I live in Illinois and today while on my way to work I heard an advertisement for the new facility on the radio. According to the announcer, the new PP in Aurora will offer a "full range of reproductive services," and they are now taking appointments.

The facility will probably be opening in a few weeks or less.
Jamila | Homepage | 09.20.07 - 8:28 pm | #

In other places, they are claiming it is a "full-service health center". One wonders what their reaction would be if called for appointments for all sorts of health problems.
Mary | 09.20.07 - 9:34 pm | #

Unless the LORD build the house, they labor in vain who build. Unless the LORD guard the city, in vain does the guard keep watch.
It is vain for you to rise early and put off your rest at night, To eat bread earned by hard toil-- all this God gives to his beloved in sleep.
Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward.
Mary | 09.20.07 - 9:37 pm | #

One wonders what their reaction would be if called for appointments for all sorts of health problems.

When I had no health insurance, PP was indeed my full service health provider. They did general physical exams -- not just OB/GYN -- and a full range of bloodwork, too, and even diagnosed a heart murmur and referred me to an outside specialist.

Dawn -- so sorry I missed you at Berkeley. It was very frustrating to know that you were right across the Bay last night and I was unable to attend!
L. | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 12:04 am | #

Mary, there's an idea. If everybody in the Aurora area just called PP and flooded them with appointments for ingrown toenails, hives, tonsilitis, asthma, sprained ankles, anxiety, insomnia, excessive flatulence, etc., maybe they'd not have any time to do any actuall killing and would have to actually provide the health care they say is what they're about.
Christina | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 5:16 pm | #

L., that's the first I've heard of a PP actually doing things like that. My friend went looking for help getting healthy before getting pregnant, and they dismissed her with a "We don't do that sort of thing". Which, even though she was still prochoice at the time struck my friend as very strange. "They call themselves Planned Parenthood, and there I was planning parenthood and they said they couldn't help me."

Does anybody have stats on how often PP provides care that's not strictly focused on keeping people sexually active?
Christina | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 5:18 pm | #

OMG! I'd heard of the "Superhero for Choice" but I'd never seen it. What an appalling crock of unmitigated horsehockey! It's amazing that petunias didn't sprout from my monitor just watching that!

Who's her coach? Screwtape?
Christina | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 5:37 pm | #

Christina,

Don't forget the sequel.
The Raving Atheist | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 7:46 pm | #

Errr... how can you offer a "full range of reproductive services," when you are performing abortions... and, by definition, the woman has already reproduced?

Isn't that like saying that stomach pumping is part of restaurant services?
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 8:10 pm | #

....how can you offer a "full range of reproductive services," when you are performing abortions....

A typical PP exam includes a pap test and a finger-stick blood test to check for anemia. PP also dispenses non-hormonal contraception -- like my diaphragm, which cannot be considered an "abortificent" by any stretch of the imagination. Most of PP's patients do not go there for abortions.

The PP at which I was a patient for several years is in Hartford, CT. Since they're a huge organization, I don't doubt that individual experiences vary, but except for one mean nurse, mine were all very positive.
L. | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 8:21 pm | #

L.,

My point was that abortion is not a reproductive service, any more than stomach-pumping is a dining service.
theobromophile | Homepage | 09.21.07 - 9:08 pm | #

It is possible to other a "full range of reproductive services" in addition to abortion -- which, as you correctly point out, does not contribute to reproduction (unless it is being done for medical reasons).

I would argue that a place can't claim to offer "a full range of reproductive services" unless they also offer IVF/fertility treatment, and as far as I know, PP does not.

Perhaps what they ought to say is "a full range of women's health services."
L. | Homepage | 09.22.07 - 11:55 am | #

Elective surgical abortion is not "health care."

Health care is about preventing or curing disease, or injury (or the after-effects of disease or injury) and maintaining good health.

Pregnancy, in itself, generally represents neither disease, dysfunction, injury, or, generally speaking, a threat to the woman's health. If it were any of these things, there could be no such thing as a healthy pregnant woman.

Surgical abortion is an invasive procedure, and dangerous to the woman. When performed by non-medical professionals, attempts at abortion usually lead to serious injury and/or infection to the woman. Even when performed by professionals, injury and infection leading to maternal death have occurred.

Because surgical abortions are such risky and dangerous procedures, trained medical professional customarily perform them. It is only the custom of surgically-trained professionals performing abortions that has allowed pro-abortion forces to create in the public mind an association between abortion and "health care."

That association is false.


======
Marion (Mael Muire) | 09.23.07 - 9:02 am | #

Marion, pregnancy and childbirth put horrible strain on many women's bodies. I was perfectly "healthy" every time when I was pregnant -- completely normal blood pressure and blood pressure, no life-threatening complications -- and yet I felt as if I had the worst hangover of my life for nine months, complete with exhaustion and migraines. Then I had c-sections -- major surgery. Then I got to experience post-partum depression, as one in five women do. My doctor assured me all along that I was perfectly "healthy."

I hope to never have an abortion, or be pregnant ever again -- but if I ever do have one, believe me -- it would be elective surgery for the purpose "health care." When I am new in a city, and am selecting doctors, one first question I ask every potential OB/GYN as whether or not they do abortions. I do not want to be a patient of one who doesn't.
L. | Homepage | 09.23.07 - 11:35 am | #

Elective abortion is an invasive and dangerous procedure with one end: to abnormally suddenly and artifically convert a woman's body from one normal condition - pregnancy - to another - postpartum.

If nature were allowed to take its course, the condition of pregnancy would resolve naturally - in labor and childbirth.

To treat complications and other unwanted symptoms which may present themselves during pregnancy and post-pregnancy is certainly legitimate health care.

But abortion itself is not health care.
Marion | 09.23.07 - 1:33 pm | #

Wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who wouldn't want to be a patient of a neurologist who doesn't perform frontal lobotomies.

Of course, really top neurologists want nothing to do with this dangerous and outmoded procedure, and won't perform them.

Same with OB/GYNs and abortions.
Marion (Mael Muire) | 09.23.07 - 4:56 pm | #

L said I hope to never have an abortion, or be pregnant ever again -- but if I ever do have one, believe me -- it would be elective surgery for the purpose "health care."

So L what would you be removing from your body, should you get pregnant?

What is it? What are the unborn?

You're defending abortion, but what is "it" that's being aborted?
Chris Arsenault | 09.23.07 - 7:26 pm | #

Marion, my doctor is indeed a top doctor, and a professor, at the UCSF Women's Health Center. She performs not only abortions, but late-term abortions as well.

If nature were allowed to take its course, the condition of pregnancy would resolve naturally - in labor and childbirth.

Well, not in my case -- I would need a c-section, which, no matter how you slice it, is far more of "an invasive and dangerous procedure" than the abortion I would have instead.

Chris, you've asked me that same question before, and I have answered that I would be killing my own baby -- or more specifically, the unique embryo that would grow into my baby in a few months.

Yet I would definitely prefer to risk eternal hellfire rather than go through a pregnancy and c-section again.

Of course, I prefer to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Thank God for contraception!
L. | Homepage | 09.23.07 - 8:52 pm | #

Dear L.,

my doctor is indeed a top doctor, and a professor, at the UCSF Women's Health Center. She performs not only abortions, but late-term abortions as well.

A twofer, L. Your doctor is not only a doctor, but a butcher.



Let's move on: As I said above, the pregnancy will resolve into labor and childbirth, and if there are complications to childbirth, a C-section, which is a legitimate form of health care, may be performed as a remedy to that complication.

C-sections certainly are invasive, but not as invasive and not as dangerous as surgical abortions.

During a normal a C-section the surgeon makes a series of controlled incisions in the mother's body, incisions she is able to monitor and access at all times. In most surgical abortions, the butcher reaches up inside the uterus with sharp instruments and, sight unseen, just by feeling around, cuts the baby's body into pieces so that they can be sucked out of the uterus with a vaccuum.

Just think of the hidden nicks the woman might receive during the cutting process. That's why so often hemorrhage occurs. (That's why it's a good idea to have 911 on the speed dial of your cell phone on the day you go in on for your abortion. And also why it's a good idea to pick a clinic near a hosptial with a good ER.) What also might happen is that some of the baby's body parts often remain behind and become infected, making the woman sick.

These two scenarios are what are commonly described as "botched abortions."

If you think about that, you will realize how invasive and dangerous abortion is compared to a C-section.

Dangerous. Invasive. And abortion is not even health care.

===============
Marion | 09.23.07 - 9:26 pm | #

C-sections certainly are invasive, but not as invasive and not as dangerous as surgical abortions.

Late-term surgical abortions do indeed have their own set of risks, but if we're strictly talking medical risks here, give me either a first-trimester chemical abortion or vacuum aspiration any day, over the risks of cutting open my abdomen and uterus and stapling everything back together!
L. | Homepage | 09.23.07 - 10:26 pm | #

L., you indicate that you prefer the risks of chemical or surgical abortion to C-section, in spite of the fact that the latter is much safer than the former.

Which strikes me as irrational, but, hey, to each his own.

Anyway, the relative risks of abortion and C-section wasn't my original point.

My original point was: most elective abortions - invasive, dangerous procedures - are performed on healthy women experiencing normal pregnancies.

Any invasive, dangerous procedure performed on healthy, normal individuals is medically unconscionable. It is not "health care."

Abortion is not health care.

================
Marion (Mael Muire) | 09.24.07 - 6:33 am | #

Abortion is not healthcare.

I would say the truth of this statement depends entirely on the circumstances. Certainly, forced abortions, such as performed in China, are not "health care" -- but if abortions help a woman's overall well-being, then I will continue to call them health care, and fight to keep them legal so that I can have one some day if needed. You are free to insist whatever you like, of course.
L. | Homepage | 09.24.07 - 2:04 pm | #

So, do you have any statistics about how c-sections are safer than chemical abortions? My gut tells me this can't possibly be so (pun intended).
L. | Homepage | 09.24.07 - 2:08 pm | #

L said Chris, you've asked me that same question before, and I have answered that I would be killing my own baby -- or more specifically, the unique embryo that would grow into my baby in a few months.

So L, you have no qualms with killing another human being, particularly an innocent child of yours?

Do your children know this? What do they think?

When you get specific about the embryo, you seem to imply the embryo isn't human, but is that true?
Chris Arsenault | 09.24.07 - 5:51 pm | #

L - why bother killing the child through abortion? - Why not just kill them after they're out of the womb - that way you wouldn't risk getting hurt by the doctor in that sensitive place. What's the difference?

Do you fear legal repercussions or is that a moral foundation for that behavior?
Chris Arsenault | 09.24.07 - 5:59 pm | #

do you have any statistics about how c-sections are safer than chemical abortions?

No. I wouldn't compare the two.

Because C-section is a form of health care.

And chemical abortion isn't.
Marion (Mael Muire) | 09.24.07 - 6:26 pm | #

What's the difference?

A post-born child -- or adult -- does not present a clear and definite risk of grave bodily harm to me, in most situations. A pre-born child alwqays does -- I would need major surgery to get it out alive, and my doctors recommended I have no more c-sections.

Do your children know this? What do they think?

My older son, who is 12, believes embryos are human -- in fact, when I told him I had an early miscarriage before I had him, he said, "So I had an older brother or sister!" Yet on his own, he came home from an anti-abortion lesson at his Catholic school one day and said he didn't believe abortion was wrong.

When you get specific about the embryo, you seem to imply the embryo isn't human, but is that true?

I never intended to imply this.

Why not just kill them after they're out of the womb - that way you wouldn't risk getting hurt by the doctor in that sensitive place. What's the difference?

Um....what? I don't understand your point. Ending the pregnancy before it harms me is the whole point. And I believe childbirth also hurts (to say the least) the "sensitive place" to which you refer.

Do you fear legal repercussions or is that a moral foundation for that behavior?

Why should I fear legal repercussions? I would not do anything illegal.

No. I wouldn't compare the two.

Gee, Marion -- I believe you already did, when you claimed c-sections were safer than chemical abortions. That was your claim, not mine, remember?
L. | Homepage | 09.24.07 - 8:44 pm | #

L.,

I have a question for you. Since you are technically a Catholic but you also believe that a woman has a right to an abortion just because she doesn't want to have a child, do you believe that God feels same way?

Meaning, do you believe that God doesn't care if women have abortions--it's just a thing that a woman has a right to do? What do you think God's opinion on abortion is?

I can understand a woman having an abortion when continuing the pregnancy would kill her or leave her seriously maimed, which seems to be what you implied your doctor told you if you were to have an unexpected pregnancy.

I'm curious to hear you thoughts on this.
Jamila | Homepage | 09.24.07 - 9:07 pm | #

What do you think God's opinion on abortion is?

Heh. I always say, I am not the world's best Catholic, but I might possibly be the worst.

I can't claim any insight on God's opinions.

But I don't believe that every woman who has an abortion is automatically condemned. Similar to the concept of a "just war," I think that there are also "just abortions." Both abortions and wars depend on the circumstances -- and there will never be total agreement on which circumstances justify them and which do not.
L. | Homepage | 09.24.07 - 9:59 pm | #

Similar to the concept of a "just war," I think that there are also "just abortions."

An abortion performed on an unwilling woman is "unjust." Also, an abortion that a woman doesn't want but feels compelled to have due to economic circumstances is "unjust."
L. | Homepage | 09.25.07 - 12:07 pm | #

L said does not present a clear and definite risk of grave bodily harm to me,

L - not to get too personal, but are you saying that getting pregnant for you is life-threatening?
(not merely painful, but life threatening - just because a little kid kicks me in a sensitive place doesn't morally justify my killing him. And no an episiotomy is not life threatening ;-)

I'm sincere in asking this, because it changes some perceptions of mine about where you're coming from, but that doesn't change my moral foundation - in cases where the life of the mother is in imminent danger, the side effect of saving the mother's life does end in the death of a child, but that's not elective abortion. (Which in my understanding is what you are defending.)
Chris Arsenault | 09.25.07 - 12:22 pm | #

A c-section is different from an episiotomy, Chris. :)

I've had three c-sections after my doctor advised me to stop at two, because my uterine walls are very thin. I suppose that thanks to the advances of modern medicine and the blessing of living in the developed world, I would be statistically likely to survive another c-section, because even in a worst case scenario, if my uterus were to rupture, the odds are I would be able to get to a hospital in time. So perhaps my wish to avoid another c-section would not pass everyone's "imminent danger" test. But clear and present potential danger due to the risks of major surgery is enough for me to at least seriously consider ending -- and certainly, to actively avoid conceiving -- another pregnancy.

I know that even pro-life people believe that some pregnancies need to be terminated if that is truly the only way to save the life of the mother, and the alternative is definitely losing both the mother and child. But the flip side of this is to say to a pregnant woman, "Sorry, even though your health is definitely at risk, the odds are that you will come through it all right and probably won't die, so therefore we can't end your pregnancy. You just have to hope for the best!"

Also, different doctors often disagree on what the odds are in any given situation. In fact, the doctor who delivered my last baby said my thin uterine walls were "no problem," and that I could have another baby if I really wanted to! This is very different from what the doctor who delivered my first two said, when he warned me not to try it again.
L. | Homepage | 09.25.07 - 3:39 pm | #

Okay - I don't understand all your medical circumstances, but let me see if I can summarize where you're coming from. I apologize for the very brief response, but I simply don't have time to review the whole thread, and you seemed to have indicated some of the reasons prior.

You feel abortion is moral (and on solid legal grounds) because a woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases (covering elective abortions). Personally, you feel threatened by pregnancy, that it could take your life, under certain conditions, so this too justifies your position. Even though you acknowledge it's a human being, you believe your rights supercede the embryo's rights when it comes to life.

Apparently you still fear getting pregnant, indicating your husband has not had a vasectomy (or you are being unfaithful - that's not saying you are, but I'm including that as a possible reason for fear.)

Whatever you medical state, there is a huge difference between removing tissue, for instance, having a hysterectomy, and removing another human being - whatever their state of development.

Your argument, as I understand it, is unfounded. It has a similar circular logic as Justice Blackmun's Roe v Wade opinion.

And to be really honest, what you are saying is that it's okay to kill other human beings because we have a fear of being hurt by them, even when our own actions create the conditions for that potential hurt - getting pregnant.

A hysterectomy, a vasectomy and a monogomous relationship removes all possibility of conceiving.

Self-imposed sterility is another moral problem, but that's a sin of omission and not commission.

I had a vasectomy 12 years ago - and my wife hasn't worried one minute about pregnancy since. But we lament the loss of joy of conceiving children, something I felt so certain about at the time (as you do of abortion), but now see it from a different viewpoint.

In the end, what matters is faith expressing itself through love. Fini
Chris Arsenault | 09.25.07 - 5:48 pm | #

Thanks, Chris. For the record, I am monogamous, and my husband refuses to get a vasectomy. A hysterectomy is major surgery, entailing risks I do not want to take, considering the chances of my conceiving are very small. But if I did, would I abort? Perhaps -- I hope I never have to make this particular decision, but if I did, whatever I decided would depend on the medical circumstances. In other words, I would consider doing what others think unconscionable, and I would be able to live with myself.

(Also for the record, I've considered getting a tubal ligation, but they have statistically significant failure rates. Perhaps I should get a "do-it-yourself" vasectomy kit, and wait until my husband is deeply sleeping one night....?)
L. | Homepage | 09.25.07 - 7:44 pm | #

An abortion performed on an unwilling woman is "unjust." Also, an abortion that a woman doesn't want but feels compelled to have due to economic circumstances is "unjust."

So as long as the woman wants the abortion, it is a "just" abortion?

Yes. Many women have abortions in situations in which I would not -- but on the other hand, I would have one myself in situations in which pro-life women never would. My opinion of "just" ultimately does not matter to anyone but me.

I would try to talk a woman out of an abortion if I felt she was making a mistake in her particular situation, but I would not prohibit her from doing it. So if you define "just" as legal, then I agree.
L. | Homepage | 09.26.07 - 1:35 am | #

I would try to talk a woman out of an abortion if I felt she was making a mistake in her particular situation, but I would not prohibit her from doing it. So if you define "just" as legal, then I agree.

Sorry, I might not have expressed myself well.

I was trying to define "just" -- I define it as an abortion in a situation in which I would make the same choice in the same situation (the way my support for a particular war is case by case, depending on the circumstances).

However, I don't believe in criminalizing abortions even in certain situations in which I might have acted differently -- for example, my healthy, wealthy friends who had them strictly for convenience. I would not legally compel an unwillingly pregnant woman to carry to term against her will -- that, in my book, would be "unjust."

I also believe that if only women who truly wanted abortions had them, rather than women who feel trapped by social or economic circumstances, then the number of abortions would sharply drop.
L. | Homepage | 09.26.07 - 7:16 pm | #

UPDATE: On the posted information about permitting and zoning in the city of Aurora:

This past week it was discovered by pro-life attorneys working pro-bono for the Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood (http://www.familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org)

that the Aurora city code requires any not-for-profit enterprise in Aurora to obtain a SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
To obtain this, the not-for-profit (which Planned Parenthood is) must first publish their intentions in a local newspaper, and all residents within 250 feet of the proposed location must be given all the information on it, and they must approve of it.

If just 20% of these residents do not approve, then only a 2/3 majority of the city council can override the residents' will to allow the not-for-profit to even begin their building.

PP clearly did none of this. Every brick, every pane of bullet-proof glass in that building is illegal. The entire place should be demolished.

This info is available on Jill Stanek's website, with copies of memos to the City Council:

Yes, PP Aurora needed special use permit

http://www.jillstanek.com/ archiv...p_aurora_n.html
Paul | 09.29.07 - 10:53 pm | #