Posted on 07/19/2010 3:53:40 PM PDT by wagglebee
OMAHA, Nebraska, July 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Billionaire investing mogul Warren Buffett has been secretly backing a campaign to combat the decrease in doctors who are training as abortionists and to bring abortion into the mainstream of medicine, revealed the New York Times this week.
In her NYT magazine cover story, journalist Emily Bazelon describes how abortion “rights” activists are working to “recast doctors, changing them from a weak link of abortion to a strong one.”
The piece, entitled “The New Abortion Providers,” claims that abortionists and the pro-abort lobby are trying to dispel the image of the “greedy, butchering ‘abortionist’.” “The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned,” writes Bazelon.
The strategy, she says, aims at moving abortuaries away from stand-alone facilities into hospitals and encourages family physicians to offer abortions within their practices.
She describes two training programs for abortionists that are central to this strategy. The first, called the “Family Planning Fellowship,” is a two-year post-residency program designed to further equip doctors for providing abortions and contraception. She says this fellowship is now being offered at 21 university campuses. The second is called the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, which aims to supply medical schools with funds to train ob/gyn residents in providing abortions. So far, this program has funded 58 campuses in the U.S. and Canada.
Both programs are run out of the University of California at San Francisco, and both are directed by Uta Landy, the former director of the National Abortion Federation. Bazelon spoke with Jody Steinauer, the associate director of the Fellowship program, but she said that Landy declines all interviews out of fear that publicity would scare off potential universities, or their lone donor.
“The money for the Ryan and the Family Planning Fellowship comes from one foundation and from one family,” writes Bazelon. “The donor has chosen to remain anonymous, which helps to explain why there’s been so little publicity about the pro-choice strategy of bringing abortion into academic medicine. It has been covered by a veil of semisecrecy.”
But as the two training programs have grown, this anonymous donor has become more widely known, she says. “In the course of my reporting, two doctors who had not done the fellowship themselves, but who work in universities, volunteered to me that the money for the programs comes from the Buffett Foundation,” she wrote.
According to Bazelon, the Buffett Foundation’s tax records reveal that most of its spending is allocated to “abortion and contraception advocacy and research.” The Foundation has given tens of millions to Planned Parenthood and Ipas, as well as millions to other pro-abortion groups like Catholics for Choice. Buffett has pledged to give away 99% of his estimated $47 billion assets, with most of it going to the Gates Foundation, which is infamous for its avowed emphasis on population control.
Despite Buffett’s and the rest of the pro-abortion movement’s efforts to bring abortion into the mainstream of medicine, however, pro-life leaders insist that abortionists are by nature at the bottom rung of medicine, where debauched doctors end up when they are too incompetent for any other area.
“No one goes to medical school with the intent of working in a Planned Parenthood or some other abortion clinic,” said Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics Inc., last month, after an Ottawa abortionist was disciplined for his incompetence in treating 25 of his clients. “The wash-outs from the leftovers of medicine wind up working in these abortion clinics.”
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Buffett Billions Padding “Charitable” Abortion Advocacy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10070810.html
Well Einstein, there is cancerous uteruses, pulmonary conditions, thrombosis and ectopic pregnancies.
WRONG.
To remove a cancerous uterus is not an abortion. I define an abortion as a medical procedure with the primary purpose of killing of an unborn child. This is the most common definition. Removing a cancerous uterus causes the death of an unborn child but it is not the primary purpose - therefore it is not an abortion.
The other conditions (and cancer) you speak of can be alleviated with a c-section after about 30 weeks. An abortion is NOT NEEDED. A child is not a parasite or a disease that needs an abortion.
Well then, we agree. Next time, don’t call me a liar.
An abortionist is someone who brutally kills innocent babies. Real physicians know this, and shun them.
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.