MEDIA ALERT: Charmaine Quoted in Christianity Today On Abortion Penalties

Charmaine at a Pew Charitable Trust

panel discussion on national elections last year Charmaine was interviewed by CT Magazine in ‘How Much Time Should She Serve?’ Pro-life groups answer by defining the victims of abortion, by Susan Wunderink, posted 8/14/2007 08:46AM,

Several of the pro-life activists admit they have been participating in anti-abortion demonstrations for years without considering the question of penalties.

Abortion rights advocates see an opportunity in that confusion. Organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the new National Institute for Reproductive Health are encouraging people to ask politicians, “How much time should she serve?” The question shows “that choice can be a winning issue if you force people to stop evading the hard facts,” Anna Quindlen wrote in a recent Newsweek column. Quindlen suggests that people who have pro-life convictions haven’t thought past their animosity to the idea of abortion.

And Quindlen may be partially correct: Pro-Lifers want the baby to live. It is indeed odd that the liberals only will discuss punishment in a civil society when abortion is the topic. Liberals would fling open all jail house doors…then blame conservatives for the increase in crime.

Charmaine Yoest, [Ph.D.] vice president of communications at the Family Research Council, explained that she sees abortion as an act of violence against both a woman and her child. “We’ve always argued that the doctor is the appropriate target because they’re the ones who are actually performing — there’s no nice way of saying it — they’re the ones who are actually murdering the baby,” she said.

Land doesn’t deny that women who have abortions might be addled, but he, along with Yoest, Earll, and Gans, takes exception to them being described as bystanders—or as enlightened women making free, educated choices.

The above paragraph has the liberals most excited. 85% of women who see a sonogram of their baby do not go through with the planned abortion. Which, of course, liberal abortionists do not want. Liberals want abortion. Women should be informed.

The liberals would say, No, young lady, no, you cannot see a picture of your baby.

The CT article continues,

“Moreover, it’s a false assumption that even legal abortions are safe, said Yoest. “Women are still at serious risk. Abortion is the most unregulated health provider industry in the country today. We don’t keep good records of outcomes of abortion for women.” “

Your Business Blogger played a small role in a number of medical device start-up companies selling to clinicians and hospital groups. Each decision maker would demand data and detailed studies of efficacy and risk.

(Back in the day, many doctors would not even consider my clinical studies from Europe as not being rigorous. Only US of A clinical trials were acceptable.)

The clinicians well understood that any medical intervention entailed some risk, but the health care business is about minimizing risk and improving outcomes.

Which the abortionists obviously don’t need. The desired outcome of a successful abortion is a dead baby.

Good Outcome = Dead Baby.

This is a horrific contradiction in medicine. That liberals do not understand.

Thank you (foot)notes:

The Hippocratic Oath (An Early Version)

I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

The liberal blogs are in a tizzie. See Pam Spaulding on AmericaBlog, Fundie Richard Land: Women who have abortions are mentally ‘impaired’ Liberals do not know the difference between ‘impaired’ and ‘uninformed.’

“The fetus beat us,” says our friend Naomi Wolf.