Subscribe
E-mail
Posts
Comments

A bill that would force Catholic hospitals to provide chemical abortions was approved by the Human Services Committte today in a 12-5 vote. Our thanks to Senator Kissel and Representatives Adinolfi, Morris, Thompson and Truglia for their courageous vote against this pro-abortion attack on religious liberty.

As noted repeatedly by religious liberty advocates:

The secondary mechanism of Plan B is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, which is abortion. This is confirmed on the manufacturer’s web site that says, “Plan B may also work by preventing it (the fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus (womb).”

Opponents respond to this inconvenient fact by citing the testimony of those who went off on irrelevant tangents about how Plan B is not the abortion pill RU 486. Try as they might, pro-abortion activists cannot hide the fact that they are trying to force Catholic hospitals to provide a drug that may work by causing an abortion.

The best gloss our opponents can put on their position is to say that, no, they don’t think Jennifer Maas should have been snuffed out, as I described their position in the previous thread. They merely believe that Catholic hospitals should be coerced into complicity with Maas’ mother snuffing her out, if she had so desired. In other words, our opponents’ position is not as bad as the Communist Chinese policy of forced abortions.

Yes, that is a pathetically low standard against which to measure one’s respect for human life. But that’s the cultural left for you.

There are still a number of ways to stop this bill from becoming law. Watch for more information on what you can do to help.

7 Responses to “Breaking…Pro-Abortion Attack on Religious Liberty Approved by Committee”

  1. on 15 Mar 2007 at 5:00 pmYawn

    That’s a “Pro-Abortion Attack on Religious Liberty by a Conspiracy of Godless Heathen Devil Worshippers” to you, bucko!

  2. on 16 Mar 2007 at 7:53 amSimon

    If you guys talked about more than abortion or gay marriage, I might actually believe that your primary concern was for families. I am sooooo tired of your schtick here.

    I know that you feel strongly about protecting the unborn and I understand that. But your methods undermine your message.

    All that you do is preach to the choir. Any attempt at educating others to your position is infused with insults – latent and patent – and gross generalizations about everyone that disagrees with you. Shame on you (all of us?) for not figuring out a way to engage in this dialogue.

  3. on 16 Mar 2007 at 8:39 amPeter

    Simon, I’m sorry we don’t meet your standard for how you think the debate should be conducted. But with all due respect, I might actually believe that your primary concern was for civility if your point were not aimed almost exclusively at us. The vast majority of verbal (virtual?) nastiness comes from our opponents. To say that your expression of concern lacks a certain evenhandedness would be a serious understatement.

  4. on 16 Mar 2007 at 10:10 amchele

    It’s not just that Peter’s commentary virtually drips with venom (especially when he has lost, or feels slighted), it’s that so much of what he says is either simply untrue, or so steeped in intellectual dishonesty and/or evasive spin as to be virtually untrue.

    His current post is illustrative — incendiary, florid, crafted around false/untrue information:

    “…provide chemical abortions”

    False. Plan B is not an abortifacient. I direct you to the testimony of Frank Davidoff, MD, MACP:

    “Plan B does not work if a woman is already pregnant and will not have any effect on an existing pregnancy. In fact, data show that when Plan B is used after pregnancy is established, it increases neither the rate of pregnancy loss nor the frequency of fetal abnormalities.

    “…first, was published evidence clearly indicating that Plan B can prevent sperm from reach the egg to fertilize it. The drug does that by thickening the layer of mucus that covers the uterine cervix, and through which the sperm need to travel. 
    Second, the research also shows that Plan B prevents ovulation if it’s taken prior to the ovulation stage of a woman’s menstrual cycle.  Despite claims that Plan B may work to prevent fertilized ova from implanting, an exhaustive review of the available studies on the mechanism of Plan B has revealed no evidence to support that hypothesis. In fact, the most careful and rigorous study that’s been done to date, which was published just last month in the scientific literature, showed that while Plan B was nearly 100% effective in preventing pregnancy when it was used before ovulation occurred, it was almost completely ineffective in preventing pregnancy when it was used after ovulation and fertilization had occurred.

    “Taken together, the available scientific evidence is incompatible with the possibility that Plan B prevents implantation or development of a fertilized egg. Let me say that again. There is no convincing scientific information to support the claim that Plan B interferes with implantation or development of a fertilized egg.”

    Peter goes on to claim:

    “… pro-abortion attack on religious liberty.”

    This is about contraception, not abortion (see above).
    This is about competent and compassionate medical care, not religious liberty.
    A hospital is not a church.

    Peter tries to deflect attention to fact by saying:

    “… irrelevant tangents about how Plan B is not the abortion pill RU 486”

    Neither a tangent nor irrelevant. You ascribe the actions of RU 486 to Plan B in your propaganda; it is not tangential nor irrelevant to debunk your intellectually dishonest efforts to equate the two drugs — it is, in fact, the heart of the issue.

    Peter then makes a kind of weasel-y statement because he knows he’s on really shaky ground medically (note the “may”):

    “…may work by causing an abortion.”
    I direct you to the testimony of Dr. Davidoff, which contains the results of the latest studies on Plan B, which clearly state this is NOT so.

    Then Peter tries to wring a few more miles out of Ms. Speltz and her daughter Mrs. Maas, and continues his false accusations against those who oppose him:

    “… Catholic hospitals should be coerced into complicity with Maas’ mother snuffing her out if she so desired.”

    False, due to your reliance on the false premise that Plan B is an abortifacient. Maas’ mother was offered the option of a surgical abortion over 30 years ago. She chose not to take that option.

    Not one person in this debate has argued that Speltz should have “snuffed” her daughter, as you so offensively and dishonestly state.

    But it’s all about firing up the base rather than about truth, isn’t it Peter?

    Plan B is a contraceptive. In using Plan B, conception is avoided. No life is created, therefore no life is “snuffed out.”

    If you want to argue for the Catholic Church’s “religious liberty” to deny contraception to all women, please do so.

  5. on 16 Mar 2007 at 11:17 amPeter

    Chele, the very post that you are commenting on notes that the manufacturer’s own web site says Plan B may work by preventing the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. On that basis, all your other arguments fail. But you don’t even mention what Plan B’s own web site says–an astonishing omission from someone throwing around cries of intellectual dishonesty.

    The true “heart of the issue” is what the manufacturer of Plan B’s own web site says. But you ignore it and pretend that our argument rests on equating RU 486 and Plan B. And you’re the one accusing us of lying? Incredible.

  6. on 16 Mar 2007 at 11:29 amchele

    When was the text on the manufacturer’s website written Peter? Before or after the most recent studies?

  7. on 16 Mar 2007 at 11:41 amSteve

    Quote from Frank Davidoff (emphasis added):

    …while Plan B was nearly 100% effective in preventing pregnancy when it was used before ovulation occurred, it was almost completely ineffective in preventing pregnancy when it was used after ovulation and fertilization had occurred.

    You know, isn’t “almost” good enough? I mean, if the catholic church only kills a few babies, who’s gonna know?

    Ugh.

Leave a Reply