Leave it to the students at Franciscan University to protest a Bill Clinton rally for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio. You have to see this clip! Clinton lashes out at students saying that if we were really pro-life that we would want to criminalize every woman and their doctors, among other colorful things. What Clinton fails to recognize is that the vast majoroty of doctors do not perform abortions, which is why you have to go to a back alley money-mill to get one.
Ah, Bill and Hillary. The gift that keeps on giving.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Clinton's right - every doctor who performs abortions should go to prison for murder once abortion is declared murder.
The question to ask him is, what is the ratio of abortion "doctors" to other doctors? I can assure you it is a deminimus amount!
I'm also not so sure it was appropriate for the student to heckle the President... hardly becoming of a good catholic student.
Honor thy Father and Mother applies to all authority, he's a President of our country - it was inappropriate and tasteless.
I too am not a fan of heckling and believe it to be ineffective at acheiving any great result, and in poor taste. And yes, a former President should be treated with respect regardless of politcal conviction. However, these students believe they are the voice of the unborn, a voice which cannot defend, and in that way I respect what they are doing also.
A great study was just published in the Am. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "Predictors of abortion provision among practicing obstetrician-gynecologists: A national survey"
"Abortion is the most common surgical procedure among reproductive-aged women in the United States, more common than hysterectomy, sterilization, or cesarean delivery. Almost one half of US pregnancies are unintended, and one half of all unintended pregnancies are terminated."
This study surveyed the 5055 ob/gyn who became board certified from 1998-2001. Of the 2309 respondents, 22% had performed an abortion in the previous year, to answer your question, Mark. Only 50% of all those surveyed did not intend to provide abortions during their career, suggesting that up to 50% would be willing to provide abortions if necessary or if their institution allowed such procedures. Of course most physicians don't provide abortions, most physician's aren't obstetricians or gynecologists.
Interestingly, the study also points out that, "Many of our respondents work in practices or hospitals in which abortions are prohibited. The large number of restrictive hospitals may be the result of recent increases in religious and secular hospital mergers." These mergers are certainly not surprising considering the state of many community-funded health care centers.
Regardless of personal or religious beliefs, this is a legal and obviously common procedure for which physicians have been threatened and brutally murdered and for which women have given their lives. I'm not entering into a moral debate, but I will vehemently support these physicians and the top tier institutions, my own included, which is hardly a back alley money-mill, in which this procedure is performed for as long as our nation as a whole believes abortion is a legal procedure. To suggest that the physicians who embrace the women who have made the choice to terminate their pregnancies is unfortunate.
I will not be responding to further posts as I have no desire to enter into a debate, I just wanted to share this information to address the previous assault on the integrity of these physicians as a whole.
Thank you for this useful information. While I am skeptical of studies until I know exactly how it was performed, the information provided by Matt does further the argument that not many doctors are willing to perform abortion. OB/GYNs, of any doctors, would be the ones subjected to the task of performing an abortion. Even if this study coming out of San Francisco is accurate, only 22% of the type of doctors who are "fit" to perform abortions do it (according to the study).
If you don't live in a major metro area where there are doctors who are willing to abort babies, you would be hard-pressed to find a willing doctor. Those willing doctors fly around the state performing abortions.
Where do women Obtain Abortions? the Guttmaker Institute provides these stats:
· In 2005, there were 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. This represents a 2% decrease from 2000, when there were 1,819 abortion providers. Only 34% of these providers were hospitals.
· 69% of all abortions were provided at abortion clinics, 25% at other clinics, 5% at hospitals and 2% at private physicians' offices.
· There are 11 abortion providers in Minnesota.
· 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2005, nonhospital providers estimate that 25% traveled at least 50 miles, and 8% traveled more than 100 miles.
· In 2005, 95% of Minnesota counties had no abortion provider. 62% of Minnesota women lived in these counties. In the Midwest census region, where Minnesota is located, 19% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 9% traveled more than 100 miles.
I LIKE FACTS.
There are less than 1800 abortion providers in this country.
The math just doesn't add up for the journal findings that polled 5,000 some OB/GYNs...
***Matt requested that morals not be entered into the discussion. Pro-life supporters need not reduce their positions to a moral norm; the suggestion of such is to derogate a valid position. While I am confident that morality only aids the pro-lifers side, the more science develops and the more we learn about the human person through both the empirical and the a priori - the more abortion is exposed for the heinous act it is. Facts, Science and time are on the pro-lifers side…
Thank you both for your perspectives. My intention was not to assault the integrity of physicians, as I have the deepest respect for them. My post suggests in no way that any physician performing abortions be harmed, threatened or disrespected. To assume so assaults my integrity.
Do I question and make personal judgments on physicians who chose to terminate babies? Yes, and that cannot be criticized, because as patients it is our role to seek out physicians whose care is commensurate with the value we place on our lives, to me, a physician who takes the lives of unborn babies is not a physician whose hands I'd put my life in.
I have neither the time, desire nor resources to research articles. However, my personal experience within a top-tiered medical school left nothing to be desired. As a young, healthy, married pregnant women I was asked, questioned, and looked down upon after repeatedly being asked if I would like to terminate the pregnancy, visit after visit, month after month. If anything, there's an assault on babies, on babies that aren't perfect, on babies that aren't "intended" and it's disgusting.
Thank you both again, I appreciate the time you took to discuss a serious issue which we're all passionate about. Guess what, I like facts, too ;)
I just wrote a really long comment, and I lost it when I tried to publish. So here is a different version:
I am confused by this. So this is my take. As unrelated as it may be.
There is no indisputable evidence that life begins at conception. There is indisputable evidence that life begins before full-term birth. Otherwise premature birth survival would be impossible. So, it seems to me that we should very careful about "terminating" a pregnancy. We should err on the side of caution. We should be aware that if we terminate a human life without full knowlege, we commit murder - even if it is involuntary manslaughter. Good medicine follows this cautionary approach, I think.
So, if physicians can get through med school, I think it follows that they can get through a bit of common sense.
Unfourtunately we get most of our views on abortion from partisan pundits and the victims of their indotrination. Scary dualisms and platitudes do very little to advance anything substantial.
And I am VERY scared of so called "facts." They are really just the manipulation of statistical probabilities and significance with fancy computer software. Truth be told, the "facts" have very little to do with the "truth."
But, I think, that beyond silly "facts" and dualisms on display at the Clinton rally - most physicians (and people in general) understand common sense if they are afforded the chance to get beyond the simplicitudes.
To prove this, there are many sound headed atheists, feminists, and alike who seem to understand abortion and argue against it convincingly without appeals to the normative dialogue. I think most physicians would fall into the same sound-minded category.
I, for one, am left to be a non-physician, God-believing, pseudo-feminist-at-best, common guy who is embarassed by his own and the "bad guys" too.
One more thing...
I guess I should also add that I think that abortion should be abolished because of the cautionary reasons I mentioned, and we should become even more cautious as the pregnancy term advances.
I agree with the criticism of facts. Although, I do not necessarily share the same fear.
On an issue like learning more of the mystery of the human person in the womb, I trust that the more empirical data is collected, the better it will be for the baby's case in the long term.
Yes, ultimately, facts are meaningless because of how partisans use them. If the "facts" do not run in the cautionary side of birth, we will not suddenly become in favor of abortion. The position is not a shallow one.
In fact, my response proves how facts can be used and manipulated for any particular position. Matt could have used the same facts that I provided and shifted the discussion to a possible institutional control of doctors who would otherwise be willing to abort.
Every side of the discussion is important though. We need to uncover the truths through philosophical dialogue, research and sociological patterns.
The potential benefit of all of this manipulation of "facts" is that we will not trust them as much...That would be great! Perhaps, then, we as a post-modern society could develop a dialogue rather than a ranting of stats and figures that are meaningless to the positions we have.
To confess, my facts post was facetious and a spin of the Rosie v. Hassleback argument --- this IS a mommy blog!
Post a Comment