Pro Choice Horror

Abortion "Doctor" Kermit Gosnell has been just been indicted for unspeakable, atrocious and horrific crimes. From the grand jury report:

"Gosnell regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy -- and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels -- and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths . . .

With the change of administration from (pro-life Democratic) Gov. Casey to Gov. Ridge, government health officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

This is truly sick and disturbing. Have Roe v. Wade and hard-charging pro choice lawmakers really numbed some people to this point of blatant and callous disregard to human life?Thoughts?

Choosing to be Selfish: Abortion

The more time I spend with my precious daughter, Amy, the stronger my feelings become against abortion. She has blessed my life beyond imagination, and it becomes increasingly difficult for me to comprehend how so many would rather kill their unborn child before being "inconvenienced" by an unexpected addition. What saddens me more is that there are so many who adamantly defend a woman's "right to choose" (by the way, where is that in the constitution?) over the defenseless unborn's right to life. The way I see it, the woman already made her choice the moment she decided to have unprotected sex, but the equation of choices changes when a child is conceived.

I ran across a powerful James E. Faust (a pro-life democrat) talk tonight that I wanted to share on the subject. He told a story about Mother Teresa, a deserving Peace Prize winner, that touched me. Here is a snippet from the 1995 talk, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil"

Dr. Conscientious Objector, Beware!

See Comment 3, below, before reading this post.

Pres. Obama is moving to undo a regulation put in by Bush 43 that somehow insulated healthcare professionals from punishment if they refused to perform a procedure or render a service that ran contrary to their moral or religious views. So, if you are an obstetrician who refuses to perform an abortion because it is contrary to your personal convictions, you may have reasons other than high malpractice premiums to get into another line of work.

I am not sure of the mechanics of this. But there is an evident trend.

Less than a week into office, Pres. Obama lifted the ban on federal funding of abortions instituted by his predecessor. One could write this off as the typical back-and-forth that happens in policies every time a different party takes over the executive branch. But Pres. Obama's pre-election history with the Infant Born Alive Act indicates that he is not just going along with the "pro-choice" crowd - he is the new point man.

This isn't about the constitution or Roe v. Wade, which then-Senator Obama used, like the cloak in Harry Potter, to disguise his preferences. These are policies that Roe v. Wade did not require or prohibit, that the express language of the Constitution does not require or prohibit. President Obama would deeply wound freedom of conscience with this move.

Even in time of war, we excuse everyday soldiers from the duty to kill (enemy combatants are "viable" by any reasonable definition) if they have a grounded and genuine conscientious objection. Why allow coercion on doctors and nurses who decline to participate in abortions for similar reasons? I believe the answer is, because those doctors and nurses disagree with Pres. Obama on the question of abortion.

In the long run, this move will thin the ranks of pro-life (anti-abortion) healthcare professionals. Pro-choice (pro-abortion) advocates will in later years be able to cite a growing consensus among doctors that abortion . . .fill in the blank. (Do you see similar patterns in journalism and environmental science?). If your goal is to end dissent, better to kill it than to merely gag it.

Regardless of the motivation and grand-scheme potential of this maneuver, it will inflict blunt-force trauma on the civil liberties of healthcare professionals.