Life Links 2/28/11

According to Jim Geraghty, Planned Parenthood will be spending $200,000 to play the ad below which stresses their need for tax dollars. Notably missing is any mention of the a-word.



Robert George discusses Bernard Nathanson's prolife conversion at Public Discourse.

Fourth, the abortion movement sought to appeal to conservatives and liberals alike by promoting feticide as a way of fighting poverty. Why are so many people poor? It's because they have more children than they can afford to care for. What's the solution? Abortion. Why do we have to spend so much money on welfare? It's because poor, mainly minority, women are burdening the taxpayer with too many babies. The solution? Abortion. Initially, Nathanson himself believed that legal abortion and its public funding would reduce out-of-wedlock childbearing and poverty, though (as he later admitted) he continued to promote this falsehood after the sheer weight of evidence forced him to disbelieve it.

A new Planned Parenthood facility is opening today near San Francisco.

"And while most of our clients are not high school students, some of them are," Estes said. "Those students in particular don't always have access to cars, so being close to the high school was important. It was a combination of factors that made this the best space for us."

Pastor Pat Michaels of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church on Oakdale Ave. was less enthused than Estes about the arrival of a clinic that would be providing abortions.

The article also notes how Planned Parenthood has been able to move back into the San Francisco area so quickly after disaffiliating the former Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.

Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific has received about $1 million in donations to help fund its expansion, including grants from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Foundation, the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Fund and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Estes said.

Melanie Phillips writes in the Daily Mail about the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' latest guidance.

This guidance, intended for all doctors, nurses and counsellors advising women contemplating having an abortion, said such women should be told that terminating a pregnancy was safer than having a baby.
To which one can only ask: safer for whom, precisely? Not for the baby, certainly.

This is not meant to be a flip comment. For the point is that these doctors seemed to have totally lost sight of some basic humanity here.