Archives for 2010

Teen mother charged with newborn’s murder. What a difference a few days can make. If the baby had died 26 days before birth (heck, even 26 minutes before), there would be no charges. 26 days after birth, it’s a murder charge. Either way it’s a tragedy.

Recently, Nebraska failed to pass its legislation requiring higher standards of practice for abortion clinics, but where Nebraska has failed, Virginia has prevailed.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion yesterday that empowers the Virginia Board of Health to require women’s health clinics that offer abortion procedures to meet hospital-like standards.

The new regulations will cover medical investigating to rule out coerced abortion and statutory rape possibilities prior to an abortion. It is up to the Health Board now to enforce them.

The reason for the many inconsistencies in patient treatment at abortion clinics versus those in a hospital is down to the fact that abortion is considered an out-patient procedure. So, like getting Botox injections on your lunch break, it’s too simple and quick a procedure to require all the paperwork, patient screening and face time with medical staff. The difference is the effects of Botox wear off over a few months.

Clinics view these regulations as an attempt to close them down, but the arguments for them consider how these patients’ lives will be effected physically and mentally after the procedure. Hospitals are required to know their patients’ history, and they are held accountable for a failure to do so. There is no reason an abortion clinic shouldn’t be required to do the same.

You don’t need to be pro-life to donate to the Faith and Freedom Alliance, through which John Carpay, a Calgary-based lawyer, can continue to defend the rights of pro-lifers to voice their views on campus as he has done so effectively in the past.

Here’s a recent Interim interview with John.

Those interested in supporting campus free speech should make a cheque payable to “Faith and Freedom Alliance” and mail it to John Carpay.

In Canada,

Under the Assisted Human Reproduction Technology Act passed in 2004, a surrogate who carries a fetus for others may be reimbursed for expenses such as prenatal vitamins and costs of travelling to the doctor. She cannot receive any sort of wage for carrying the child.

Few women and even fewer couples, are willing to undergo surrogacy within these guidelines. The law has been criticized for being ambiguous.

The law is vague, and no one is sure which expenses are legitimate, said Stephanie Scott, who runs a surrogacy agency in Texas, where surrogates who work for her may be paid up to $25,000 US plus expenses for carrying the child.

The uncertainty surrounding the Canadian law has created a chill among infertile couples, Scott said.

“They’re afraid to do it in Canada. A lot of people think they’re going to go to jail,” said Scott. “If they send their surrogate, you know, $600 for her rent or whatever, they try to pay it in cash, under the table, so there’s no paper trails.”

This has pushed the search for couples desiring surrogacy outside the continent, looking primarily in countries like India.

You can outsource just about any work to India these days, including making babies. Reproductive tourism in India is now a half-a-billion-dollar-a-year industry, with surrogacy services offered in 350 clinics across the country since it was legalized in 2002. The primary appeal of India is that it is cheap, hardly regulated, and relatively safe. Surrogacy can cost up to $100,000 in the United States, while many Indian clinics charge $22,000 or less. Very few questions are asked.

But this doesn’t mean there is a consensus in India. The debate is complex. Opponents argue that surrogacy further perpetuates a social pressure for women to have children and exploits the economic situation of Indian women living in poverty, while the advocates argue that surrogacy is a right that poor women should be allowed to financially benefit from. For many, there is no easy answer.

If you have the time, this talk show has a great debate about the issue (running time approx. 50 minutes).

What she said. I don’t think there’s anything in this column by Jakki Jeffs that I disagree with.

An interesting book review in today’s Globe:

Mr. Brog, in his In Defense of Faith: The Judeo-Christian Idea and the Struggle for Humanity, concedes that Christians have committed horrendous crimes in the name of theology but sets out to prove that Judeo-Christian beliefs gave the Western and, ultimately, entire world its most important spiritual value: an obligatory reverence for life.

Mr. Brog advances his argument in a series of historical vignettes. He introduces Tacitus, the Roman senator and historian, who (in his major work, Histories) describes the Jews as wicked, stubborn and lascivious and lists the Jewish beliefs he finds most revolting – especially, he says, the belief “that it is a deadly sin to kill an unwanted child.” The Romans were “proud practitioners of infanticide.” As were the Greeks. As were the other nations of the ancient world.

The value we place on life is a values judgment, ever evolving. What was established (life is sacred) can easily be torn down, and one could argue, has been substantially in recent years. Over to you, Tacitus!

So often, it’s not the pregnancy that’s the problem. In this depressing article from England, it’s binge drinking, followed by one night stands, followed by deep regret, sometimes followed by pregnancy and then abortion. I suppose you could say “it could happen to anyone” but it’s happening more and more, which makes for a trend, which means we are raising our girls wrong. Bigger problems.

A news story claims American Apparel could soon be driven out of business. Colour me delighted.

Recently, there has been an influx of alternative resource centres for crisis pregnancy opening across north America. The problem? Abortion providers don’t like their new neighbours operating in such close proximity. These alternative centres operate with the goal of offering resources to pregnant women, some (as shown in the documentary 12th and Delaware) with the specific intent to change the minds of women considering abortion.

So, where exactly should these centres locate themselves? If a centre wanted to operate near the highest level of at risk women, a place where it would have the highest level of impact, it would open its doors in poorer areas with young populations. Say… near a public high school? But wait, that’s exactly where the abortion clinics are.

The newest mega-clinic recently opened by Planned Parenthood (the second largest clinic in the world) in May of this year is located at 4600 Gulf Freeway Houston, TX. Thanks to Google Maps, one can clearly see that this mega-clinic is smack dab in between the University of Houston and Austin High School. Where is my local abortion clinic? The Halifax Sexual Heatlth Centre (formerly Planned Parenthood) is located at 6009 Quinpool Rd. between two local high schools.

Location, location, location.

LB594 won’t get its day in court, not because the people of Nebraska don’t agree with it, but because they can’t afford to fight it out.

Nebraska’s attorney general will not defend a new state law requiring health screenings for women seeking abortions, because there is little chance that the controversial law will prevail in court, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.

Attorney General Jon Bruning (R) agreed to a permanent federal injunction against enforcement of the law, which faces a challenge from Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said his spokeswoman, Shannon Kingery.

“It is evident from the judge’s ruling [to temporarily block the law from taking effect] that LB594 will ultimately be found unconstitutional,” she said. “Losing this case would require Nebraska taxpayers to foot the bill for Planned Parenthood’s legal fee. We will not squander the state’s resources on a case that has very little probability of winning.”

Just so this is perfectly clear, the state (therefore the representatives of the Nebraska population) voted for and passed this law. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland with its financial upper-hand challenged it, and now it won’t be upheld because there’s just too much money at stake.