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
It would be nice, but it's not gonna happen. I had a spontaneous abortion. Signing the form that called my miscarriage a spontaneous abortion was almost as traumatic as signing the one I had to sign earlier, where the mother's life (mine) would have no preference to the child I was losing.
You won't convince this bunch.
A second time: who are you talking about? Who do you mean by "this bunch"? Give quotes, name names, cite your sources.
I've never voted for a democrat.
You don't agree with me, so you assume I'm from DU?
I'm just not with the people who think they have a pipeline to God, and can tell the rest of humanity what they can and cannot do. Perhaps you can tell a woman who was raped that she owes the world a baby, or perhaps you can tell a 10 y o girl she owes the world a baby, but I'm not that arrogant.
Abortion's a lousy form of birth control, but I don't presume to tell others what they must so.
The Muslims do, however. Perhaps you should look into Islam--they have rules for most everything, and they are convinced they have a pipeline to God.
>Who do you mean by "this bunch"?
The sad people who believe they have the right and duty to impose their religious values about abortion on the whole of society...not unlike the way Muslims want to impose shariah law...
People really need to keep private personal business...private and personal, and worry about living up to their own standards.
Why does a school like Yale have to send its students to abortionists for training? Yes, learning these techniques should be required because life saving situations will come up (for the mother) but THOSE SITUATIONS RARELY COME UP AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Planned Parenthood is for the planned abortions of healthy babies. True life saving situations would be occurring in the emergency room...training at Planned Parenthood should only be required for those doctors who want to be abortionists (probably not many). Students can learn how to give ultrasounds at legitimate ob/gyn offices.
"If someone is in imminent risk of dying (which is sometimes the case with toxemia), then maybe they need to do what they have to do. I wonder how often that happens in the grand scheme of things."
I'm guessing it's not often...but enough for a student to have to know what to do.
I would guess ectopic pregnancy is the most common reason...the embryo implants into the tube. There is no chance (as of now) to save the embryo, and it will eventually rupture the tube causing life threatening bleeding for the mother.
With most of the other conditions already mentioned, a good doctor will treat both the baby and the mother and try to save them both.
Certainly, when a baby is viable it doesn't make sense to tear it apart limb from limb.
This was not some church or religion imposing its distinctive faith-position on the public. This was a consensus about the duty of government to prevent the destruction of nascent human life. It was struck down not by popular demand, but by a Supreme Court which conjured a "right to abortion" out of fanciful "emanations from the penumbra" of the Constitution; even its supporters say it's an egregious instance of justices "legislating from the bench."
Protective laws benefiting our children near the beginning of their lifespan can be defended on non-creedal grounds and supported by people of any religion or no religion at all.
You might want to do a little reading on this. I recommend :
John T. Noonan, Jr. ed., The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1970.)
Mary Ann Glendon, Abortion and Divorce in Western Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1987).
You're the one who brought up a "pipeline to God" as a strawman you could knock down. It is amusing that your bias, anger, bitterness, and hatred shine through in all of your asinine posts.
>You're the one who brought up a "pipeline to God" as a strawman you could knock down. It is amusing that your bias, anger, bitterness, and hatred shine through in all of your asinine posts.
You want to tell strangers how to live, and when the arrogance of that is pointed out, you attack me with some weird ad hominem ramble. Great. This is the way liberals argue, you know--when you have no ideas, go after the individual saying what you don't want to hear.
>Unborn human beings were protected by law by 50 state laws in 50 states, passed by 50 state legislatures in the 100 years before before Roe vs Wade. A few states had liberalized their laws in the late 60's or early 70's-- withdrawing the protection of law from a vulnerable class --- but ALL states had some degree of protection.
This was not some church or religion imposing its distinctive faith-position on the public. This was a consensus about the duty of government to prevent the destruction of nascent human life. It was struck down not by popular demand, but by a Supreme Court which conjured a "right to abortion" out of fanciful "emanations from the penumbra" of the Constitution; even its supporters say it's an egregious instance of justices "legislating from the bench."<
And the laws prohibiting businesses from opening on Sundays that were prevalent until a few decades ago had NOTHING to do with the imposition of somebody's sabbath on everyone else, did they? It was mere chance that these prohibitions fell on Sunday...
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?
Sounds to me like someone is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Laws will not stop abortion. Persuasion is the only way to lessen abortion.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah, right. Pointing out that your argument is a strawman is ad hominem? You sound like the DUmmie.
And pointing out that your posts are asinine, hey, I just observe.
Hey, in the spirit of not telling people how to live, lets abolish all laws. How about that?
Go hug your "My Body, My Choice" yard signs and feed your cats.
"Have you ever seen a death run by a doctor who is afraid to use morphine, or worse who doesn't know how?"
Yes. My mother's. Your post is absolutely correct.
I think you mean D&C, not Democratic National Committe.... :)
"The fact that this is REQUIRED is very disturbing. This is like having a doctor train in methods of assisted suicide."
They are NOT required to do an abortion or assist in one. And if you object to being trained at all, don't go to Yale or don't do OB/GYN. No one's forcing anyone.
Sickening and bizarre comment on this site.
If you don't believe in murder, don't kill people.
If you don't believe in slavery, don't own one.
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.
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.