:: The S.I.C.L.E. Cell ::

my view from the prison of a SICLE (Self-Imposed Child Loss Experience) due to debilitating maternal disease
:: welcome to The S.I.C.L.E. Cell :: bloghome
SEARCH THE CELL Google Custom Search
| thesiclecell@yahoo.com ::
:: After abortion[>]
:: RealChoice[>]
:: Silent Rain Drops[>]
:: Stanek![>]

:: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 ::

PBA Injuctions...

The abortionists in this case say that the lack of the bogus "health exception" endangers the health of women, yet the abortion-supporting American Medical Association says there is never an instance in which PBA is necessary.

As plantiffs in the case, abortion-supporters are the ones who have to "bring it". We certainly can't take their word for it in a court of law. Obviously they need to prove that what they are saying is true. Yet we know that they have consistently attempted to prevent the medical evidence, in the form of anonymous medical records, from factoring in. Instead, the abortionists would like to serve as witnesses providing their own expert testimony, and they would like the decision to be based on that testimony.


Did you know that the National Abortion Federation, one of the plantiffs, never denied that access to anonymous medical records was "entirely appropriate" in determining the case of the PBA ban? In fact, they said that a group of PBA ban-supporting physicians, including formal Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, were "not competent to argue that PBA's are never medically necessary". And WHY were they not competent to argue this?

Because the NAF said the physicians had not reviewed the medical charts of patients who had undergone PBA's and therefore could not possibly determine what medical options were most appropriate for the patients involved.

That says it all.

:: ashli 8:39 PM # ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?