Thursday, September 20, 2007

Life Links 9/20/07

The Chicago Sun-Times has an editorial in favor of letting the Planned Parenthood in Aurora open. It's bad. The two sentences below makes me wonder if anyone on their editorial page board has done any research about this situation.
Aurora officials, incredibly, say they didn't know what type of health-care facility was proposed when they voted to grant the $7.5 million, 22,000-square-foot clinic an occupancy permit. They claim Gemini Office Development, the developer representing Planned Parenthood, misled them about the type of medical facility it intended to open.
Incredibly? Were the Aurora officials supposed to know nefarious motives of Gemini Office Development? Were they supposed to assume the 22,000-square-foot facility was going to be an abortion clinic?

There's more stupidity to follow.
The city and some Aurora residents wonder if Gemini Office Development was a cover for Planned Parenthood.
Wonder? Planned Parenthood has admitted as much.
Without the clinic, many pregnant women in Aurora will lack access to birth control, prenatal care, cancer screening and treatment for fibroids and sexually transmitted diseases.
Is there any evidence the women of Aurora lack these things now and the hospitals and physicians currently in Aurora can't provide them?

An immigration judge in New York named Noel Ferris has been taken off a case by Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan after mistreating a man seeking asylum because of China's one-child policy.
Mr. Sun said that he began living with the woman who later became his wife when she was 22 (the law did not allow her to marry until the age of 23). When she became pregnant, the principal at the school where she worked in Fujian Province notified the authorities, who dragged her away for an abortion and beat up Mr. Sun when he tried to stop them, he said. During her second pregnancy, he testified, family planning officers issued an order for his arrest after he resisted sterilization.

Based only on "improper assumptions," "conjecture," or "her personal views," the appeals court said, the judge rejected this account as implausible.

The Globe and Mail covers research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association about genetic screening, abortion, and how counseling can help parents choose life.

This strikes somewhat close to home. My wife and I were asked by her Ob/Gyn if we wanted genetic screening. It was unsettling to me as he is a Christian and went to the same Christian college as I did. I assumed this is something he routinely offers to patients as a way of providing his practice with additional income but that didn't make me feel much more comfortable. I guess for the majority of patients a negative result on a genetic screening test offers some kind of relief or assurance and for some a positive result would help them prepare for a child which may have special needs. But what about those who receive a positive result and then decide to have an abortion? What about false positives? Is it responsible for a Christian physician to offer a test which may lead his patients to have an abortion?

No comments:

Post a Comment