Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Bioethics


 

Who Decides the Harm in “Do No Harm?”



By Wesley J. Smith
Editor’s Note: In his excellent piece Wesley Smith sounds the alarm about a Canadian board that typifies the push to deny life-saving medical treatment against the will of patients and families on both sides of the border. National Right to Life is more pessimistic than he is about the “rarity” of these cases – see ww.nrlc.org/uploads/medethics/WillYourAdvanceDirectiveBeFollowed.pdf. And in our view the circumstances in which health care providers should be able to coerce denial of treatment should be limited to physiological futility – only when, in reasonable medical judgment, withholding or withdrawal of the desired treatment would neither cause nor hasten the patient’s death.
Julie Cheah holds a photo of her late husband, Mann Kee Li. Cheah, who went to court to dispute a "do not resuscitate" code on his hospital chart, says she was not told of the Ontario panel that mediates in such cases. RICHARD LAUTENS / TORONTO STAR
Julie Cheah holds a photo of her late husband, Mann Kee Li. Cheah, who went to court to dispute a “do not resuscitate” code on his hospital chart, says she was not told of the Ontario panel that mediates in such cases.
RICHARD LAUTENS / TORONTO STAR

Medical futility disputes often involve the question of harming the patient. Family/patient believe they should decide what constitutes “harm” in these cases, and that for the patient/family, the greatest harm would be death. Hence, they insist that efficacious treatment to extend life continue–as the way to avoid harm. That is, after all, a fundamental purpose of medicine when staying alive is wanted.
Bioethicists and some doctors believe that they get to decide what constitutes “harm.” Thus, if a patient is unlikely to recover or ever lead a “meaningful” life, they insist on being able to stop wanted treatment.

Religion is also a large factor in many of these situations. The secularist view sees suffering as the worst harm. Many religions, particularly more traditional approaches to Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism, death. Thus, forcing treatment to cease is often viewed as disrespecting freedom of religion.
At the same time, many futilitiarians believe in judging “harm” on a the macro level. They look beyond the patient to perceived emotional harm to the family–and the morale of the reluctant medical team–as well as financial harm to society by “investing” resources on the patient supposedly more wisely spent elsewhere.

So who gets to decide the meaning of “harm” in a particular situation–the patient/family or the technocrats?
Canada has established a bureaucratic board to make these decisions when doctors/bioethicists and patients/families disagree. From the Toronto Star story:
In Ontario, intractable, life-and-death disputes between physicians and patients’ families sometimes end up before a unique provincial body charged with wading into complex issues of medicine, ethics and faith. The little-known Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) — the only one of its kind in North America, perhaps anywhere — is a working laboratory for the most pressing issue facing Canada’s healthcare system: the end of life.
When a physician’s treatment proposal is challenged by a family member whose loved one can no longer communicate their wishes, doctors can make an application to the CCB. The Board then convenes a hearing within seven days, often in hospital board rooms, headed by a lawyer, a public member and a medical professional, typically a psychiatrist.
The panel’s job is a mix of legal arguments and character analysis. It must ultimately determine an incapacitated patient’s “prior wishes” or “best interests.” The panel must then issue a binding order within 24 hours of the hearing’s conclusion — a remarkably fast and economical process relative to the courts.
It seems to me that these futility cases are so relatively few and far between that coercion should rarely–if ever–be used.

These are subjective decisions. Establishing bureaucratic boards would sow mistrust for the system and validate the concept of “death panels.”
And talk about the potential for abuse of power. Why should strangers to the patient be given so much authority, in effect, empowered to impose their values over those of the family?
No. Education and continual mediation should be the watchword. Doctors should be brutally frank about the consequences of continuing care. But barring very rare circumstances, the patient/family should have the final word.

Source: NRLC News

Life and Elections


 

Abortion in Elections: It’s not about us – it’s about the 3,000 babies who will die by abortion today



By Karen Cross, National Right to Life Political Director
Editor’s note. The column appears in the September digital edition of National Right to Life News. The entire 38-page edition can be read at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsSeptember2014.pdf
VotefuturereI’m going to say something some may find shocking.
It’s not about you.
Nope. And it’s definitely not about me. It’s about the nearly 3,000 unborn children who will die a brutal death by abortion today. And another 3,000 tomorrow. It’s about protecting their lives – and their futures.

Occasionally, I hear from people who are opposed to our endorsements who complain that a Congressman or Senator has “been in too long,” or they’re too old, or that they’re “not conservative enough.”
These concerns entirely miss the point. We are in the business of saving lives. If someone has reached a level of power after serving long enough that they can impact lifesaving legislation, God bless them!
And what on earth does age have to do with whether a member of the House or Senate can vote for life?

How they vote, and whether they will vote to protect life, is what really matters.
Life matters.
Protecting life transcends all political parties, all religions, all races, and people of all economic status.
This year, the United States Senate is only a net gain of six seats shy of achieving pro-life leadership.
Thirty-six U.S. Senate seats are up this year – 21 are held by pro-abortion Democrats or “Independents” who caucus with them, and 15 are held by Republicans.
We, who understand how precious life is, must defend the pro-life seats.
And, we must also work to take those seats held by pro-abortion senators and representatives and replace them with legislators who will vote for life.

Since 1973, more than 56 million defenseless babies have been aborted – more than 3,000 each day, 365 days a year. When we stay home on election day babies die, allowing atrocities seen in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell to continue across the nation.
Some people wrongly believe what they personally do won’t really make a difference. Yet, this past spring in West Virginia (my home state), four House of Delegates candidates lost or won their primary elections by fewer than twenty votes combined. Had a handful of their friends shown up to vote, the outcome may have been altered.

What is the clear message? You CAN make a difference in your community, and even in our nation. You can make sure your pro-life family and friends go to the polls and vote for pro-life candidates.
Together, if we remain focused and we persevere, if we continue to work and organize, in 2014, we can bring needed change to Washington, D.C. We can begin to reverse the perverse culture of death which is shaming our nation. It is essential that we prioritize protecting our nation’s most precious resource – our children, and those who are most vulnerable.

You are pro-life because you recognize that it’s not about us, or our individual states, or our preferred candidate: It is about coming closer each day to a pro-life Court that will protect the lives of vulnerable human beings – unborn children, and medically dependent and people with disabilities.
The 3,000 babies who die by abortion today are too important to lose sight of that ultimate goal.
Look for election updates in future National Right to Life News and National Right to Life News Today

Source: NRLC News

Elderly


 

Pope Francis calls the abandonment of the elderly “tantamount to a hidden euthanasia”



By Dave Andrusko
longlife2To put it mildly, a headline that read only, “Pope’s Meeting With the Elderly in St. Peter’s Square” missed all that was special Sunday in a gathering Pope Francis (and his predecessor Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) had with elderly from around the world.
According to the news agency Zenit, on the initiative of the Pontifical Council for the Family, thousands of elderly and grandparents, accompanied by their families, came to in St. Peter’s Square in Rome.
Pope Francis’ warning was strong and clear: “How many times are old people just discarded, victims of an abandonment that is tantamount to hidden euthanasia? This is the result of a throw-away culture that is hurting our world so much.”
The Pope went on to say at a meeting entitled, “The Blessings of a Long Life,” that “A people that does not care for its grandparents, that does not treat them well, are people that have no future! Why do they not have a future? Because they lose their memory and [are torn] from their roots.”
Even in the most difficult trials, Pope Francis said, “the elderly who have faith are like trees that continue to bear fruit. And this is true also in the most ordinary situations where, however, there can be other temptations and other forms of discrimination.”
He said when the elderly person does not have a family that can receive them, the homes that are established
“must be truly homes and not prisons! They must be for the elderly and not for the interests of someone else! There must not be institutes where the elderly live forgotten, as hidden, neglected. I feel close to so many elderly who live in these institutes. …Homes for the elderly should be ‘lungs’ of humanity in a country, in a neighborhood, in a parish; they should be ‘shrines’ of humanity where one who is old and weak is taken care of and protected as an older brother or sister. It does so much good to go to meet an elderly person. Look at our youngsters: sometimes we see them listless and sad; Then they go to see an elderly person and they become joyful!”

Source: NRLC News

RU 486


 

Playing the victim card ignores the real victim: the unborn baby


By Dave Andrusko
ru486bAs we have documented in exhaustive detail, one wing of the Abortion Movement (and not an insignificant one) has become militantly insistent that women have the “right” to self-abort. And never you mind about state laws, the incredible dangers of buying powerful chemical abortifacients sight unseen, and their own version of “mission creep”: abortions performed well into the second trimester, if not beyond.

Some of the arguments are more sophisticated than the one I’m about to look at, a piece from the student newspaper at the University of Buffalo that ran under the headline (I kid you not), “In prison for parenting.”
National Right to Life News Today readers are familiar with Jennifer Whalen and the publicity campaign to make a martyr out of woman who trolled the Internet for chemical abortifacients to kill her grandchild.
She was recently sentenced to serve a 9-to-18-month in jail (with granted work-release) for what the New York Times’ Emily Bazelon described mockingly as
“[O]rdering pills online that her older daughter took in the first several weeks of an unplanned pregnancy, when she was 16, to induce a miscarriage. The medication was a combination of mifepristone (formerly called RU-486) and misoprostol. The drugs have been available from a doctor with a prescription in the United States since 2000 and are used around the world to induce miscarriage.”
The author of the editorial in the University of Buffalo student newspaper piece obviously read Bazelon’s piece. To their credit, he or she grasped that “The illegality of Whalen’s actions isn’t in question here. There’s no doubt that the dispersal of prescription drugs needs to be strictly monitored and controlled by professionals who are trained to do so.”
So what is in question? “[T]hat Whalen felt she needed to circumvent the law is the real issue at hand.” And that the judge, in the editorial writer’s opinion, was too harsh. That “reveals a lack of sympathy for Whalen’s situation – a situation created by factors entirely outside of her control.” We read
“Tasked with helping her daughter end an unwanted pregnancy – with protecting her daughter and the future she wanted – Whalen didn’t feel like she had any options available, at least not any legal ones (she also says that she didn’t know her actions were illegal when she committed them).”
And since, as the last paragraph concludes, “Thanks to her mother’s efforts, [her daughter] is free to pursue whatever future she desires,” it is “patently unjust that freedom is only a distant hope” for Jennifer Whalen.
Apparently it’s not unjust that the grandbaby has no hope, distant or otherwise.
A couple of thoughts. The list of reasons the editorial cites—distance to the nearest abortion clinic, cost, and ignorance (“if Whalen had known of the risks of ordering pills online”)—is just a backdoor way of getting at the real “enemy”: the absence of an abortion clinic on every corner, any law that requires a waiting period, limitations on how late in pregnancy chemical abortifacients should be used, and (although not mentioned here) requirements that abortion clinics meet minimal standards.
In other words, you (authors of pro-life legislation and, I guess, the FDA) made Ms. Whalen do it. They (taxpayers) should be paying for Ms. Whalen’s teenage daughter’s abortion.
Moreover you and/or they are responsible when the inevitable happens, (but fortunately did not to Ms. Whalen’s daughter): women and girls die.
It’s a very unsubtle argument. We must facilitate abortions, pay for abortions, forget protective laws, and keep parents out of the loop.
Because if we don’t, the blame is not on the women getting the abortion (or the parents who order abortifacients online) but us.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Religious



On the day before the anniversary of passage of the Hyde Amendment, a “religious” call for its elimination



By Dave Andrusko
The Rev. Harry Knox
The Rev. Harry Knox

I promise to try extra-hard to critique, not ridicule, “Reverends like us should never oppose access to abortion or sex ed,” by Harry Knox and Alethea Smith-Withers which appeared today in the Washington Post. That being said, the column runs under the heading PostEverything. A better heading would be PostAnything.
This is such a silly column, we’ll devote only a few paragraphs (and none to sex education which is not our issue).

Of course there is no “monolithic” view on abortion; there is no monolithic view on almost anything. Even if there was, Reverends like Knox (who is the President of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice) and Smith-Withers (chair of the board) would still pad their op-ed with the usual pro-abortion talking points.

By the way abortionist Willie Parker is on the RCAR board. We have profiled Parker, a typical RCRC type, who flies into Mississippi twice a month and performs as many as 45 abortions a day.
We’re told “And clergy do not always use Bible verses as political weapons — a misrepresentation too often promoted in the media.” Perhaps they don’t use Bible verses at all because they don’t have any they can twist to serve their life-denying purposes. We’re also told

“People of faith, as well as those with no religious affiliation, have widely varying opinions about moral questions. That’s okay. Freedom for differing views and beliefs is a core American value. The problem is when one particular religious viewpoint gets written into law, in direct violation of our national commitment to religious liberty.”
This is so silly, indeed so sophomoric, it almost is a waste of time to respond. When abortions are funded by law; when the law is changed to allow everyone but plumbers to abort children; when the law is changed from protecting unborn children to declaring open season on them—is that not an example of “one particular religious viewpoint get[ting] written into law”?
The Rev. Alethea Smith-Withers
The Rev. Alethea Smith-Withers

And of course Knox and Smith-Withers take dead aim, so to speak, at the Hyde Amendment. Any law that does not facilitate the deaths of the unborn children of poor women means that hundreds of thousands, even millions of babies are saved. That is what the Hyde Amendment has done and why pro-abortion apologists are dead-set on getting this amendment to the annual appropriations bill of the Department of Health and Human Services removed.
I wasn’t sure why this piece appeared in the Post until just now when I realized tomorrow is the 38th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s passage.
These people are relentless—and pitiless—but also blind to the real implications of the language they so glibly employ.

We read
“As clergy we are called by our faith to promote compassion, respect, and justice for all — in other words, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.”
Just for all.. and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves. Last time I looked, tearing an unborn baby limb from qualified under neither category.

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Supremes


 

Justice Ginsburg, an “icon to the left,” unashamedly criticizes Texas pro-life law



By Dave Andrusko
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
As they say, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on a roll. We talked three last week about the excerpts that appeared from a forthcoming story in the October issue of Elle magazine and are coming back to another interview today.
In her Elle interview, Justice Ginsburg lowered the boom on fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy, Congress the “Hobby Lobby” decision, “those people” having too many babies (“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people”), younger feminists who aren’t as gung-ho as she is about abortion, and, indirectly, President Obama for signaling that maybe, just maybe, she might be stepping down in time for Obama to appoint a younger clone of Ginsburg. (She is having none of that!)
Well, Ginsburg also gave a long interview to the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen. Writing at National Review Online, Ed Whelan asks if the following comment doesn’t amount to an obligation on Ginsburg’s part to recuse herself.
[Rosen]: So how can advocates make sure that poor women’s access to reproductive choice is protected? Can legislatures be trusted or is it necessary for courts to remain vigilant?
[Ginsburg]: How could you trust legislatures in view of the restrictions states are imposing? Think of the Texas legislation that would put most clinics out of business. The courts can’t be trusted either. Think of the Carhart decision or going way back to the two decisions that denied Medicaid coverage for abortion. I don’t see this as a question of courts versus legislatures. In my view, both have been moving in the wrong direction. It will take people who care about poor women. The irony and tragedy is any woman of means can have a safe abortion somewhere in the United States. But women lacking the wherewithal to travel can’t. There is no big constituency out there concerned about access restrictions on poor women. [Emphasis added]
Well, of course she should not be involved. This law could well come before the High Court and Justice Ginsburg has prejudged the outcome. But, of course, she won’t. 

There is more very much worth reading at newrepublic.com.  Here at two items.
#1. In the quote above Ginsburg bashes the “Carhart” decision which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. Only the most zealous, eyes-shut-tight ideologue could be so hard-hearted as to allow this incredibly brutal abortion technique to remain legal. But to Ginsburg Gonzales v. Carhart was nothing more than “a new form of ‘Big Brother must protect the woman against her own weakness and immature misjudgment.’”

#2. The ability to completely miss the point. She told Rosen
“Going back to the 1980s, I was speaking at Duke, not about abortion in particular, but about equal opportunities for women to be whatever their God-given talent allowed them to be, without artificial barriers placed in their way. During the question period, an African American man commented: ‘We know what you lily-white women are all about. You want to kill black babies.’ That’s how some in the African American community regarded the choice movement. So I think it would be helpful if civil rights groups homed in on the impact of the absence of choice on African American women. That would be useful.”

An African-American correctly understands that people just like Ginsburg have as a priority making sure that “those people” don’t have too many kids. Answer to his trenchant observation? Certainly not to address the truth that African-American babies are aborted in wildly disproportionate numbers. Rather focus on the impact of the “absence of choice.”
Amazing. No wonder Ginsburg has become, in Rosen’s fawning words, “an icon to the left, inspiring fanwear and Tumblr tributes.”

Source: NRLC News

Abortion and Supremes


 

Justice Ginsburg, an “icon to the left,” unashamedly criticizes Texas pro-life law



By Dave Andrusko
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
As they say, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is on a roll. We talked three last week about the excerpts that appeared from a forthcoming story in the October issue of Elle magazine and are coming back to another interview today.
In her Elle interview, Justice Ginsburg lowered the boom on fellow Justice Anthony Kennedy, Congress the “Hobby Lobby” decision, “those people” having too many babies (“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people”), younger feminists who aren’t as gung-ho as she is about abortion, and, indirectly, President Obama for signaling that maybe, just maybe, she might be stepping down in time for Obama to appoint a younger clone of Ginsburg. (She is having none of that!)
Well, Ginsburg also gave a long interview to the New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen. Writing at National Review Online, Ed Whelan asks if the following comment doesn’t amount to an obligation on Ginsburg’s part to recuse herself.
[Rosen]: So how can advocates make sure that poor women’s access to reproductive choice is protected? Can legislatures be trusted or is it necessary for courts to remain vigilant?
[Ginsburg]: How could you trust legislatures in view of the restrictions states are imposing? Think of the Texas legislation that would put most clinics out of business. The courts can’t be trusted either. Think of the Carhart decision or going way back to the two decisions that denied Medicaid coverage for abortion. I don’t see this as a question of courts versus legislatures. In my view, both have been moving in the wrong direction. It will take people who care about poor women. The irony and tragedy is any woman of means can have a safe abortion somewhere in the United States. But women lacking the wherewithal to travel can’t. There is no big constituency out there concerned about access restrictions on poor women. [Emphasis added]
Well, of course she should not be involved. This law could well come before the High Court and Justice Ginsburg has prejudged the outcome. But, of course, she won’t. 

There is more very much worth reading at newrepublic.com.  Here at two items.
#1. In the quote above Ginsburg bashes the “Carhart” decision which upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion. Only the most zealous, eyes-shut-tight ideologue could be so hard-hearted as to allow this incredibly brutal abortion technique to remain legal. But to Ginsburg Gonzales v. Carhart was nothing more than “a new form of ‘Big Brother must protect the woman against her own weakness and immature misjudgment.’”

#2. The ability to completely miss the point. She told Rosen
“Going back to the 1980s, I was speaking at Duke, not about abortion in particular, but about equal opportunities for women to be whatever their God-given talent allowed them to be, without artificial barriers placed in their way. During the question period, an African American man commented: ‘We know what you lily-white women are all about. You want to kill black babies.’ That’s how some in the African American community regarded the choice movement. So I think it would be helpful if civil rights groups homed in on the impact of the absence of choice on African American women. That would be useful.”

An African-American correctly understands that people just like Ginsburg have as a priority making sure that “those people” don’t have too many kids. Answer to his trenchant observation? Certainly not to address the truth that African-American babies are aborted in wildly disproportionate numbers. Rather focus on the impact of the “absence of choice.”
Amazing. No wonder Ginsburg has become, in Rosen’s fawning words, “an icon to the left, inspiring fanwear and Tumblr tributes.”

Source: NRLC News

Free Speech


 

400 copies of College newspaper with CPC ad vandalized



By Dave Andrusko
pregnancyad4bIt is a free country so a Drake University professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies was welcome to hammer the student newspaper (the Times-Delphic) for the audacity of running an ad from AGAPE Pregnancy Center in Des Moines, Iowa.

Beth Younger walloped AGAPE with the usual pro-abortion subtly(AGAPE is one of “these deceptive and harmful organizations”), attempted to neutralize the impact of the ad (asking/demanding the student newspaper “publish a disclaimer next to the ad”), and demonstrated complete indifference to the facts (the entirety of her screech).
As an academic, no doubt Prof. Younger was appalled when somebody took her indignation a few steps further. Last Thursday afternoon, Austin Cannon, managing editor, found a pile of 400 destroyed copies in front of their office.

“On top of the pile was one paper with an advertisement for a pregnancy resource center circled in black marker,” reported KCCI Channel 8. The vandalism represented a cost of around $200 worth of newspaper.
The reaction of the President was straight-forward. In a campus-wide email sent out Friday, David Maxwell wrote
“This act goes beyond mere vandalism — it is an attempt to curtail First Amendment rights regarding free speech, and is thus antithetical to our core values as the Drake University community. … Those who have concerns about the agency that paid for the advertisement have every right to express those concerns and to catalyze debate, as Prof. Younger has done in her letter to the editor. But we should all be outraged by an act that not only entails the destruction of others’ property, but is intended to communicate a message in a manner that violates our sense of who we are and what we stand for as a university.”

In a television interview on Channel 8, Editor-in-Chief Courtney Fishman said
“It’s just a little disheartening to me because it doesn’t mean we support the organization, and we’ve run ads from Planned Parenthood in the past. So it’s interesting to me that people are upset about it, and they’ve very welcome to be upset about it, but it’s upsetting that they’re vandalizing our property.”

Fishman told the Des Moines Register that he paper will “absolutely” continue to publish ads from Agape, despite criticism.

One other note. In his email, President Maxwell also cited the letter from Prof. Younger as a way “to catalyze debate.” Younger’s name was not mentioned in any story about the vandalizing that I could find [Editor’s note. I subsequently found her name mentioned in a UPI story], nor her outlandish slurs against AGAPE addressed.

What outrageous things did the ad say? The headline is “Think you might be pregnant?” followed up by “Free pregnancy tests” and “Free ultrasounds.”
What will those villainous pro-lifers think of next?

Source: NRLC News

Monday, September 29, 2014

HHS Mandate

scale justice

BREAKING: Catholic university complies with abortion mandate

Earlier this month, the state of California demanded that even Catholic universities offer elective abortions through insurance plans. Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a complaint with the United States Department of Health and Human Services. But for now, Loyola Marymount University, a private Catholic school, must offer elective abortions to all those under its insurance policy.
Campus newspaper, Los Angeles Loyolan, reported Saturday:
“LMU’s insurance will cover faculty and staff for elective abortions effective from August 22 to the end of the policy period, the University announced.
“The news was confirmed in an email sent to faculty and staff yesterday, Vice President for Human Resources Rebecca Chandler confirmed that LMU’s insurance providers will now cover all procedures deemed medically necessary, including elective abortions.”

This reversal comes under the heavy hand of the state of California directive from Michelle Rouillard, director of the Department of Managed Healthcare (DHMC). Rouillard said, when the directive was issued, that: “Abortion is a basic health care service.”  And for now, Rouillard and Gov. Jerry Brown, a former Catholic seminary student, have their way in forcing Catholics to violate their conscience protections.
Though the university is following the law as it stands, the story is not over. The complaint to the United States Department of Health and Human Services asserting the state of California’s discrimination against federal conscience protections, says:
“DMHC ordered elective abortion coverage into the Complainants’ own LMU health plan…..This directive of the DMHC constitutes unlawful discrimination against a healthcare entity…. DMHC is subject[ing] Complainants’ “health insurance plan” to “discrimination,” by denying its approval of the plan that omitted elective abortions solely “on the basis that the [plan] does not… provide coverage of… abortions.”
Life Legal Defense Foundation and Alliance Defending Freedom continue to fight for the rights of Catholic universities to be allowed to exercise their rights as well. Life Legal Defense Foundation also said, “If you or anyone you know, individual, employer, or insurance provider, is directly affected by this decision, please contact Life Legal Defense Foundation.”
The response to the complaint filed with the Department of Health and Human Services is still pending.

Source: LiveAction News

Baby Development


 

Early Options Abortion Clinic Distorts the Truth about Early Abortion

 
 

By Sarah Terzo

Poor abortion clinics. There is so much information on the Internet that it’s hard to keep women in the dark anymore. You can Google fetal development and see that the heart of the baby begins beating at 21 days. It’s becoming more widely known. So one abortion clinic, Early Options, which claims that an embryo “doesn’t exist” that early (one wonders what they are aborting then) says the following on their website:
“If there is no embryo, why do they say there is a heartbeat? At seven weeks of pregnancy, the cells that will become the embryo start to cluster inside the gestational sac. These cells can be seen on ultrasound, but would not be visible to the naked eye. At this time, the cells that are determined to later form the heart start to “beat.” An ultrasound technician will often interpret the beating cells as a ‘heartbeat’ long before a heart develops.”
Cited in Stacy Trasancos “Clinic: We Do Abortions With No Disturbing Suction Noise” LifeNews 11/3/11.
That’s right, a heartbeat isn’t a heartbeat – it’s just cells beating… Makes perfect sense. By the way, below is a picture of an unborn baby at 7 weeks after conception.
7-weeks1
Just in case they’re referring to an embryo at 7 weeks since the woman’s last period, 2 weeks before conception, here is a 5 week old embryo – it’s not as recognizably human, but it’s clearly an embryo, not simply a collection of cells. You can clearly see the heart of the baby.
5-weeks1b
And if that’s not enough, here is a video of an unborn baby’s heart beating at 6 weeks:
Is that a heart or just “cells determined to be a heart?”
It’s amazing how abortion clinics distort the truth sometimes.

Source: NRLC News