I have been wondering for the last two days what the ban supporters would have to say in response to overwhelming evidence that women's health and lives would be at serious risk under the ban (see previous two entries). Now I know. They refuse to engage in serious discussion. They just rely on what their leaders tell them: they really do not believe that pregnant women with cancer will be unable to get radiation treatment (for example).
Or do they?
Here's a story from LifeSite:
Mother of Nine Refuses Cancer Treatment to Save Her Unborn Child’s Life
"No situation, no matter how difficult, justifies taking the life of the baby" in the womb
By Gudrun Schultz
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, July 31, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A woman who refused chemotherapy treatment to save the life of her ninth child is now dying of terminal cancer, reported the Catholic News Agency Friday.
For the full story, click here.
The placement of this story on this site suggests to me that, to the "pro-life" folks, it really doesn't matter whether or not women will die as a result of the ban. It suggests that the "pro-life" movement believes that women should always choose the fetus' life over their own, if ever it comes to that. It's just more of that mother self-sacrifice we've heard so much about.
Which suggests that Unruh and Co. know exactly what the risks are of this ban. They know, and they do not care because fetal lives are worth more than women's lives. (The pro-choice movement has said this for decades, of course, but here we see the evidence in stark relief.)
And now, the email...
FALWELL CONFIDENTIAL
Insider weekly newsletter to The Moral Majority Coalition and The Liberty Alliance
http://www.moralmajority.com
From: Jerry Falwell
Date: September 14, 2006
South Dakota Pro-Lifers Face Off Against Planned Parenthood
The pro-life movement in South Dakota needs your help. In a moment, I'll tell you how you can help, but first, please allow me to explain the situation in the state.
Abortion-rights advocates have gotten a measure on the November ballot that, if passed, would repeal the state law (HB 1215) forbidding all abortions, except those that would save the life of a mother. The ban, which hasn't yet taken effect, will be activated if it passes the ballot initiative (even though it would likely would be challenged in the courts). The law states that individuals performing abortions would be fined $5,000 and be jailed for five years.
Here's the key problem: Planned Parenthood is now pouring money into the state, in hopes of killing this legislation without having to go to court.
Dr. Allen Unruh, of the South Dakota pro-life organization Vote Yes for Life (www.voteyesforlife.com), tells me that Planned Parenthood panicked after HB 1215 was passed in both state houses and Gov. Mike Rounds signed it into law. The state house voted 50 to 18 in favor of the bill, while the state senate passed it 23 to 12.
Dr. Unruh says the organization is mounting an $8 million media blitz over the next two months. He tells me this is a major propaganda campaign to demonize and distort the language on the ban on abortion in South Dakota.
Pro-life leaders in the state are now trying to raise funds to counter Planned Parenthood's campaign to defeat the law. They are now attempting to raise $4 million to offset Planned Parenthood's campaign to radical political agenda.
That's where I hope you will step in. I have told Dr. Unruh and his team that I will do my best to deliver thousands of people who will financially help to win this historic battle. We have to raise $4 million dollars -- very quickly -- in South Dakota to counter the propaganda Planned Parenthood will be putting on the airwaves prior to the November election.
Dr. Unruh and I believe that if there were ever a time when Christians need to invest in a pro-life effort, the time is now and the place is South Dakota. If the state wins this battle, other states could follow South Dakota's lead in the future, also determining to outlaw abortion.
I am urging my friends across the country to give generously to this vital campaign.
What happens in South Dakota will literally affect the future of America.
If you feel nauseous, look to the right of the page and click on one of the pro-choice links, where you can donate to protect SD women - and the future of America.
2 comments:
Three key things that you somehow failed to take note of in this story:
(1) The woman refused treatment willingly, of her own decision
(2) The South Dakota abortion ban would not prevent a woman in a similar condition from receiving life-saving treatment (see Section 4)
(3) The woman has no regrets about her decision
Most people would not fault her if she had taken the cancer treatments, but at the same time, we usually consider it noble when a mother risks her life for her child...unless the child is still in the womb, apparently.
You need to re-read the text of the ban. Treating an aggressive cancer would mean knowingly causing an abortion, since radiation kills fetuses. End of story.
As for your other two points, I'm not casting aspersions on her decision. I'm saying that the fact that this particular story was placed on a "pro-life" site suggests that the so-called "pro-life" movement wants all women to make this decision.
Post a Comment