Posted on 08/23/2006 4:15:19 PM PDT by wagglebee
NEW HAVEN, Connecticut, August 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Ob/gyn residents at Yale’s School of Medicine must undergo training in abortion procedures in a required residency program established by Planned Parenthood’s Connecticut branch (PPC).
Second year ob/gyn residents will have to complete two four-week rotations with PPC for training in abortion techniques such as vacuum suction, medical abortions, and other “family planning” services in a program entitled Family Planning/Ambulatory Surgery.
"Yale is very satisfied with the experience and training the residents are receiving at PPC and are especially happy with the number of patients the residents see," said Mary Bawza, chief operating officer of PPC to Planned Parenthood’s Choice! magazine.
Although the course is required in the residency curriculum, ob/gyn residents do not have to participate in any abortions if they sign a paper that states they believe abortion is against their “personal/religious” beliefs. However, residents cannot opt of learning the theoretical applications of the program, including techniques related to still-birth, miscarriage, and complications related to abortion. Students also cannot opt out of performing ultrasounds on women intending to have abortions.
PPC established the course last year as part a frantic campaign to replace the imploding and aging population of abortionists, whose numbers have declined 37% since the 1980s. Although worried about their population decline, PPC seems oddly determined to spread their abortion practices deeper into the heartland of the United States claiming studies indicate 87% of US counties and 97% of rural counties have no abortionists.
Comments to Yale may be sent to Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences and the department’s Residency Program Coordinator:
Charles Lockwood, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences
chairobgyn@yale.edu
Patti Johnson, Residency Program Coordinator
patricia.m.johnson@yale.edu
Sabbath laws are not an apt comparison with restictions on abortion. As labor legislation, it is reasonable (though not perhaps obligatory)to require that an employee must have one day off per week, but the specification of Sunday rests of specifically Christian religious observance. One would have to provide evidence that Sunday works better than Saturday, or Friday, or any other day of the week as a rest day: evidence which I have never seen.
In contrast, it is a fact of biology that the embryo or fetus is a human being at a particular age, like a preemie, a neonate, a toddler, an adolescent, and so forth. And public authorities need not cite the Sacred Scriptures of any faith to determine that human life is to be protected from deliberate destruction.
You wrote: "Many states had laws in force until the 1960s prohibiting people of particular races to marry one another, too. Does the longevity of these laws and the widespread existence of these laws make them a good idea to re-apply today?"
First of all, miscegenation laws fail the test of empirical evidence. Males and females of different races can, through sexual union, produce offspring. Legally recognizing and regulating such unions can strengthen their stability, and better define the rights and obligations of the couple and the children which naturally result from their union. This is a provable advantage to securing the rights and well-being of the spouses and their offspring. Race makes no intrinsic difference in this regard.
On the other hand, the longevity of a laws have not a matter of no consequence. True, it's possible that a longstanding law is simply codifying a longstanding injustice; but much more often, a law or custom which has existed in various forms for centuries in a wide variety of races, nationalities, cultures, moral/religious and political systems --- especially one that has records showing legislative intent, and historic case-law --- is not to be rejected lightly. The widespread existence of statutory law, especially one adopted by elected respresentatives, constitutes evidence that it serves a legitimate public objective.
Have you ever looked into the Hippocratic oath? The one that Hippocrates used stated that a doctor would not knowingly give someone an abortifaciant. These days, the "Hippocratic oath" that new doctors take sounds like an excerpt from some leftist wet-dream. Of course, there is nothing about not giving abortifacients in there.
This person is making the case that if there were ever bad laws, murdering babies is OK.
Such a person is so morally repugnant that using logic and facts with them is senseless.
Casting pearls before swine!
I wrote, "On the other hand, the longevity of a laws have not a matter of no consequence..."
I'm going to give my editor a sharp reprimand....
Thank you for the correction. Too early this am when I posted that.
"Although the course is required in the residency curriculum, ob/gyn residents do not have to participate in any abortions if they sign a paper that states they believe abortion is against their “personal/religious” beliefs. However, residents cannot opt of learning the theoretical applications of the program, including techniques related to still-birth, miscarriage, and complications related to abortion. Students also cannot opt out of performing ultrasounds on women intending to have abortions."
I wish people would read and digest the articles before they respond. This is nothing new. I am a nurse and when I got my first job in the late '60's, I was asked by the medical center if I was willing to assist with abortions. I wasn't and signed the appropriate form and was never asked again. Some women have something called a "missed abortion." That means you are carrying a dead fetus and it is not being expelled. In the meantime you are constantly bleeding. Someone needs to know how to remove it before a women exsanguinates. There is nothing new here. Time to move on.
That's ok.
The students can say, "Oh look at that baby! You want to kill your poor child?"
All the while perfoming the ultrasound.
>For me abortion is not about religion, but rather killing...<
So, would you insist that a raped 10 year old deliver a live baby?
>Hey, in the spirit of not telling people how to live, lets abolish all laws. How about that? <
But of course, your laws are the only ones worth enforcing.
Your emotional ranting is actually more like the typical liberal. Don't pick on my cats...except, I doubt if you can do better than make a snotty comment about cats. Wow, erudite subtley...
Hey, thanks for posting an example that's a very small percentage of abortions, but that is very emotional. How many abortions each year are performed on 10 year olds who are raped? Since you brought it up, you must have the answer. Or maybe you're just posting logical fallacies again.
Why don't you go pet your cat.
>There might be reasons for the excruciating decision to end a life to save a life, but your comment is so putrid it induces vomiting in any decent human being.<
This is so striking in its clear, lucid logic.
Obviously, you have nothing to say.
What the hell are you talking about? I think you need mental help. And talking about emotional, you've done nothing but post emotional straw-men all over this thread. Have you learned what an ad hominem attack is yet?
If you're asking in your own tasteless way whether I've had an abortion, the answer is none.
As I said, abortion is a lousy birth control method, but I am not arrogant enough to tell people that they must live according to my rules. Obviously, you are.
Anyone who advocates murder (abortion) on this site is a troll. And a sickening human being.
The rules against murder aren't mine alone.
Abortion is murder.
Baloney with garlic, and you know it.
>Casting pearls before swine!<
No, casting logic and reason before the irrational and emotional.
What was your screen name before you were last banned from this site?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.