In this particular piece, it states that Planned Parenthood took an action because of the new law. The report did not give any response from PP. That is unseemly at best and likely yellow journalism. This practice undermines the credibility of LifeNews.
I have been following LifeNews for about a year and it seems this practice characterizes the style of this publication. They do not have to do this, especially if they want to reach beyond members of the choir. It would have been better to at least give the titular response from PP. The point would have been conveyed and LifeNews' credibility would be intact.
I am not certain that LIFENEWS is all to blame. Dr. Unruh seems to speak as if he knows, from the quote, but my question for him would be where and how he obtained the information that the reason PP in Sioux Falls was closed had anything to do with the law or a fearful doctor.
Fact: there was a sign on the door of PP that stated the office would close at 3:00pm. Fact: women were turned away by a locked door. Fact: there were a couple of women present praying in front of PP (there is question as to whether they were really sidewalk counselors with training or merely people praying).
So...to go further. After having prayed in front of PP myself for a long period of time on a regular basis, one becomes aware of the vehicles of employees, what the doctors look like when they come in, the behavior of the area (in other words, timing on cars arriving in the parking lot and leaving), and if there is a regular schedule. What I see in the article and the quote could be assumptions. Incorrect assumptions are greatly possible, and we all know what ASSUME can mean (break the word down).
PP has NOT been running on a regular schedule for the past 2 months. IF someone were there on a regular basis they would know this. They are not aborting on the same days each week, nor or they starting at the same time each day! Whether these changes are being done intentionally to give a slip to those praying and sidewalk counseling is unclear and WOULD BE speculation. But I can tell you with certainty they have not stayed with a consistant day or time schedule. Thus, someone may be assuming they were to abort on Monday, and could have been wrong...unless they were scheduled for an appointment. Do you see where this is going?
Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, South Dakota is not closed. I am sorry to rain on the parade here and dash hopes. The fact that they closed for one day, may or may not even be related to the law coming into effect in SD. Unless someone has proof of it, and solid, it would again be speculation and not fact. Planned Parenthood is still scheduling abortions, still answering the phone and still has employees coming to work so.... I guess the only other question would be when is their next abort day? Could be Friday. The next date they are scheduling for is August 4. The other days could already be full or they are taking a vacation! WHO KNOWS!
I truly wish the truth of the matter was they were closed for good. From the bottom of my heart that has been my prayer and will remain my prayer. I am sorry to be the bearer of news that is the opposite.
It concerns me greatly that information like this is not checked into completely before it is published. It leaves a bad name and a mar on reputations. I am sure that some will leave this thread saying, well, at least the news (accurate or not) may have kept a few people away and save a few babies. Maybe, but chances are greater they will just come back in a few weeks, when they find out the truth. Bigger issue...the end does not justify the means! Is this all bad journalism, or was it set up by someone who knew the truth and shaded it a little? (rhema, this is not pointed at you by any means.) Or did someone hear only what they wanted to hear and read only what they wanted to read? "PP will be CLOSED today at 3:00pm".
Some day it will be closed permanently, however, this is not yet the day.
Never mind -- don't bother -- from your silence, it looks pretty obvious where you stand on that subject.