OMAHA, Nebraska, July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Billionaire investing mogul Warren Buffett has been secretly backing a campaign to combat the decrease in doctors who are training as abortionists and to bring abortion into the mainstream of medicine, revealed the New York Times this week.
In her NYT magazine cover story, journalist Emily Bazelon describes how abortion “rights” activists are working to “recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one.”
The piece, entitled “The New Abortion Providers,” claims that abortionists and the pro-abort lobby are trying to dispel the image of the “greedy, butchering ‘abortionist’.” “The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned,” writes Bazelon.
The strategy, she says, aims at moving abortuaries away from stand-alone facilities into hospitals and encourages family physicians to offer abortions within their practices.
If this is really what people want -- for all family doctors to routinely kill babies -- why all the secrecy?
Maybe because most people don't want to be treated by somebody who would prostitute his or her skills to become a paid assassin, that's why. Would you want your streets patrolled by cops who noonlight as hit men?
I think a lot of the motivation behind this isn't just to increase the pool of abortionists. It's to decrease the likelihood that the frightened pregnant woman will find real help. No doubt this abortion curriculum will focus on "teaching" doctors that women NEED abortions, and that they ought not to offer the abortion-vulnerable any real help. Just scrape her out and bill her insurance. It's about keeping women frightened, uninformed, and isolated at a vulnerable time. To have even their own physicians betray a sacred trust and feed women into the maw of the abortion machine.
We really need to clearly divide the medical community into "progressive" practitioners -- who do things like abort babies and euthanize the sick and elderly -- and Hippocratic practitioners who take "First, do no harm" seriously. That way women who already know that they would want their children snuffed can go to baby snuffing docs for all their medical needs, and women who love their children can go to doctors who will provide real care, not just scrape them out and bill their insurance.
Also see this excellent analysis at First Things.
10 comments:
'embraced rather than shunned' - not an objective piece of journalism then.
'...moving abortuaries away from stand-alone facilities into hospitals...' - hooray! About time. Integrating abortion into general healthcare systems can only be an improvement.
'...why all the secrecy?' - to minimize the threats and actions of certain groups.
'Maybe because most people don't want to be treated by somebody who would prostitute his or her skills to become a paid assassin, that's why. Would you want your streets patrolled by cops who noonlight as hit men?' - emotive, subjective and non-comparative.
'It's about keeping women frightened, uninformed, and isolated at a vulnerable time.' - pot, kettle, big time.
What "secrecy"? This is in the NY Times. How much LESS secret can anything be???
Your last paragraph kind of baffles me, that we need to "divide" the medical community. Isn't it already divided, by doctors' own choices?
Among the first question I ask a doctor (right up there with insurance/payment questions), when I am a new patient, is how they feel about contraception/abortion. If they are opposed to either, they are not the right doctor for me -- and I am not the right patient for them.
I want those children SNUFFED, thanks! :)
L, I think that there needs to be a clear and unmistakable division between the two, so that there's no confusion. That "Hippocratic" or "Progressive" needs to be on the door and on the business cards and there needs to be a sign in the waiting room that explains the difference.
That would certainly eliminate "wrongful life" suits! If you know that you'd want to snuff a baby that doesn't pass your quality control standards, choose a "progressive" ob/gyn, and you can rest assured that you'll be bombarded with tests to make sure you have the maximum chance of only producing a fine consumer good style baby. If your love for your child is unconditional, choose a "hippocratic" practitioner and know that he'll do no harm to your unborn child with eugenics screenings that bring a risk of miscarriages.
Everybody wins -- the ones who favor "quality" and the ones who love unconditionally.
Christina, there already IS a divide, is what I'm saying -- why is there a need to put it on the door and business cards? Why not just ASK?
Seems to me as if it would be a boon for the office sign/business card printing business, and not tell patients anything more than they'd get by asking up front.
"Eugenics screenings" -- standard tests can also reveal problems that can be corrected shortly after birth, or even in utero. And I know lots of pro-life people who chose to have amnio despite the tiny (but real) risk of complications, so if I were you, I would be careful about labeling procedures like that.
(And why "progressive?" That sounds so....CATHOLIC to me! So "Dorothy Day." )
Simple question I always ask: "Are you pro-life?"
Doctors always hesitate. They know there is one answer I want to hear.
But they have always said yes or no. A "no" tells me all I need to know.
In almost 30 years, I've only heard one say "yes," and I didn't go back to that doctor. I'm sure he didn't miss my business.
L, most people don't realize that there's even a reason for them to care until it's too late. People tend to assume that other people share their values, because to them it's all so self-evident. It's only when you run into trouble that you realize how important this is. And I think the public debate over dividing the medical community would force people to pay attention, to realize that it DOES matter.
Clearly people do NOT ask their doctors ahead of time, and the result is wrongful life suits and women being pressured into unwanted abortions. Do you not agree that both of these scenarios are preventable, but only if people realize that these situations can happen to them?
Sorry, Christina -- I just don't agree with you on this one. I think the responsibility is the patient's, not the doctor's, to ask questions. If pro-life groups want to start issuing a "pro-life seal of approval" or something, more power to them, but I am opposed in principle to requiring signs on the waiting room door.
You know, it would be interesting to see how insurers would deal with a clearly divided medical community. Wouldn't they prefer to fund doctors who snuff out those expensive babies?
Can we have a bit of rational thinking and practical thinking on this issue please. One of the things I miss most about living in the uk is my old gynae. He treated me since I was 14 years old for various feminine issues. If I had stayed at home and gotten pregnant I would have liked him to continue to treat me no matter what decision I took. If all is well then I would have liked him to deliver me - either vaginally or by cesarian. If things went wrong either in my circumstance or with the baby, I would like him to terminate if that's what I decide. This brings continuity of care and trust in a doctor patient relationship and I'm sure that is what he does today with the rest of his patients. What am I missing here?
What do you want - a doctor that tells you your baby won't have much quality or quantity of life but he/she is not going to terminate so you either have to go elsewhere or be forced to carry to term or vice versa a doctor that says you have to abort as I'm not going to continue treating you to term as baby's prognosis is terminal.
I don't think this is the attitude that people want. And I'm sure that most gynaes see abortion as part of the obgyn services they offer - ant they should add no value judgement just state the science and stats and let Mom decide.
Post a Comment