No more agreeing to disagree

I read in the news last weekend that The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions and other procedures on moral grounds. I was astounded at this news. For one thing, isn't there enough on America's plate for Obama to be dealing with without digging up political statements to make? And ultimately, shouldn't it be a medical provider's choice as to whether they provide these services? A doctor performing an "elective" procedure such as plastic surgery can refuse to provide this service to a patient if he feels uncomfortable with the situation or the procedure. An example in the news recently was a doctor refusing plastic surgery to patients who smoke because of the possible negative side effects smoking can have on a patient post-surgery. So apparently it's ok when it's elective.



Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
Other: 2.1%


Source:Bankole, Akinrinola; Singh, Susheela; Haas, Taylor. Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries. International Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 24(3):117–127 & 152 As reported by:The Alan Guttmacher Institute



According to the above statistics, abortion sounds fairly elective to me. Over 9o% of all abortions seems to be a means of birth control. I was floored by this statistic. I am embarrassed for our country. What a selfish nation we have become. I have always been pro-life, but also hesitant because I know there are some situations that the health of the mother or baby are at risk and probably because I'm not a mom I felt it wasn't for me to say what I might do since I've never been in that situation. But it seems that situation is actually a rarity, less than 6% of abortions are a result of the mom or baby's health being in jeopardy.


President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to protecting abortion rights on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, and said that it “stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”


So because a tiny life has no power within the mothers womb to raise his or her hand to defend it's self, it becomes a private family matter where the government doesn't interfere? It's pretty amazing how liberals in America will take a stand on cruelty to animals but it's a private matter when it comes to ending the life of a little one. How does one justify this? What ever happened to the doctors hippocratic oath "do no harm"?