Thursday, February 05, 2009

UW and Meriter: Murder, Inc.

Not much more to say about this, is there?

The University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority Board voted 11-3 Wednesday in favor of a plan to offer second-trimester abortions at a UW-owned surgery center.

The final decision on the proposed clinic will be made by the Madison Surgery Center board of directors within the next week or so.

The Madison Surgery Center, owned by UW Hospital and Clinics, Meriter Hospital and the UW Medical Foundation, would provide abortion services for women who are 13 to 22 weeks pregnant to help meet demand after a physician who used to perform such abortions in Madison retired late last year

David Walsh opens his mouth and confirms what most people suspected--that he IS an idiot.

"The Roe vs. Wade decision has said that women have a constitutional right to make decisions about their body, and that's right into the second trimester, and you can't honor that constitutional right without offering the service," said David Walsh, a member of the UW Hospital board and chairman of the UW System Board of Regents

I have a Constitutional right to own firearms. Does UW have an obligation to sell them to me?


Amy said...

There are no words...

Anonymous said...

so the mother's health should never be considered? interesting that the spokesperson for the pro-life Wisconsin group at the meeting was a man.

Dad29 said...

Define "health."

Amy said...

More interesting, anon, is that MEN ages 25-40 (or thereabouts) are the biggest supporters of abortion.

Nothing says "I support a woman's right to choose" like a man who's willing to get you pregnant and then "let" you have an abortion. That he's totally absolved of any and all physical, financial, and emotional consequences (and that the woman must bear all three) must just be a conincidental bonus, huh?

Meanwhile, men who WANT to be fathers are denied that right when a woman chooses to abort his child.

A man who realizes abortion is another form of abuse of women is much more attractive than a man who'll dump me off at Planned Parenthood.

Fewer than 3% of all abortions are performed for reasons of incest, rape, or the health of the mother. Most are done as an alternative method of birth control. So the "health" of the mother is a negligeble argument at best.

It's telling that there was only ONE doctor willing to peform late-term abortions...

Dad29 said...

Screw you, anony. I asked for YOUR definition of "health." You don't want to define the terms, you're outta here.

Amy said...

what do you want-me to list every possible life-threatening condition?

Yes. With the % of women who experience such conditions in pregnancy, if you please.

I'll repeat - less than 3% of all abortions are done for rape/incest/life of the mother. So low are those numbers, in fact, that they lump the three together.

Which means the basis for "health of the mother" in the second trimester is bunk. And, in most cases, a life-threatening condition can be treated that doesn't involve direct abortion (i.e., if a pregnant woman has appendicitis, they treat the appendicitis. If the baby dies during the procedure, it's a tragedy, but NOT abortion).

Direct abortion with the intent of killing the child is wrong. And seeing as a baby in the second trimester has a developed nervous system, inhumanely painful. We don't draw and quarter death row prisoners anymore...why in the world do we do that to unborn children and call it "choice"?

Anonymous said...

I assume your both doctors. Where does the 3% statistic come from with the HIPAA laws? So a woman with metastatic cancer who already has children should die in your opinion, that's pro-life. Hurry and delete the post so you can continue to look intelligent.

Dad29 said...

New Cure for Cancer Announced by Anonymous:


Should appear in JAMA any day now...

Anonymous said...

you are so ignorant

Dad29 said...

Well, at least I know murder when I see it.

Clearly, YOU are educated far beyond your intelligence's carrying capacity--in your own opinion.

Amy said...

I assume your both doctors. Where does the 3% statistic come from with the HIPAA laws?

So now one needs a medical degree to discuss abortion? How convenient.

This post backs up the 3% notion, and in fact points to it being lower.

I'd like you also to prove where we said a woman had to die rather than obtain treatment for a life-threatening illness.

Not that I expect you to understand, but there *is* a difference between a direct abortion and receiving treatment for a condition that unintentionally harms or kills the baby.

So far as I can tell, the only condition where a PREGNANCY is a direct threat to the life of the mother and is difficult to treat is an ectopic pregnancy. Even a condition like preclampsia can be treated.

But why let fact get in the way of killing babies? Right?

Anonymous said...

A blogspot? what a scientific journal to base an argument on. You have no clue what life threatening conditions women can have when pregnant-I personally know of a woman that if she got pregnant-she would go into cardiac failure and require a heart transplant, another who was told her uterus would rupture-not to speak of women with severe diabetes, cancer, etc. That's why the Board of the Surgical Center approved it-it's not like these women decide at 21 weeks-I don't want to be pregnant anymore, these are extreme cases.

Dad29 said...

Anony: rather than burdening State taxpayers with their troubles, why not go cheap?

Keep their KNEES together during fertile periods.

Stick that in your Highly Intellectual Mind and smoke it.

Amy said...

A blogspot? what a scientific journal to base an argument on.

That links to articles and studies. But, again, anything that gets in the way of your point of view is, of course, automatically wrong.

If pregnancy is a life-threatening condition, then they should avoid situations that could lead to pregnancy. Shock, I know, but that's the reality.