Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Abortion Restricted By Diminishing Pools Of Providers



Abortion is on the way out not only because American hearts are changing on abortion-55 percent hold a pro-life view, but also because fewer and fewer young doctors can be found to perform abortions and replace the aging fleet of abortion providers-2/3rds of whom are past 65.  There are probably half as many abortion providers as there were 15 years ago.



Why are promising young physicians refusing to do abortion?  Because they are promising.  They are brilliant and full of ambition.  Aspiring physicians go to medical school to do great things and save lives.  No one dreams of being an abortionist and harming fetuses/unborn children.  What's fulfilling about that?  It's a dull, boring repetitive procedure.  The women don't want to be there and they tend to despise, not appreciate the abortionist. 



And then there's THE BODY PARTS.  Ask abortion personnel if they like to count, process or dispose of or even look at them.  You get the picture. 



Then there's the emotional-psychological-spiritual dimension.   Abortionists have their apologists to say this is a fine career and it has no adverse affects.  But read the book in the side bar from Mark Cruther, LIME 5, Exploited by Choice and you'll see why many people say that the PUNISHMENT for doing an abortion is being an abortionist. 



The inability to resupply the depleting corps of abortionists explains why abortion advocates are in overdrive full combat mode to make abortion training COMPULSORY for medical students and why they are trying to FORCE hospitals, and insurers to participate in and pay for abortion.  So much for choice.  If you don't choose their choice you have no choice.



Abortion is on the way out not only because of the political pressure being applied by the culture of life, but also by the lack of young abortion providers to replenish the depleting ranks.  Not convinced, read these quotes from an article The Bite of “Choice” by our friend Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director Of Priests For Life.



..... Abortionist Morris Wortman ... "There is tremendous support in the medical community for a woman's right to choose, as long as she doesn't "choose me" to perform her abortion" (Medical Tribune, March 6, 1997).



 



"When I look back on the [Roe v. Wade] decision, I thought these words had been written in granite. But I've learned it was not granite. It was more like sandstone. The immediate problem is, where will the doctors come from?" (Sarah Weddington, pro-abortion attorney who successfully argued Roe vs. Wade before the Supreme Court; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 15, 1998).



 



"That's how the anti's are going to win...by attrition, because fewer and fewer doctors will perform abortions" (Abortionist Herbert Hodes, Glamour, September 1991).



   



"Abortion opponents will achieve their goal without ever having to overturn Roe vs. Wade" (Kate Michelman, (former) Director, National Abortion Rights Action League, Dallas Morning News, October 4, 1997, commenting on the shortage of abortionists).



 



"We've seen a turn-off of physicians coming into this field" (Abortionist Ed Boaz, ABC World News Tonight, January 16, 1998).



   



"Having the right to abortion doesn't mean a [expletive] thing if you can't access it" (Barbara Ellis, abortion advocate, National Abortion Federation Annual meeting, San Francisco, March/April 1996).



   



Fr. Pavone concludes: "So many pro-life activists have looked for visible results of their legislative and educational activity, and often don't find as much as they would like. Yet these quotes prove that the abortion industry feels the weight of our success.



   



"By educating the public, especially medical students, about how ugly life as an abortionist is, we continue to rob them of what they need to keep abortion going."



 



This column can be found online at
www.priestsforlife.org/columns/columns2006/06-06-02biteofchoice.htm.







Tuesday, May 30, 2006

No Controlled Substances For Physician Assisted Suicide

Should Congress amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to say that using controlled substances to assist suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose even when it is requested by terminal, depressed, handicapped, dependant people and others living “hopeless” lives? 



 





Yes! Absolutely yes- even when it is requested by the suicidal person!  The state tells whole classes of people that their lives are not worth living when it fails to oppose or curb physician-assisted suicide (PAS).  IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY that some lives are not worth living without saying that others sharing their characteristics/traits DO NOT have lives unworthy of life.



 





We expend incredible resources to prevent CERTAIN PEOPLE from committing suicide-like a relative who was student body president, homecoming king, track star and etc…  We’d do anything to stop THEIR suicides. . But, if you don’t have long to live, aren't autonomous, don't enjoy life and feel burdensome, then we understand that YOU'D want to kill yourself. Instead of intervention, we’ll test you to be certain that you mean it! What makes the one more worth living than the other?  How do we agree that the one life is less worth living without saying that all others like him/him or her don’t have worthwhile lives? 



 





The state must oppose that kind of bigotry and any suggestion that there is any such thing as life unworthy of life.  It must oppose this idea even when people who want to kill themselves judge their own lives to be life unworthy of life.  The government cannot agree with citizens that their own lives are not life worthy of life without jeopardizing others.  Once the sanctity of life is lessened/denied for one person or group, the right to life for the rest of us becomes negotiable.







Friday, May 26, 2006

Welcome Chuck Muth Fans

Welcome to everyone who found this blog through Chuck Muth’s Nevada News & Views.  Chuck has taught me more than I could ever repay him in the few months I’ve known him.  It’s an honor to be in the company of people like Chuck.



   





In this blog I’ll give my thoughts on bio-ethical issues like abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide/futile care theory, embryonic stem cell research/cloning, and genetic engineering/transhumanism.  I’ve spent six years interviewing the best of the pro-life movement on Immaculate Heart Radio’s Voice For Life.  If we disagree, at least you’ll be getting a pretty mainstream pro-life message, not the caricaturized version you get from the MSM.



   





Thanks again for dropping by.  The posts will get shorter.  I promise.  Check out the Nevada LIFE website at www.nevadalife.org.



   





Sincerely,



   



Don Nelson



Abortion and "Family Planning" Policies Impact Immigration



America’s four decades of abortion and “family planning” (contraception) policies are having a DIRECT IMPACT on our policy of what to do with the roughly 12 million immigrants living in the United States illegally and the shape of future immigration policy.  How so?



   



















































American birth rates, due to contraception and abortion and the change in attitudes toward children and large families, are too low to sustain our economy and our entitlements and pension systems without a massive influx of immigrants.  For a nation to replace its population, it needs 2.1 children for every woman-and that is depending on the incredible advances of our health care system which has driven down infant morality.



   



For a look into the future of what America will be like unless it increases its reproduction rates, consider impotent, dying Old Europe.  Put a fork in them.  They’re cooked.  It’s over.  There’s no tomorrow.  There’s no longer any reason to take Old Europe seriously as an economic or military force because their states are dying as a result of their abortion and anti-family planning polices. 



   



With low birth rates, these nations have required and received massive infusions of non-native, non assimilating mostly Muslims immigrants to sustain their nation's labor demands.  I have nothing against these Muslims, but Europeans feel threatened by them and stand to lose their national identities. They can’t send these non-assimilating immigrants home even if they wanted to because they depend on them.  There aren’t enough of their own young to fill the labor needs of their nations. Because they depend on them and because the Frenchies and other old Euros have such a low regard for children, reproduction and large families, in 50 years they will be bowing to Mecca five times a day in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.



   





You say "come on Nelson, it’s not over."  Au contraire!  It's over.  Do the math.  The European birth rate is about 1.57.  That’s including the more fertile eastern European nations who didn't lose their Catholic identity under the repression of communism.  Russia is losing over 1 million people a year.  She will lose one third of her population in 50 years. Her reproduction rate is about 1.17. It’s over in Germany (1.4).  It’s over in Italy (1.2).  It’s over in Spain (1.1).  Old Europe is done.  It’s not going to get better. 



   



What's worse is that as far as we can tell, these nations CANNOT convince their young to step up reproduction-not even with the kind of tax and other government incentives offered in France.  Russian women do NOT want to participate though they are given huge incentives to do so.  It’s also over in Japan.  Singapore is in a race to keep from going out of existence too.  But they too have problems getting young women to go along.  Wouldn't it be bizarre if for all the pro-abortion talk of pro-lifers forcing women to be government baby factories, that governments ended up coercing women to have children to save their national identities?  Years of telling women that children are obstacles to happiness and personal fulfillment and that abortion is a fundamental right to achieving that happiness is killing the west and other developed nations.



   





How has America’s 40 year abortion and anti-“family planning” policies impacted the illegal immigration/amnesty debate...  If the numbers are accurate, America's fertility rates are too low.  The United States (1.99) needs to have an aggressive immigration policy to bring in more people to make up for our baby bust and low birth rates.  If we don’t.... it will be over for us too.  It’s possible that the resurgence of young Catholics bearing large families, Mormons (and some evangelicals) bearing large families will add more to our population, but right now the only thing that seems to keep us somewhat of a young nation and growing nation, are immigrants.  They are allowing us to experience the necessary growth in our population to sustain a growing economy. 



   



We need these immigrants because we have aborted 45 million unborns in America-the combined populations of California, Oregon, Arizona, Utah and Nevada. Black Americans, a target for abortion, abort 43 out of 100 pregnancies and account for about 35 percent of all abortions, though they are only 11 or 12 percent of the population.  With white women reproducing at such a low rate and black women aborting at such a high rate, we probably need to keep that border open or the America economic boom is over and our entitlement and pension plans are finished



   





I’m not advocating for an immigration policy here at all.  I am saying that, whatever the right or wrong of illegal immigration and amnesty programs-and whatever our future immigration policies will be, our choices have been DIRECTLY LIMITED by America's 40 year abortion and anti "family planning" policies.





Thursday, May 11, 2006

Pharmacy Reg Has No Conscience Clause



On April 20th, 2006, the Nevada State Pharmacy Board approved a regulation "setting forth certain circumstances under which a pharmacist may decline to fill a prescription."  Conscience is NOT one of them.  There’s better news below, but this could make targets out of pro-life pharmacists and compel them to violate their consciences or face termination, lawsuits or discipline-including heavy fines and a loss of license- for refusing to dispense drugs which take human life to accommodate another person’s lifestyle of choice.  Those prescriptions are not drugs that fight cancer, AIDS, or pain.  They are not sexual enhancement drugs.  They are drugs which often cause early abortions, and drugs to assist suicide. 





This regulation could have a chilling effect on pro-life pharmacists-who are mostly Christian- and whose consciences prevent them from participating in death causing prescriptions. It tells a large group of pharmacists to check their consciences at the state line.  What happens here stays here-no conscience allowed.  If pro-life Christian pharmacists don’t like it, they can get another job or work in another state.  Who cares if there is a nation wide pharmacist shortage and a health care provider crisis in Nevada?  Who cares if rural communities are deprived of a pharmacist when rural pharmacists are run out of state?  We want what we want when we want it no matter who it offends to fulfill our lifestyles of choice.





Despite the lack of a clear conscience exception, there is still some reason to see pharmacist protections.  There is a provision allowing pharmacists to decline to fill “if the pharmacist reasonably believes, in his professional judgment, that” the prescription is “potentially harmful to the health of the patient.”  Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and others believe and testified that this language “leaves a loophole for a pharmacist to refuse for religious or conscience concerns.”  These anti-conscience groups forcefully argued to have this language changed or removed.  Under threat of a lawsuit, the board rejected those changes.





That could be this dark cloud’s silver lining.  From the testimony and exchanges at the hearing, the board may have reserved for pharmacists a right to decline to fill conscience-violating prescriptions under professional standards language.





This isn’t the end.  A legislative committee will likely review the adopted regulation.  The regulation will be tested.  Anti-conscience groups will be back next year at the legislature to force anti-conscience provisions into law.  And, if they can compel highly trained pharmacists to obey…doctors, hospitals and insurers… you’re next.