Aborted babies incinerated to heat British hospitals

March 24, 2014
"The new god of medicine?"

“The new god of medicine?”

Just horrifying:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.

The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

It didn’t happen in every UK hospital –one was appalled to learn another had been shipping its fetal remains to the first hospital to be burned– but that something like this could happen at all is nauseating. And not just for the callous treatment of human remains, like a fiery version of Soylent Green, but the miserable treatment of the parents, too. Remember, an abortion may be performed for medical necessity, not just to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Shouldn’t the parents in at least these cases be treated with more respect and empathy?

There have been a number of horror stories coming out of the UK National Health Service involving poor care or downright abusive treatment of patients and their families, almost all of them traceable in their origin to the dynamics of a government-run healthcare system. Oxford bioethicists have even argued in favor of post-natal abortion (1), on the grounds that a newborn isn’t capable yet of attributing value to its own existence, and thus can’t feel the loss of it.

And now this, the new fires of Moloch.

Footnote:
(1) What most of us in the real world would call “infanticide” and “murder.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


QotD: In which I urge Democrats to cling bitterly to the Nancy Pelosi – Wendy Davis line

August 5, 2013

A little background: a few days ago, when pressed about late term abortion restrictions in the wake of Gosnell clinic horrors, Nancy Pelosi refused to consider any changes  in abortion law, calling it “sacred ground.” The irony of this supposedly devout Catholic grandmother calling for the unrestricted right to kill unborn humans was lost on her. But, I digress.

Meanwhile, just yesterday, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D), who came to national fame for her filibuster in opposition to any reasonable reform of Texas’ abortion laws, decided to plant her flag next to La Pelosi’s. Via Hot Air:

During a speech and press conference today, pro-abortion Texas lawmaker Wendy Davis said she would consider running for governor. The abortion activist also pulled a page from Nancy Pelosi’s playbook by calling defending late-term abortions “sacred ground.”

“I’ll seek common ground – we all must – but sometimes you have to take a stand on sacred ground,” Davis said during her press conference — referring to her filibuster to stop a bill to ban abortions after five months.

Reporters asked Davis if she supported any limits on abortions and she responded that she did not — saying she supports current federal law.

Memo to Democrats: Do it!! Follow Nancy, stand with Wendy. Between now and November, you should be out, loud, and proud in your determination to defend sacred ground: the unquestioned right to terminate at any unborn boy or girl at any point before birth. Remember, this is sacred ground. SACRED. GROUND. And I want you out there proclaiming this to the American people, with all its implications of sanctity and holiness. Let them know that the killing of an unborn child on demand is so important to you that, yes, it is like a religious sacrament. I guarantee that, if you screw your courage to the sticking place and hew to the Pelosi-Davis strategy, you will make a strong impression on the rest of America.

And I also guarantee that you will have an election night to remember.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


And yet these people claim to be our intellectual and moral betters?

July 12, 2013

Like I said on Twitter: I’ve tried, I really have, but I fail to understand how bringing used tampons and jars filled with urine and feces to your state legislature can be considered a winning argument when you want to influence pending legislation.

Guess I’m just not as smart and politically sophisticated as I thought.


And speaking of “freedom of conscience”

August 1, 2012

ObamaCare’s contraceptive and abortifacient mandates took effect today:

As of July 31, 2012 a business owner who objects to abortion had the freedom of conscience to make sure that her company’s insurance policies did not pay to facilitate the practice. But as of today, August 1, she no longer has that freedom. The ObamaCare contraceptive and abortifacient mandates take effect today, hailed by the Obama regime as a great and wonderful thing.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, “President Obama is moving our country forward by giving women control over their health care. This law puts women and their doctors, not insurance companies or the government, in charge of health care decisions.”

What about pro-life women? Do they not exist?

Not in the eyes of Barack Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, or the Left, they don’t.

Be sure to read the rest.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#PPact issues ridiculous statement in response sex selective abortion exposé video

May 29, 2012

**** Written by Sister Toldjah ****

First, in case you haven’t heard:

Live Action says Planned Parenthood and other U.S. abortion providers are willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys. And the pro-life abortion watchdog says its video series and a new website will expose it all.

“This was a multi-state, national investigation demonstrating that this is a widespread problem across our country,” Live Action president Lila Rose told The Daily Caller in an interview Monday.

“First of all, the statistics and studies indicate that we are adding to the growing problem across the world of sex-selective targeting of unborn girls for abortion. We are going to be demonstrating — starting with this video from Texas — that the abortion industry in the United States is aiding and abetting this horrific problem.”

The first in what Live Action says is a series of videotaped incidents exposing American abortion facilities’  willingness to assist in sex-selection abortions took place at a South Austin, Texas Planned Parenthood clinic. In the footage, a Planned Parenthood counselor appears to readily assist and advise a Live Action actor who said she was trying to obtain an abortion if her baby is female.

Here’s the video:

In case you don’t have time to watch the full video, here’s the YouTube description (bolded emphasis added by me):

AUSTIN, May 29 — Today, Live Action released a new undercover video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Austin, TX encouraging a woman to obtain a late-term abortion because she was purportedly carrying a girl and wanted to have a boy. The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

“I see that you’re saying that you want to terminate if it’s a girl, so are you just wanting to continue the pregnancy in the meantime?” a counselor named “Rebecca” offers the woman, who is purportedly still in her first trimester and cannot be certain about the gender. “The abortion covers you up until 23 weeks,” explains Rebecca, “and usually at 5 months is usually (sic) when they detect, you know, whether or not it’s a boy or a girl.” Doctors agree that the later in term a doctor performs an abortion, the greater the risk of complications.

The Planned Parenthood staffer suggests that the woman get on Medicaid in order to pay for an ultrasound to determine the gender of her baby, even though she plans to use the knowledge for an elective abortion. She also tells the woman to “just continue and try again” for the desired gender after aborting a girl, and adds, “Good luck, and I hope that you do get your boy.”

Life News’ Steven Ertelt has excerpts of the two Planned Parenthood statements released today. The second one will result in a commencing of eyerolls, my dear readers:

“Six weeks ago a former staff member serving in an entry-level position did not follow our protocol for providing information and guidance when presented with a highly unusual patient scenario. Planned Parenthood insists on the highest quality patient care, and if we ever become aware of a staff member not meeting these high standards, we take swift action. Within three days of this patient interaction, the staff member’s employment was ended and all staff members at this affiliate were immediately scheduled for retraining in managing unusual patient encounters. Today opponents of Planned Parenthood are promoting an edited video of that hoax patient encounter.”

“Recently, opponents of Planned Parenthood conducted hoax patient visits with hidden video cameras and are now using edited videotapes to promote false claims about our organization and patient services. In highly unusual and scripted scenarios, hoax patients sought services related to sex selection.”

[...]

Planned Parenthood condemns gender bias but refuses to condemn sex-selection abortions or say their centers will deny them.

“Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country. Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of health care. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic, and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.”

[...]

“The world’s leading women’s health and rights organizations, including the World Health Organization, do not believe that curtailing access to abortion services is a legitimate means of addressing sex selection, and have made clear that gender bias can only be resolved by addressing the underlying conditions that lead to it. And we agree. We support efforts that ensure girls and women have access to economic opportunity, including fair wages, basic health care, political participation, education, and a life free of violence and discrimination. Planned Parenthood works to ensure women and their families have access to high-quality nonjudgmental health services free of coercion, supported by information and counseling.”

In other words, sex-selection abortions are fine as long as other efforts are undertaken to try to stamp out gender bias.

Yep. Isn’t it disgusting the way so-called “pro-women” forces on the left engage in dangerous, warped pretzel logic in order to “condemn” sex-selective abortions on the basis that they “discriminate against women” yet in the same breath they’ll tell you a woman shouldn’t be prevented from having elective abortions for any reason whatsoever?

I have written many times on the deeply disturbing practice of sex-selective abortions and the “feminist” movement’s disgusting hypocrisy/immorality on the matter. My comments in this June 11 post are fitting in response to today’s Live Action reveal:

As I’ve asked before, what’s the big deal to pro-aborts when it comes to aborting a baby on the basis of its sex? If it shouldn’t be an issue to abort an unborn child because it will “interfere” with your social life or college education, why should we be concerned about the boy baby bias in countries like China and India? Sure, it equates to blatant discrimination against women, but what’s the more important “right”? The right to not be discriminated against on the basis of your sex, or the “right” to choose whether or not you want to terminate your unborn child?

The pro-abortion group Center for Reproductive Rights came out years ago in support of China’s ban on sex-selective abortions, on the basis of being against discrimination of women. I guess their rationale is the more women we have in the world, the more opportunities we have for indoctrinating them to support … a woman’s right to choose, for whatever reason she sees fit. While the writer of the above piece does not support anti-sex-selective abortion legislation, the “we need more women in the world” mindset is one she appears to take. In a nutshell, she supports changing the pro-boy “cultures” in China and India so as to get them to “respect” women more so they won’t interfere in any “private” decision relating to having an abortion – even if it means having an abortion for whatever reason she wants to give, including on the basis of the baby’s sex.

I swear, you simply cannot make this stuff up.

Oh, and yes – sex-selective abortions do happen here in the US. Read more on that here.

But, shhhh! Don’t tell the likes of the feministas at “progressive feminist” blogs like Jezebel, etc. We wouldn’t want them to get hurt straddling that “pro-choice/pro-woman/anti-sex-selective abortion” fence or anything.

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.


The ethics of infanticide: not just vile, but evil

March 6, 2012

In a recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, two former Oxford ethicists argue that killing a newborn babe is no different from aborting a fetus, because the infant isn’t really a person yet:

[The authors] argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Hey, if the infant isn’t a person because they can’t attribute value to their own existence and feel loss if that existence is deprived, why stop there? How about the elderly suffering from senile dementia or Alzheimer’s? Surely they’ve lost the capability of attributing value to their existence, so they’re not people by these standards, right? Might as well let their relatives (or the State) snuff them when they become an “unbearable burden.” And what about severely disabled adults, too? I mean, gee, we’d save society all that money in Medicaid support for group homes. After all, they’re not really people.

Anyone else getting a “Wannsee Conference” vibe (1), or wonder if the authors’ offices didn’t contain idols to Moloch?

Call me “old-fashioned” and “unenlightened,” ignorant of sophisticated ethics, but I have this crazy belief that the right to live is a natural right preexisting Human laws and ethics. It is only to be taken away under the most restricted circumstances, such as in a “just war” or by law after a fair trial as the only way to enact justice after a horrible crime.

Not simply because you might regard the baby as a “burden.”

And what kind of sociopathic lack of empathy does it imply to go through such intellectual gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that the infant is no longer a person? When does it become a person? When it first smiles? Its first steps? Its first words, when it finally has a chance to say “please don’t kill me?”

“Ethics.” Yeah, these really are some ethics, aren’t they? They’re the fascist ethics of a state that denies the inherent worth of the individual and, when that individual becomes a “burden,” can decide he or she is no longer “really a person” and can thus be disposed of at will.

Like rubbish.

I’m with Walter Russell Mead: while I firmly believe as a federalist that the abortion question in America should be decided on a state-by-state basis until a consensus is reached, if this idea ever gains currency in the US, sign me up for a right-to-life amendment to the US Constitution.

RELATED: This isn’t the first time the ugly idea of “post-natal abortion” has arisen. Read about the Groningen Protocol, which was a recent proposal to allow doctors in the Netherlands to “terminate” the life of a severely disabled child up to the age of 12, with the final decision resting with the doctors, not the parents. And killing your non-person infant after birth is really just one step past aborting fetuses on the basis of gender. Both Hot Air and Power Line were outraged at the JME article. I’m surprised it didn’t get more coverage in the blogosphere.

PS: The linked Telegraph article mentioned that the authors of the JME piece had received death threats for their article. This is as wrong and as vile as their argument itself, as well as being criminal. It is an affront to free speech and academic liberty. The way to fight evil ideas is with counter-argument, not with intimidation and threats of physical harm.

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, at the risk of being accused of “Godwinning,” I went there. These kind of depersonalizing ethics aren’t all that far from the Final Solution.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Religious unity against HHS decision

February 4, 2012

I wrote earlier that Catholic bishops across America had come out strongly against the Obama administration decision requiring religious organizations to pay for the cost of providing contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Jewish and Protestant groups aligned themselves with the bishops.

Now Orthodox Christian bishops have joined in:

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. This freedom is transgressed when a religious institution is required to pay for “contraceptive services” including abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization services that directly violate their religious convictions. Providing such services should not be regarded as mandated medical care.  We, the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops, call upon HHS Secretary Sebelius and the Obama Administration to rescind this unjust ruling and to respect the religious freedom guaranteed all Americans by the First Amendment.

As Joshua Treviño describes it, it is very unusual for Orthodox bishops to make an overtly political declaration. (Also h/t)

I really don’t think Team Obama quite knows what they’ve unleashed on themselves. But they’ll find out on Election Day.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,753 other followers