. . . because action speaks louder than words.
League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff
Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more
Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies
Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square
Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders
Abortion industry converts tell the inside story
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
You are currently browsing the archives for the Health Care category.
With the judge’s ruling to block the new law taking Medicaid funds from Indiana’s Planned Parenthood, there has been some discussion about the impact the law was having on Indiana doctors.
As I wrote previously, this article by Heather Gillers caught my attention because it contains several statements that just don’t ring true to me.
After doing some searching of my own, though, it seems that it’s actually the Indiana University School of Medicine that is to blame for causing the confusion over the impact of this law.
This sentence by Gillers has caused me quite a bit of confusion:
Since the law took effect six weeks ago, The Star has learned, doctors at IU and Wishard hospitals stopped offering to terminate pregnancies for about 70 patients, including many with complications that put the patient’s health at serious risk or where there was no possibility the fetus would survive. (emphasis added)
I wrote to the author and asked what it means to “stop offering” to do abortions. She replied, “There were 70 women that they weren’t able to offer abortions to” since the bill went into effect. [Continue reading ...]
Indiana’s new law which aims to take Medicaid money from Planned Parenthood has been put on hold by a federal judge who doesn’t believe the restrictions will pass muster in the end.
Two articles I’ve come across are attacking the law from the perspective of doctors at two Indiana hospitals who have stopped doing abortions because they’re afraid the new law prohibits them from doing abortions if they also receive Medicaid funding.
Heather Gillers, writing for The Indianapolis Star published “A Law of Unintended Consequences”. Gillers writes that doctors at Indiana University and Wishard Hospitals fear they don’t fall under the law’s “hospital” exemption. However, the next sentence indicates that these doctors may have overreacted, since both the author of the bill and the state Medicaid agency disagree with this interpretation.
But I love this line in a story by Indianapolis’ local Fox affiliate:
Senator Schneider said the bill exempted hospitals, but that is where doctors and some lawmakers disagree. The bill exempts hospitals from performing abortions, not the doctors who actually perform the procedures. (emphasis added)
Seriously?
Last week the an AP article highlighted possible new methods of prenatal genetic testing, speculating on the effect these might have on pregnancy. Upon reading this, “Sophia,” a writer for the Abortion Gang blog, reflected:
Genetic testing, now and in the future, is an issue that is worth consideration and public acknowledgement, but getting lost down the rabbit hole of spooky unknowns is a waste of time and distorts the reality of women today.
But are fears about genetic testing leading to abortion for the creation of “perfect” children really going down the rabbit hole? Are these fears something we ought not worry about yet based on the “reality of women today”? [Continue reading ...]
A woman is carried into an ambulance behind a sheet at Planned Parenthood in Aurora, Illinois [Photo by Eric Scheidler, 4/1/11]
Reading yesterday’s Chicago Tribune article about the lack of oversight of abortion clinics in Illinois, a couple things in particular stuck out in my mind:
Also unknown to officials are the types of abortion-related problems experienced by women. Nearly 4,000 reports of abortion complications involving Illinois residents in 2009 were missing the required description.
That’s nearly 4,000 complications in one state, in one year.
Even worse, the article highlighted the deaths of six (6) women, and in at least four of these cases, the abortion facilities “could not confirm” whether they had reported these deaths to the state, as required by law.
Unbelievably — or not, I suppose — Planned Parenthood “said it had no reason to believe the 2002 death [of Maurice Stevenson's wife] was not reported but that the records were in storage” [emphasis added].
The records were in storage? Seriously? [Continue reading ...]
Shortly after an investigation earlier this year by Live Action revealing that Planned Parenthood does not, in fact, provide mammograms, Susan G. Komen for the Cure issued a statement [PDF] implicitly acknowledging as much, but still making it clear that Komen has no plans to discontinue the grants that a “limited number” of their local affiliates give to PP so it can play the middleman and refer women to some place that actually does them.
After reading Komen’s statement, I wondered: what if you contact Komen and ask them directly if Planned Parenthood provides mammograms—what do they say then?
So I filled out their contact form and asked them: [Continue reading ...]
Along with the news of Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s death on Friday, also released last week was a related story from Gallup, which reports that doctor-assisted suicide is the single most controversial issue in the U.S. today. (Not surprisingly, abortion is in the #2 spot.)
Since Kevorkian’s death, pro-choice writers like Slate’s William Saletan have been making comparisons between assisted suicide and abortion. And to be sure, there are some gobsmackingly obvious similarities between the two.
But as far as legality is concerned, it’s interesting to see those on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate make the comparison between abortion and assisted suicide, current U.S. law treats these two issues very differently. [Continue reading ...]
Yesterday, Psychiatric Times released a short video of Dr. Nada Stotland — a former APA president and former board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health — explaining why she believes there’s no direct link between abortion and psychiatric illness:
Her central claim comes at the 0:30 mark, when she says, “The fact is that there’s no good evidence that induced abortion causes psychiatric illness in any meaningful numbers.”
Really? [Continue reading ...]
On March 30, an investigation by Live Action revealed that contrary to claims made by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, the nation’s largest abortion chain does not, in fact, perform mammograms.
And yet, several weeks later, Susan G. Komen for the Cure — the King Kong of breast cancer awareness organizations — is still referring mammogram-seeking women to PP.
After Live Action’s investigation was released, pro-lifers began contacting Komen to ask them why they’re continuing to give money to the nation’s largest abortion chain. In response, Komen issued this statement [PDF] on its website, which begins thusly: [Continue reading ...]
The package insert from the emergency contraceptive Plan B. Read closely the bold section that explains "how this product works."
On April 24, Aurora Beacon columnist Jeff Ward wrote a column titled “Your beliefs have nothing to do with my Rx.”
In it Ward argues that pharmacists who don’t want to sell Plan B and other oral contraceptives should not have become pharmacists in the first place.
He also argues that “the not so funny inevitabilities” of a moral stance that prohibits a pharmacist from dispensing Plan B would similarly keep Muslims from selling Nyquil (which contains alcohol) or “Jewish pharmacists wouldn’t fill Heparin prescriptions because that blood thinner is derived from pig intestines.” [Continue reading ...]
Josh Brahm of Life Report is launching a great new project today: “Pro-Life Link Parties.”
The idea is to allow pro-life bloggers to not only increase traffic to their blogs, but to allow pro-life blog readers opportunities to read numerous insights on a given topic from a variety of perpsectives within the pro-life movement, all grouped together in the same place.
The first link party is “On the Physical Dangers of Abortion,” to which I added a link to a post I wrote just last week about a new video from the Guttmacher Institute entitled, “Does the Abortion Industry Really Care about Women’s Safety?”
Check out other contributions on this topic here.