Pages

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Quick News Roundup: 09/30/10

Domestic News: In Maryland, The Gynecare Center run by embattled abortionist Romeo A. Ferrer, is closing its doors. Ferrer has come under fire due to the death of a woman during a botched abortion attempt. The Maryland Board of Physicians has already revoked his medical license and no one will be working at his facility in his stead. In Wisconsin, for the first time since 2003, the annual number of abortions performed has increased. According to the state Department of Health Services, year over year, the number of abortions performed in Wisconsin increased 3.6% from 2008 to 2009. That said, the abortion rate in Wisconsin is still well below the national average - 7 abortions for every 1,000 women in Wisconsin versus 17 abortions for every 1,000 women nationally. In Colorado, a ballot initiative this year will, if enacted, establish a Personhood Amendment to their state Constitution. Pro-life activisits in Colorado don't like the way that the state decided to discuss it in voter guides sent out to many Coloradans. If any of our readers are from Colorado and have seen one of these voter guides, feel free to leave some comments to help us understand the purported controversy.

International News: Brazlian supermodel Isabeli Fontana said that her American modeling agency tried to coerce her into having an abortion when she became pregnant at 19 in order to salvage her modeling career. She refused and had the child. Her son is now 8 years old and she still has a lucrative career in modeling. Since the enactment of Mexico City's policy to legalize abortion, an average of 21,000 abortions have been performed annually. For comparrison, that's approximately 1/4 the number of abortions performed annually in New York City.

Discussion Topic: What led you to Secular ProLife? What specifically led you to be interested in reading / discussing pro-life ideas from a non-faith perspective? I like the idea of trying to bring in more people to the table to discuss pro-life ideas and Secular ProLife was just the place for that to happen. I was also interested in seeing an organization that was pro-life and willing to not necessarily promote being sexually active, but acknowledge that it happens and that contraception should be available to help prevent unplanned pregnancies.

9 comments:

Nulono said...

Sweet, I got in before you-know-whom.

I was led here through the Society of Pro-Life Atheists and Secular Humanists (SPLASH), and I'm interested because I'm a pro-life atheist.

The Alexir of Life said...

Well there would be little point in having a "faith" perspective in New Zealand as there are not many real Christians. The natural way to argue has always seemed to be show that the unborn is a human because most people agree that killing humans is wrong.
What led me to Secular Prolife? The beautiful, and yet hazzardous Kelsey.

Jonathan said...

I discovered secularprolife.org via the facebook page of Advocates for Life (UVA Chapter). I've been searching for a group that defends the pro-life position from a legal perspective. I've finally found it!

I've always been on the side of life, primarily because of my faith. However, as I entered college, and now law school, I knew that the faith argument would be unpersuasive and would not go anywhere in academia. There needed to be a reasoned logical-based framework to base the pro-life position on. After reading the Constitution, the various SCOTUS abortion cases, and philosophical arguments for and against, I found that framework I was looking for. It became apparent that life is not merely a faith based argument, but it is a Constitutional argument that is based on sound logic and reason.

I am very grateful I found this site. Keep up the great work!

Yonmei said...

I stumbled across it from Twitter. Amazing how online marketing works, isn't it?

Yonmei said...

In Wisconsin, for the first time since 2003, the annual number of abortions performed has increased. According to the state Department of Health Services, year over year, the number of abortions performed in Wisconsin increased 3.6% from 2008 to 2009. That said, the abortion rate in Wisconsin is still well below the national average - 7 abortions for every 1,000 women in Wisconsin versus 17 abortions for every 1,000 women nationally.

It's amazing how a concerted effort by the state to provide good family planning services will reduce the abortion rate as no screwed-up pro-life efforts to make it more difficult ever will, isn't it?

Yonmei said...

If any of our readers are from Colorado and have seen one of these voter guides, feel free to leave some comments to help us understand the purported controversy.

I'm not from Colorado. I just have basic google-fu skills. It took me something like five minutes to find the Colorado Blue Book 2010.

Here's what the problem is with the pro-life Amendment 62:

"1) Amendment 62 may limit the ability of individuals and families to make important health care decisions. The measure could be used to prohibit or limit access to medical care, including abortions for victims of rape or incest, and even when a woman's life is in danger. Amendment 62 may also limit access to emergency contraception, commonly used forms of birth control, and treatment for miscarriages, tubal pregnancies, cancer, and infertility. The measure may restrict some stem cell research that could lead to life-saving therapies for a variety of disabilities and illnesses."

While phrased as "could", this is all pretty definite pro-life stuff - hurt women, damage women, and deny healthcare. I presume (1) is what pro-lifers actually want Amendment 62 to do, and hence why they want it out of the Blue Book.

"2) Amendment 62 allows government intrusion in the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship and could limit the exercise of independent medical judgment. The measure could restrict a doctor from using certain medical procedures and treatments. Further, "the beginning of biological development" cannot be easily and conclusively pinpointed. Therefore, the measure may subject doctors and nurses to legal action for providing medical care to a woman of child-bearing age if that care could affect a "person" other than the identified patient."

Again, this seems pretty clear pro-life stuff - restrict doctors and nurses from providing care to women, allow more government control of women's bodies.

"3) The effects of Amendment 62's change to the constitution are unclear. The measure applies certain rights from "the beginning of biological development," a term which is not defined within the measure, has no established legal meaning, and is not an accepted medical or scientific term. The legislature and the courts will have to decide how a wide variety of laws, including property rights and criminal laws, will apply from 'the beginning of biological development.'"

In other words - it's complicated, it's stupid, it'll mainly serve to harm women and punish medical professionals for providing healthcare, with a side-effect of ensuring women who want fertility treatment may not get it and scientific researchers may have to leave Colorado to work.

But hey. It allows pro-lifers in Colorado to feel good about themselves, and really, what else matters to a pro-lifer?

Yonmei said...

Okay. I've now twice tried to show off my google-fu skills by posting a link to the Colorado Blue Book and quoting the problems with Amendment 62, and both times it's gone to the spam queue.

It's there online. I admit as a pro-choicer I'm smarter than any of you... *grin* but I swear: it may take you longer to find it than it took me (five minutes), but you CAN go to the direct sources and look at what the text actually says, you don't HAVE to do everything via prolife propaganda sites....

Yonmei said...

Okay. I apologise. I THOUGHT my comments had disappeared to the spam queue and they both seem to be visible now. Please delete one of the two which quote from the Blue Book, it's immaterial which.

secularprolife.org said...

The article Matthew posted contains a link to the Blue Book. Either he didn't notice (we're all human), or wanted to hear what arguments were being discussed in Colorado.

The problem with the Blue Book is that it mixes truth and lies-- which is the most dangerous kind of lie. Amendment 62 would make abortion illegal: true. Amendment 62 would make treatment for miscarriages illegal: lie. Amendment 62 could subject abortionists to legal penalties: true. It's impossible to know when life begins: lie.

As for Wisconsin, the article mentioned nothing at all about family planning programs. The uptick was attributed to the abortion pill, but it said nothing either way about why Wisconsin has fewer abortions than other states. So I did some investigating.

According to Guttmacher, the difference is taking place AFTER pregnancy, not before. The chance of getting pregnant if you live in Wisconsin is comparable to the national average. But only 10% of Wisconsin pregnancies end in abortion, versus 19% nationwide.

This isn't to say that sex education isn't valuable, only that it doesn't appear to be the driving force behind Wisconsin's low abortion rate.