international pressure to liberalize abortion laws.

    There has been considerable confusion regarding the outcome document. According to a Los Angeles Times article, "delegates from Canada and Europe succeeded to reopen the document and add a few words that they said were needed to guarantee women's rights to contraception, safe abortion and other reproductive services." However, Friday Fax sources are unanimous in claiming that the document guarantees no such "rights."

    June Zeitlin, executive director of the radical feminist Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) told the Los Angeles Times "We won. We won. Never underestimate the women of the world." But a delegate who worked very closely on compromise language with the WEDO argues that this declaration of victory reflects a new moderation of WEDO's goals rather than the successful establishment of a right to abortion. "Perhaps some miracle has occurred, if they think that this balanced, careful language is a victory, for it is certainly a victory for the world's poor. Maybe we are now all on the same page," said the pro-family delegate.

    Only the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) seemed unwilling to accept this new understanding, especially on population control. One UNFPA official said "We cannot reduce poverty and protect natural resources without addressing population issues." Another UNFPA official criticized the fact that "There is always some timidity within the UN on population issues."

    Copyright - C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute).
    Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

    Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute
    866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
    New York, New York 10017
    Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
    E-mail: c-fam@c-fam.org Website: www.c-fam.org
    ---
    You are currently subscribed to fridayfax as: email@domain
    To unsubscribe send a blank email to
     
  4. Sep 10, 2002 #64 of 104
    Kevin G

    Kevin G AllStar

    62
    0
    Jul 3, 2002
    Sorry to backtrack, but a lot of posts were written before I got here.

    First, the initial premise is controversial. I've heard about studies that counterdict the overpopulation theories.

    Second, why is it that Americans are always targeted for these reports? We don't have near the population that other countries do, but yet we're always the problem? It's because we use up resources, right? We use up other countries oil - oops, we have laws that won't let us tap into our resources! Nuclear - darn, environmentalists have prevented us from going that route. The point is, that we can support the population, but we're restricted from doing so.

    I'm all for renewalable resources, but make 'em affordable first. We shouldn't feel bad because we can afford gasoline for less than $2.25/gallon. We do the hard work necessary to make gas at that price. That's what makes the US special - freedom and rewarding hard work and ingenuity.

    Want to reduce worldwide population, introduce prosperity. The population of the US is actually going down - not counting immigration. Why? Because people want refrigerators, nice lawns, and vacations. Give people liberty and reward their hard work and they'll find other things to fill their time than just rolling in the sack.
     
  5. Sep 10, 2002 #65 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    To paraphrase the Bard, "Methinks US doth protest too much!"

    These are the passages from the piece that directly or indirectly implicate the US.
    "The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

    Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

    America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

    The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year."

    Do you dispute these figures? Your rationale seems to be that since we(US) developed the resources in question and can afford to burn them up at our leisure, we have the absolute right to continue. Screw the rest of the world!

    How about "rewarding hard work and ingenuity" in the areas of resourse CONSERVATION rather then exploitation? The only ingenuity left in the oil industry is how to squeeze the last few drops out of each well and ingeniously convincing us it's necessary to drill in pristine wildlife refuges for paltry pools of petroleum.(that we'll probably sell to Japan anyway) The hard work goes to our military which is tasked with guaranteeing Exxon/Mobil's access to these resources and US taxpayers who foot the bill to have half the Navy circling the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. And unless there's a breakthrough, we'll soon be spending more blood and treasure to guarantee access to Iraqi oil.

    The premise that double or triple the population on Earth is irrelevant or might even be desirable reminds me of the argument put forth about global warming, often by the unbiased:sure: coal and oil industries, the doublethink is since we can't be sure of the effects, let's try it. Who knows? Maybe they'll be "good" effects! The problem is once we have 15-20 billion humans or have raised the global temperature by a few degrees and decide it's NOT a good thing, it's too late. For my selfish self, I know I can't afford much of a rise in sealevel. High tide is less then fifty feet from where I sit right now! Who do I sue when the waves are lapping at my Lazy-Boy? Does the DISH extended warranty cover damage from saltwater immersion?

    We're the world's undisputed superpower and we want desparately to be the world's superleader. Except of course to lead in conservation of resources and the environment. Why? Because as the world's superpolluter, we're afraid it might cost us. We might have to pay something approaching what the rest of the world pays for energy. And heaven forbid, that might lead to having to carpool, or horrors, use public transportation. That Big Mac might cost fifteen cents more for the beef from clearcut Amazon cattle ranchs. We might have to wear a sweater in Winter and take off our suit coat in Summer. And we might get some of the respect and admiration that we think we so richly deserve from the rest of the world but can't understand why it's in such short supply.

    Jimmy Carter had a solar water heater installed on the roof of the White House during his administration. Probably didn't work all that well with seventies technology and DC weather, but it was symbolic. It said we were taking alternate energy seriously, we were making an effort. One of Ronald Reagan's first actions as President was to have it removed, and no one since has made any effort to replace it. This is the problem many, including many Americans, perceive. We're not willing to even make the effort. And it is understood why we won't make the effort. It might cost us!

    "INTRODUCE prosperity?" How do you do that? "Abdul,(or Infumi or Pradesh, etc.) I'd like you to meet Prosperity.":confused: ;)

    But I agree. Affluence and education lead to lower birth rates. Large families in poor nations are misguided Social Security.(and of course archaic religious belief and superstition) People hope that enough of their offspring will survive to feed and clothe them when they are no longer able. However, this will again cost us fifty cents or a dollar more for that t-shirt from Nike or the Gap so that the twelve year old in Thailand or Malaysia gets a decent wage and working conditions, and hopefully an education. It means a nickel more for a gallon of gas so oil companies in Equador and Indonesia won't destroy the environment to make THEIR barrel of sludge more competitive. And there is a limited(albiet ever increasing) amount of prosperity to go around. Since USA has world record amounts of prosperity, we face the ugly prospect that introducing prosperity might mean we have to surrender a little of our own.

    Are you willing to introduce Abdul, or Infumi or Pradesh to YOUR prosperity?
     
  6. Sep 27, 2002 #66 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] UNFPA Admits it Can't Monitor Chinese Population Control
    Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:46:14 AEDT
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: UNFPA Admits it Can't Monitor Chinese Population Control
    Source: Population Research Institute; September 24, 2002

    UNFPA Admits it Can't Monitor Chinese Population Control

    Washington, DC -- The UNFPA has admitted that it does not monitor the 32 counties in China where it operates, and therefore has no way of knowing if coercive abortion is as rampant in its 32 county programs as victims and human rights groups claim.

    "We do not monitor every county. We don't," Siri Tellier, the head of UNFPA's China program, said in a recent interview with Knight Ridder. Knight Ridder also reported that UNFPA "has no way to determine whether local officials have abandoned coercive practices." (See: "Small advocacy group influences American policy," Knight Ridder, Washington Bureau, Sept. 18, 2002.)

    Yet four years ago, when the 32 "model county" program was set up, UNFPA and the Chinese Government assured the U.S. Congress that there would be no coercion; or, in their exact words, would "not engage in any form of coercion." UNFPA has in the past also claimed that its China program is one of the most monitored programs in the world.

    Also reported, Chen Sha, the UNFPA Administrator of Sihui, Guangdong Province, issued similar denials about UNFPA's support of forced abortion.

    Further contradicting UNFPA's false claims, this May the U.S. State Department gathered evidence of "social compensation fees" in this and other UNFPA/Chinese State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) county programs and concluded that the UNFPA is helping China to "more effectively" carry out its program of forced abortion.

    In addition, victims of forced abortion in UNFPA's China program state that abuses of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization are as bad today as ever in the history of China's one-child policy. Last September, 2001, PRI investigators were told by victims in Sihui that they must undergo abortion and sterilization or face punishments of crippling fines, imprisonment and destruction of homes. (See: http://www.pop.org/china/)

    "One lie has led to another, as UNFPA is desperately trying to hide its complicity with forced abortion behind feigned ignorance, in a last-ditch effort to receive federal funding," Mosher said. "UNFPA is supposed to be a watchdog, but it has become a lap dog of the officials who implement China's one-child policy of forced abortion. Chinese officials seek to protect UNFPA so they can hide forced abortion behind a false front of voluntarism."
    --
    Pregnancy Centers Online
    http://www.pregnancycenters.org
     
  7. Oct 7, 2002 #67 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] EU to Delay UNFPA Funding Increase
    Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:06:48 AEDT
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: EU to Delay UNFPA Funding Increase
    Source: Population Research Institute; October 2, 2002

    EU to Delay UNFPA Funding Increase
    by Steven Mosher

    [Pro-Life Infonet Note: Steven Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute]

    According to sources within the European Parliament, EU funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) has been delayed. This delay indicates the grave disquiet among members of the European parliament about increased spending for the UNFPA in the light of the U.S. State Department"s findings that the UNFPA is helping China to "more effectively" carry out its program of forced abortion, in violation of the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.(1)

    The European Parliament"s Development & Co-operation Committee is due to consider a report on international development. This report, called the Sandbaek Report, will be the European Parliament's contribution to the European Union's international development funding over the next five years. It involves 100s of millions of Euros, and would include funding for UNFPA.

    The report is couched in population control euphemisms such as "reproductive services" and "emergency contraception" and calls for such "services" to be targeted at the "poorest populations in both rural and urban areas."(2)

    However, the vote on the report has been delayed until November because amendments opposing increased population control spending have been advanced by members of the European Parliament who are concerned about UNFPA's support of forced abortion in China.

    In September, PRI's lead investigator, Josephine Guy, briefed members of the European Parliament (MEPs) about UNFPA support of forced abortion in China. Ms. Guy testified about her investigation in China last September 2001, when she interviewed victims and witnesses of forced abortion, forced sterilization, forced use of IUDs, and imprisonment and destruction of homes for non-compliance, in one of UNFPA's model county programs in China.(3)

    In addition, Guy conveyed to MEPs evidence obtained in China last May by the US State Department team of investigators. Those investigators found evidence of "social compensation fees" in several UNFPA county programs in China. Guy pointed out that, based on solid evidence, the U.S. State Department found that the UNFPA was providing funding, and technical and surgical support so that the Chinese State Family Planning Commission could implement its program of forced abortion more effectively.(4)

    The delay of UNFPA funding from the EU is an abrupt turn of events following the EU"s announcement of this on June 24. The EU press office prematurely announced that UNFPA funding would be increased by "32 million Euros in aid" to replace, at least part, of the US funding.(5)

    One significant amendment added to the Sandbaek report would prohibit abortion from being promoted as a method of family planning.(6) In China, while UNFPA claims it does not support abortion as a method of family planning, the US State Department has shown clearly that UNFPA actually supports forced abortion. Given this fact, it is becoming increasingly problematic for individual countries, or the EU as a whole, to fund the UNFPA.

    ENDNOTES

    1. Letter from U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to Sen. Patrick Leahy, July 21, 2002; Analysis of Determination: Kemp Kasten Amendment.
    2. Sandbaek Report, European Parliament, Sept. 18, 2002.
    3. House Committee on International Relations, Testimony of Joseohine Guy, October 17, 2001; http://www.pop.org/china/guy.htm.
    4. Ibid., Analysis of Determination: Kemp-Kasten Amendment.
    5. "With 32 Million Euros in Aid, EU to Fill "Decency Gap" Left in Decision to Stop Funding UN Family Planning Organization," European Union Press Release, July 24, 2002.
    6. Ibid., Sandbaek Report, Amendment 10.
    --
    You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting an unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to Pregnancy Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org
     
  8. Oct 16, 2002 #68 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] Taiwan Will Reward Childbirth, Unlike China
    Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:35:33 AEDT
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: Taiwan Will Reward Childbirth, Unlike China
    Source: Agence France-Presse, Taiwan Economic News; October 15, 2002

    Taiwan Will Reward Childbirth, Unlike China

    Taipei, Taiwan -- In an attempt to reverse the "continuously declining" birthrate in Taiwan, the nation's Ministry of the Interior and Council for Economic Planning and Development have proposed awarding couples who give birth to more than two children approximately $855 per child, the Taiwan Economic News reports.

    The move comes at a time when China continues to receive heavy criticism for its policy of coercive abortions and forced sterilization -- cited by President Bush as horrific enough to withdraw 34 million in funding to the UNFPA.

    In the 1940s and 1950s, before Taiwanese government officials introduced family planning programs to slow population growth, Taiwan's total fertility rate exceeded six children per woman. However, birth data from 2001 indicate that Taiwanese women are currently giving birth to an average of 1.16 children over the course of their lifetimes, a rate that is one of the lowest worldwide.

    Under the government's proposal, officials would also provide infertile couples with $570 to be used for artificial insemination procedures and would give approximately $450 -- equal to one month's pay at minimum wage -- to any working mother with more than three children. The plan would also extend maternity leave for a third birth from eight weeks to 12 weeks and would
    provide between five and seven days of paid annual leave for women with children under age six. The government agencies have also proposed tax incentives and low-interest government loans to encourage couples to have more children.

    The incentive measures would cost approximately $342 million annually, according to Interior Minister Yu Cheng-hsien. Several women's groups have criticized the plan, saying that to encourage more childbearing among Taiwanese families the government should focus on child care and welfare reform rather than monetary rewards for multiple children (Taiwan Economic
    News, 10/15).
    --
    Pregnancy Centers Online
    http://www.pregnancycenters.org
     
  9. Oct 16, 2002 #69 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] No More Pro-Choice Movement
    Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 15:34:04 AEDT
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: No More Pro-Choice Movement
    Source: Pro-Life Infonet; October 15, 2002

    No More Pro-Choice Movement
    by Richard M. Doerflinger

    [Pro-Life Infonet Note: Mr. Doerflinger is Deputy Director of the
    Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.]

    Once there were basically two sides to the abortion debate.

    One side said that, whatever the moral status of unborn life may be, a woman and her physician must be free to make a choice about abortion. The other side said that, whatever value the struggle for greater freedom may have in other contexts, responsible freedom for women and physicians must stop short
    of destroying the life of an innocent child. Not surprisingly, these sides called themselves "pro-choice" and "pro-life" respectively.

    Those were simpler times. For however useful these labels once were, it's becoming ridiculous to refer to abortion advocacy groups as "pro-choice."

    This was already clear to anyone following the debate on U.S. funding of the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) a few months ago. President Bush ultimately decided not to give this group any funds this year, because it helps the Chinese government implement a population program that uses coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization. His decision was greetedby howls of protest from pro-abortion groups,who ditched their commitment to women's "reproductive freedom" to defend their allies in the population control movement.

    More recently the coerced-abortion agenda has come home to guide domestic policy. When the House of Representatives debated a modest measure called the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act (ANDA) last month, the idea that each
    individual should have "freedom to choose" whether to be involved in abortion was denounced as heresy by "pro-choice" groups.

    ANDA builds on a law that Congress passed in 1996 to protect medical residency programs from being forced by government bodies to provide abortions or abortion training. It clarifies and extends that law to make sure that this protection covers the full range of health care providers, so everyone can make his or her own conscientious decision whether to participate in abortions. But to hear pro-abortion spokespersons talk, you would have thought that abortion was about to be declared a capital crime. If
    women can only get abortions from those actually willing to provide them, they seemed to say, there will be almost no abortions -- an interesting comment on how widely accepted abortion is in the medical profession!

    Pro-abortion groups opposed every aspect of this bill -- including its effort to extend the conscience protection now enjoyed by doctors to cover other health professionals, such as nurses, who are mostlyfemale. In opposing this modest step toward equal treatment, abortion advocates managed to promote an agenda that was anti-life, "anti-choice," and anti-woman all at the same time. Fortunately most Housemembers ignored their tirades and approved the bill, which now goes to the Senate.

    One bumper sticker produced by pro-abortion groups says: "Against abortion? Don't have one." That slogan always ignored the unborn child, who has no opportunity to choose not to "have one." But now women and doctors may join the child in having their choice disregarded, unless pro-life legislators are vigilant.

    Against abortion? If you're in China, have one anyway. If you're a health professional in the U.S., perform one anyway. Oddly, that is now what being "pro-choice" is all about.
    --
    Who are the pro-life candidates in your state?
    See http://www.wevoteprolife.com
     
  10. Oct 16, 2002 #70 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Perhaps we need to define coerce. Here's Webster's.
    Main Entry:co£erce
    1 : to restrain or dominate by force *religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious— W. R. Inge*
    2 : to compel to an act or choice
    3 : to bring about by force or threat *coerce the compliance of the rest of the community— Scott Buchanan*
    synonyms see FORCE
    Now we need to look at the different contexts in which it's being applied here.

    First, China. I have no first-hand experience but I assume the coercion is of the second definition. I have heard no reports of armed Chinese police dragging pregnant women into clinics, strapping them onto tables and forcibly performing abortions on them. The coercion here is more likely to be a little more subtle, although still strong and compelling, like threats and the reality of economic penalty, peer pressure, authoritarian directive and pleas to patriotism or nationalism. While I condemn such tactics and they certainly couldn't be described in any sense as "free choice", I assume if one is adamant and strong-willed enough, one may choose to deliver the child in spite of extreme pressure to abort, albiet possibily losing one's job and/or residence and being ostracized and viewed as a pariah by one's community. So while this is certainly strong coercion, it is probably not the most extreme coersion of force at gunpoint or under threat of death.

    Next should be examined coercion by those who wish to prevent abortions in this country. Massive, vocal, emotional demonstrations at clinics, slurs of "baby killer" and "murderer" directed at doctors, nurses and patients exercising their rights to a legal medical procedure, and death threats mailed, phoned and e-mailed to same.(often the mail threats have been accompanied by envelopes with "white powder" identified in the letters as anthrax or other deadly substances) State, local and federal authorities seem mostly apathetic and ambivilant about these "coercions" and usually need to be forced to action by legal action. And let's not forget these are actually the less extreme actions directed at the practice of legal abortion. Pro-LIFE advocates are not above fire and explosive bombings of clinics and even outright murder. All in all, this coercion meets all the criteria of the complete definition.

    Lastly the issue of why so many medical professionals actively avoid offering this precedure. Many I assume, like you, are morally, ethically and religiously opposed to abortion. However I also believe many avoid it out of the fear and intimidation(coercion?) implicit in the activities outlined in the last paragraph. Those who continue must be at least equally dedicated to a woman's right to chose as those who are coercing them not to continue. They do so literally at the risk of their own lives, and sometimes the risk of their families and co-workers.

    This "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" appears to be a misnomer of the first degree in the long tradition of political doublespeak. It appears to ignore, and in fact discriminates against, the rights of those who may chose abortion by allowing medical institutions to refuse to offer this legal procedure for whatever reason they deem appropriate. This may be on moral or religious grounds, but as often are more probably convenience and public relations grounded. Any hospital, clinic or doctor who does offer this service can be guaranteed to be picketed at least, fire-bombed or shot at at worst. In any case, it can probably be concluded the publicity will not inure to the benefit of the doctors, nurses and institutions. Could this be considered coercion? If a hospital refused to offer CAT scans on moral, ethical or religious grounds, would we be having this discussion? Would we even consider continuing to publicly fund such an institution? And would we be debating an act of Congress to protect their decision?

    So I think we can see there is coercion on both sides. In China the coercion may be extreme to encourage abortions but in this country the coercion, at least as extreme, is to prevent them at any cost.
     
  11. Oct 16, 2002 #71 of 104
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Several years back a medical clinic in Massachusetts was bombed, while occupied. On one side of the building was a free clinic, on the other side abortions were performed. My sister received medical care at this clinic. She never had an abortion, she just had little money at the time. Fortunately, she was not there on that day, but if she had been, did she deserve to die because she was poor? Because she dared to enter that building? Does "pro-life" begin and end with un-born infants? What choice does the physician who feels certain patients need this particular procedure make? His own life or death? In many states today there are only one or two doctors who dare to perform the procedure, at least with the publics knowledge. They travel in armored vehicles, wearing body armor. They vary their schedules. Even with all their precautions, some of them end up dead. And sometimes their patients do also. All in the name of "pro-life." That is why some Drs. perform the procedure quietly in their offices. The Dr. and the patient are in a better position than anyone carrying a picket sign what the best course of action for that patient is. When decision is made, the fertilized egg is in no position to make any kind of choices. You need a brain to do that.
     
  12. Oct 17, 2002 #72 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    We seem to live in parallel, very different universes.
    Your truth is often my fiction, and vice-versa.
    Let's just say I often have difficulty appreciating
    many of your viewpoints.
     
  13. Oct 18, 2002 #73 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I'm sorry you feel that way but as long as you refuse to acknowledge that only your viewpoint can have any validity, compromise and even debate is impossible.

    Most fertilized eggs probably never make it to the uterine walls and are often flushed out with the next menstual cycle even if they do. Yet you insist each of them is a complete, unique, individual human being entitled to all the rights and protections of any other citizen. I appreciate your viewpoint, I just disagree. Until significant brain activity similar at least to newborn babies, my viewpoint is that this is merely a potential human being. Living human tissue yes, but can you argue that unfertilized eggs and sperm are not? Live eggs and sperm are potential human life too, just one step away from where you consider them complete humans. Why do you draw the line there? Even after fertilization, they still face a long, precarious journey before they even remotely resemble an actual human. And it's not an intentional journey, it's an unconscious biological function of the female body.

    If you can convince me this arbitrary starting point for human life is anything more then romantic and emotional, or religiously based, I'll be on the picket lines right next to you.

    And speaking of religion, rationale for your position is most often religiously based, and your posts themselves are from an religious anti-abortion fax you receive. On another recent thread that was eventually closed,:p I posted a link that indicates that without doubt, abortion was a known, common practice as long as seven thousand years ago in the region surrounding Israel. Certainly the Greeks and Romans were well aware of the practice. The question that was never answered was why there is absolutely no mention, let alone condemnation, of abortion in either the Old or New Testaments? Bogy has spent nearly his entire life studing the Bible in various forms including their original Greek, and I believe Aramaic, translations. I believe he can assure you that there is no, even indirect, reference to abortion anywhere in the Bible.

    Why this seeming conundrum then of pro-lifers often justifying their positions with the Bible when the Bible itself is ambivilant at best and apathetic at worst on the subject?
     
  14. Oct 18, 2002 #74 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    As for compromise, I'm not sure any of the three of us
    perceives a need in this case.

    We have already discussed a passage that, to me
    at least, clearly covers Mosaic law on what to do
    when a pregnant woman is struck by someone in a
    fight, causing her to deliver her child. It appears to
    be assumed that the blow would be inadvertently
    and negligently delivered by one of two men fighting.
    That is, a standard of decency is assumed. No one
    in his or her right mind would ever deliberately strike
    or otherwise harm a woman.

    I interpret the passage as saying that, if neither mother
    nor child is injured, then the woman and her husband
    can agree to let the assailant go after paying a fine.
    But, if either is injured or killed, then the punishment
    exacted must be eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.
    The assailant receives the same injuries as inflicted.

    This is an even harsher and more specific punishment
    than for ordinary manslaughter.

    Of course Bogy has his own interpretation, which he
    claims is more consistent with Hebrew tradition, but
    he has not yet offered any evidence to substantiate
    this claim.

    Infanticide and child abandonment were commonplace
    occurrences in ancient times. Christians of the period
    typically responded with compassion, by rescuing and
    adopting children who were left to die outside of town.
    What would be your response?

    So, yes, I'm willing to debate. We just don't seem to
    have enough of a common frame of reference to even
    agree on the basic meanings of terms anymore.

    This is really strange with respect to Bogy, since we
    both would seem to believe and trust in the same
    Christ for our salvation from sin.

    As a functional atheist, you can fully appreciate
    that you and I are not likely to have more than an
    occasional meeting of minds.
     
  15. Oct 18, 2002 #75 of 104
    razorbackfan

    razorbackfan Godfather

    338
    0
    Aug 17, 2002
    Ridgway,...
    really, I'll be 101...
     
  16. Oct 18, 2002 #76 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    It would be helpful for someone to repost the passage. But from what I can remember, I don't see how this can be even peripherially related to abortion. It's grasping at straws. The only common element being the possibility of a fetus being harmed. In the example, the potential mother, and in ancient times more importantly the assumed father, were desirous to complete the pregnancy. In context, this appears to be more of an inadvertant property crime. The prospective mother and father may be deprived of the possibility of a child by the negligence of a third party, therefore punishment is prescribed for different theoretical outcomes. It should be remembered that throughout history, and certainly in ancient Israel, wives and children were considered little more then chattel, property of the male. Abortion on the other hand is a willful act of prospective mother and father to deliberately terminate a pregnancy. Where is the relationship?

    If abortion were truely murder or an affront to God, it would be astounding, or the biggest oversight in history, that it was not specifically addressed in a code of conduct detailing such minutia as financial transactions, food consumption and preparation, or how to properly choose and prepare an animal for sacrifice. Was not eating pork important enough to warrant detailed prohibitions and abortion unimportant enough to not warrant a single specific line? It stretches credulity to assume this example is intended to address abortion. IF the Bible HAD outlined procedures or punishment for abortion in even a cursory manner, no one would even think of using this passage as justification for an anti-abortion stance.

    One of the reasons I am an actual atheist, not just "functional", is the propensity to use varying interpretations of "sacred text" to justify some of the most horrendous evils ever perpetrated by Man. From the barbaric slaughter of various tribes for occupying the wrong territory at the wrong time in the Old Testament, to the Crusades, Inquisition, Reformation wars and slavery, to 9/11, religionists interpret their holy books to fit their preconceived conclusions and interests. Any act can be justified by believing that Yaweh, Jesus, Allah, or any myriad of other dieties has commanded it or will be pleased by it.

    I'm not insinuating this is on the same level, however there does seem to be a reluctance to condemn terrorism, intimidation and murder of those who oppose your "Godly" views. It appears once again that Scripture has been "reinterpreted" to justify evil. But this time the basis is so vague and tenuous as to be almost absurd. Punishments are outlined for accidental harm to a fetus or pregnant female, therefore abortion is murder! That's the best you can do?

    What do you THINK I'd do, crush their skulls and kick 'em into the ditch?

    C'mon man. What are you talking about here? Do you really believe only Christians are capable of compassion towards their fellow humans? If that's the case, in a country with so many "Christians" in it, there should be absolutely no unadopted children wallowing in institutions or bouncing from foster home to children's court and back again or languishing homeless on the streets.

    Throughout history, orphaned or abandoned children have been adopted and/or cared for by others. In many cultures, often primative cultures, there would be no question, children would be raised communally and considered the obligation of the entire society, not just property of the parents. The implication of your statement is that Christianity evolved from a society in which this was not the paradigm, a culture where "Infanticide and child abandonment were commonplace". Now that's something to think about.
     
  17. Oct 21, 2002 #77 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Okay, jonstad, have it your way.

    Go ahead and believe your worst about me; I really don't care.
    I didn't accuse you of anything; I just posed a question for your consideration. I didn't condone any criminal behavior either.

    You seem to be saying that you're an atheist because of all the bad things that you think theists are all thinking, saying and doing. But just maybe you believe the worst things about
    other people like me, simply because you're an atheist.
    Food for thought. YMMV.
     
  18. Oct 22, 2002 #78 of 104
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    :confused: :confused: :confused:
    I think you are honest, sincere and heartfelt in your beliefs. I view you as a seemingly intelligent human being. But despite this intelligence, I am assuming you didn't find the verse in question independently. I further assume it was presented to you with a dubious, justifying argument that it establishes the sinfulness of abortion. It is the argument I am attacking and and not you. I believe you have accepted this argument as valid because you are deeply religious, you desperately want Biblical confirmation for your views on abortion. My point was simply that this verse bears no relationship to abortion, but because there are no direct Biblical rererences, has been twisted to fit. And while the Bible MAY be used to establish everything from circumcision to lunch meat to transubstantiation as divine directives, no reasonable interpretation of any part of the Bible can be used to establish the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Church canon may state that abortion is a sin, but that view has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

    No, you didn't directly accuse me of anything. Here is what you said.
    "Infanticide and child abandonment were commonplace
    occurrences in ancient times. Christians of the period
    typically responded with compassion, by rescuing and
    adopting children who were left to die outside of town.
    What would be your response?"

    If the implication was NOT that I, as a non-Christian, would not respond with compassion, then exactly what WAS your point? "Infanticide" seems a reference to abortion, but it is you who claim every zygote or fetus is a human infant, not I.

    The debate here is the magic moment when a fertilized egg becomes a human being. You simply place this moment much earlier then I. There are very few, if any, pro-choicers who believe elective abortion in the last trimester is an ethical or proper procedure or should be legal except in rare cases where the life of the mother is in imminent danger, so called "late-term abortions". And despite all the hysteria, this procedure is extremely uncommon.

    Your position is uncompromising. Once the sperm penetrates the ovum, it is a complete, individual human with all the rights of almost every other human. The exception of course being the rights of the female carrying the particular fertiliized egg, whose rights are superceded by it.

    I also never accused you of condoning criminal activity. I merely pointed out that your condemnation of certain criminal activity is conspicuous by its absence. And this seems ironic as you have no trouble whatsoever condemning the legal practice of abortion.

    I also don't think the "worst" of you or any theist. I believe you have been duped by the oldest con-game on the planet, the idea that the physical world can be influenced by invisible supernatural entities. And further that these gods can be made to favor us or bend to our will by ritual, ceremony, incantation and symbolism. The Catholic Mass or charismatic tent revival is not all that different in nature from voodoo practices. Sure, the chicken blood has been replaced with symbolic wine and wafers. But other then that, what is the substantive difference? The hook(a very powerful and compelling hook indeed) for this con is of course some sort of salvation or everlasting life in exchange for devotion and belief.

    And yes, under influence of this ruse, a strong historical case can be made that thiests CAN be convinced into "thinking, saying and doing" some pretty bad things. Perhaps religion CAN produce feelings and acts of compassion in many individuals. Unfortunately on a frequent basis it also produces war, genocide and murder in many of those same individuals. Is it worth the tradeoff? Food for thought right back at'cha.
     
  19. Oct 22, 2002 #79 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Like many others who take the Bible seriously,
    I have read and studied the whole thing, cover
    to cover, independently, several times.

    Nope; it was never "presented" to me, with or without any
    "dubious" argument attached.

    Nope; I look to the Bible for guidance on all matters,
    rather than as confirmation for my pet views.

    I view the above opinion of yours as sincere but mistaken.
    I haven't twisted the passage at all. I have simply done my
    best to parse its plain meaning, with help from the indwelling
    Holy Spirit, of course.

    It was a question that I posed for your consideration.
    I am sorry if it came across as an accusation. That was
    not my intent.

    I do not claim that a zygote or embryo is a human infant.
    "Infant" implies that birth has occurred. Of course, the
    Latin term "fetus" implies the same thing, and is incorrectly
    applied in modern usage to the unborn.

    What I do assert is that a human being begins and ends as
    a human being, at every stage of development, endowed by
    his or her Creator with rights which include the right to life.

    Few, if any? There are many, many people who oppose any
    restrictions whatsoever on abortion. Some are tied to the
    industry itself, and some are tied only philosophically.

    You're confusing your terms here. Late-term abortions,
    for whatever reason or no reason, have repeatedly been
    ruled completely legal by the courts, citing Roe v. Wade
    and others. Extremely uncommon? At least several
    thousand per year, by industry estimates. Not uncommon
    enough.

    Measures necessary to save the life of the mother are an
    entirely different matter. Owing to the current backward
    state of medical practice and technology, saving the mother
    patient's life sometimes results in the loss of the unborn
    child patient's life. This is unfortunate, but morally acceptable.

    No. The mother carrying the child has the same rights as any
    other human being. Her rights are in no way superseded by
    those of the child. When the life of the mother is imminently
    threatened by the pregnancy (e.g. ectopic), the life of the child
    may properly have to be forfeited to save the life of the mother.
    Ironically, we still do not know how to save the life of a
    child who must be born too early, yet we have developed
    many ways to reliably bring about the demise of a child in
    the mother's womb.

    If by "rights", you mean the "right" to abort, then I would
    have to respond that making something "legal" by court
    edict does nothing to make it a natural "right", endowed
    by the Creator.

    If you have read my posts, you know that I have more than
    once condemned "anti-abortion" violence in the strongest
    possible terms. "Absence" is hardly applicable.
    Perhaps "ignored"?

    That said, which form of violence is responsible for more
    injury and loss of life than the other? You can surely grasp
    that, in my view at least, it is of course the violence of
    medically unnecessary abortions.

    In another thread, I made a distinction between religion
    that I deem to be useless, destructive, and false, as
    opposed to religion (faith) that I deem to be constructive.
    I see that this distinction is entirely lost on you. That's
    too bad.

    Yes; we have had this discussion before. As you may remember,
    I pointed out that atheists have also thought, said, and done
    some pretty bad things. In fact, numerically and in the past
    century, atheists have excelled at this, beyond all precedent
    set by theists. Perhaps atheism CAN produce feelings and acts
    of compassion in many individuals. Unfortunately on a frequent
    basis it also produces war, genocide and murder in many of those
    same individuals. Is it worth the tradeoff?

    What if the cause of evil-doing is not the belief system itself?
    What if evil is the cumulative result of individual, deliberate,
    wrong choices? What if the theist should know the difference
    between right and wrong, but chooses to do the wrong anyway,
    then tries to rationalize and justify it before his or her God?
    What if the atheist cannot truly discern a difference, since divine
    enlightenment and absolute truth are not even possible within
    his or her frame of reference?
     
  20. Oct 22, 2002 #80 of 104
    RJS1111111

    RJS1111111 Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    592
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Subj: [infonet-list] Are Senate Democrats Pro-Choice or Pro-Coercion?
    Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:13:05 AEDT
    From: Steven Ertelt <ertelt@prolifeinfo.org>
    To: Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    --------------------
    From: The Pro-Life Infonet <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Reply-To: Steven Ertelt <infonet@prolifeinfo.org>
    Subject: Are Senate Democrats Pro-Choice or Pro-Coercion?
    Source: Universal Press Syndicate; October 21, 2002

    Are Senate Democrats Pro-Choice or Pro-Coercion?
    by Maggie Gallagher

    [Pro-Life Infonet Note: Since January of 1993, Maggie
    Gallagher's opinion column has appeared in New York
    Newsday and in many other magazines and newspapers.
    Gallagher's first book, Enemies of Eros: How the Sexual
    Revolution is Killing Family, Marriage and Sex, was published
    by Bonus Books in 1989.]

    Here are the facts: Most doctors do not like to perform abortions,
    and most abortionists like to make money. They tend to locate
    clinics in lucrative urban areas, leaving rural women to travel
    sometimes as much as a few hours in order to get abortions.

    For some abortion rights groups, this constitutes a grave crisis:
    "Eighty-four percent of counties in the United States do not have
    an abortion provider," announces a Maryland NARAL fact sheet.

    What are people who believe in abortion doing to expand
    access? Are they collecting donations to build and subsidize
    charitable rural abortion clinics, as they are entitled to under
    the law? Oh, no. Instead, NARAL and other abortion advocacy
    groups have launched nationwide campaigns to use the
    courts and legislatures to force hospitals (including Catholic
    hospitals) to provide abortion services.

    Catholic hospitals are an especially juicy target, because they are
    often the only hospitals in rural areas. Catholic hospitals,
    charitable endeavors, spend over $2.8 billion more than they
    take in providing high-quality health care in poor and rural areas.

    Remember, the overwhelming majority of abortions do not take
    place in hospitals, but in doctors' offices or clinics. The effect of
    these forced abortion laws is not to increase access, but to
    redefine abortion, an elective surgery undertaken primarily for
    social (not medical) reasons, as basic health care. In fact, the
    preferred Orwellian language is to relabel abortion as a
    "reproductive health service," despite the, shall we say, weak
    evidence that abortion assists in reproduction or improves health.

    As always, the political playing field is unfair. Abortion advocates
    get a huge leg up from increasingly corrupt courts, which have
    interpreted a conscience clause intended to protect hospitals and
    medical personnel from forced involvement in abortion in the
    narrowest possible manner.

    In Florida, a private nonsectarian hospital, Bayfront Medical
    Center, tried to join a nonprofit consortium that had a pro-life
    policy. The City of St. Petersburg filed a federal lawsuit, claiming
    Bayfront violated its lease (which required it to accept patients
    regardless of creed) and that refusing to perform abortions
    amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
    Faced with mounting legal fees, Bayfront settled by leaving the
    consortium.

    In New Jersey, abortion advocates tried to pressure a Catholic
    health system to build an abortion clinic on its premises to ensure
    better access to abortion. The ACLU has launched a project
    urging politicians to cut off funding to hospitals that do not
    perform abortions.

    In Alaska, Valley Hospital, a nonprofit, nonsectarian community
    hospital, adopted a policy permitting abortions at the hospital
    only in the case of rape, incest and danger to the life of the
    mother. This is the same policy the federal government has for
    Medicaid and other health programs. But the Alaska Supreme
    Court ruled in 1997 that because Valley Hospital took Medicaid
    patients, it was a quasi-public organization, and must perform
    abortions. As Karen Vosburgh, director of the association board
    at Valley Hospital, testified before a House subcommittee in
    July: "For those of us who share (the) view -- that abortion is a
    form of violence, not a form of health care -- being required to
    provide and support it is a grave injustice."

    Will NARAL, the ACLU and others succeed in driving Catholic and
    other pro-life medical providers out of business? To prevent these
    efforts to coerce hospitals, doctors, nurses and insurance
    providers to participate in abortions, the House recently passed
    the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. A similar measure has been
    introduced in the Senate by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
    "No hospital should be forced by government to perform
    abortions that violate its core beliefs and tenets," Rep. Dick
    Armey declared. "Congress should protect these hospitals and
    not force them to perform abortions against their faith."

    So now the Democrat-controlled Senate has to decide:
    Are they pro-choice or only anti-Catholic?
    --
    Pregnancy Centers Online
    http://www.pregnancycenters.org
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page