Posted on 12/13/2006 4:27:10 PM PST by wagglebee
This means that nearly 1600 lives a year will be spared.
Pro-Life Ping
Interesting. The MSM refers to them as "businesses" and not "clinics."
That's refreshing honesty for a change. After all, it's all about money, isn't it?
Praise God!
One less place for innocent babies to be chopped to bits.
Actually, this article is from a pro-life site (LifeNews), not the MSM. I, too, would have found the MSM calling it a business refreshing, but too good to be true.
Ironically, those lives are being spared because the women who would most likely have an abortion were themselves aborted from 1973-1990...
The purest irony of abortion is that it is not hereditary and is thus self-limiting...
Low-income women's health clinic to close doorsBy Jennifer Sullivan
Seattle Times staff reporterA First Hill clinic that has offered health care to low-income women seeking abortions and gynecological services for more than 34 years will close next month.
Among the reasons that Aradia Women's Health Center is closing is the nearly 20 percent increase it has had in low-income patients seeking abortions over the past five years, said Karen Besserman, vice president of Aradia's Board of Directors...
LINK to article: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=clinic13m0&date=20061213&query=aradia
bookmark
I would love to see that too; however, I believe that the best we can hope for would be for the Supreme Court to put the issue back in the hands of the individual state legislatures (which is where it rightfully belongs) and leftist states like Massachusetts will not ban it.
This is an interesting article, specially for an outsider like me. I am a pro-Life, as far as that is possible in a country like mine, but here abortions are performed I beliewe solely in the hospitals, and they are, just like every other service, and now, as new laws were just passed also adoptions, subsidised by the government. And docktors can´t refuse to operate them, they would be sacked if they did, a health minister (communist) stated as much when he was in power.
It would propably be better for the (small and unorganized) pro-Life camp if abortions were done in private clinics outside the hospitals.
Actually my country was one of the first in Europe to allow abortions, but they were a lot restricted then. In the 80´s the laws were relaxed, but officially the laws bans them, except in certein cases, but those cases are interpreted so widely that abortions are newer stopped these days. I can imagine the uproar if anyone in proper position would contemplate trying to prevent an abortion by following the laws in the strictest sence.
Recently we saw a 5 % drop in abortions here, but now there are about 1 abortions for every 5 kids born (better than 1 on 1 as in Estonia I beliewe). That was directly related to the government allowing the sale of, over the counter, of morning after pills.
I haven´t been able to be against morning after pills, as I see them just as other kinds of contraception. Of course I recognise that contraceptions have in a way resulted in the moral bankruptcy (or at least helped) of the west, at least of Europe, but I don´t see the difference between the Pill and the morning after pill in that sense. If anyone has good argument otherwise I would like to hear it though.
The reason is in my mind twofold. First it is about intent, popping a morning after pill is about preventing pregnancy not killing a new life you know is allready living. And also it is about scientific definitions, as I have tended to beliewe that life starts when the new cell that results in the merge of the egg and the sperm gets stuck in the womb and starts splitting (sorry for lack of correct english words).
Others, f.e. many of my christian compatriots see life start when the cell is created, but I have trouble with that, as I have heard docktors say that up to half of every such cell that is created in womans body just passes right trhough without getting stuck in the womb, and just ends in the toilet. Sorry for graphic describtions here.
If someone could make an argument that I am wrong, I would be happy to hear it and if good enough maybe reconsider my position.
About the pro and anti- life camps in the US, I must say it is your luck in the pro-life camp that it was the supreme court, not your democratic institution that made these laws, because if not it would have been much harder to create the movement against the laws.
From, a small government standpoint, yes the issue should be returned to the states. I believe that there should be a constitutional amendment. Even then, 75% of the states would have to approve. Clearly, there are at least thirteen states that are not going to ban abortion now. So, unfortunately, you're right about the best bet being the reversal of Roe and a return to individual states.
Here are the states that I do not believe would go for a Constitutional ban on abortion:
CA, CO, CT, HI, MA, ME, NY, RI, VT, NH, NJ, OR, WA, MI, MN, PA, MD, IL.
That's 18, a couple of them might be close, but there are not 38 states that would go for an outright ban.
I would have thought the pro-aborts would have held a few fundraisers to keep the clinic open.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Better 34 years late than never, I suppose.
The qualifications of the 20 layed off staff members, should qualify them for finding positions in the sewer.
WA ping request
I'm crying. I would have gladly adopted one of those human beings instead of going through all the trouble and money of goving overseas.
I think that pro-life folks out there should buy the property.Then level it,pave the lot over and erect a large cross.
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.