Nurse Forced to Help in Abortion, Suing Hospital

The NY Post is reporting that a nurse who claims she was ordered by her employer to participate in a late-term abortion is now suing that hospital.

“It felt like a horror film unfolding,” said Catherina Cenzon-DeCarlo, 35, who claims she has had gruesome nightmares and hasn’t been able to sleep since the May 24 incident.

The married mother of a year-old baby was 30 minutes into her early-morning shift when she realized she had been assigned to an abortion. She begged her supervisor to find a replacement nurse for the procedure. The hospital had a six-hour window to find a fill-in, the suit says.

Bosses told the weeping Cenzon-DeCarlo the patient was 22 weeks into her pregnancy and had preeclampsia, a condition marked by high blood pressure that can lead to seizures or death if left untreated.

The supervisor “claimed that the mother could die if [Cenzon-DeCarlo] did not assist in the abortion.”

But the nurse, the niece of a Filipino bishop, contends that the patient’s life was not in danger. She argued that the patient was not even on magnesium therapy, a common treatment for preeclampsia, and did not have problems indicating an emergency.

What a nightmare. Read the whole story, but make sure you’ve taken your blood pressure medicine first.

Tiller Killer Says More On Way

Looks like abortionist George Tiller’s killer, Scott Roeder, is playing on the pro-abortion crowd’s conspiracy theories. He called the AP from jail and said that more killings are planned across the country. Here’s the story.

Roeder told the AP he know of “similar events planned around the country” as long as abortion is legal.

He would not elaborate.

Again, lest any pro-abortion folks accuse me of advocating unlawful violence to end the immoral act of abortion, I want to repeat that I believe that Scott Roeder’s actions were wrong. Period.

I’d also like to repeat that we should not forget that Tiller’s actions, while maybe not illegal (at least according to any court of law), were also wrong. We can’t forget about the thousands of babies he killed in the womb.

More reaction on Tiller shooting

I’ve had a few ugly comments thrown my way, both here and on another blog where I left comments (see here). Most of the pro-choice blogs and commentors are using this incident to bash pro-lifers and lump them all into the same “right-wing, militant, religious, wacko” basket. Obviously, as it’s turning out, the shooter acted alone. The important thing that these pro-abortion folks are glossing over is the fact that all of the major pro-life organizations have come out with nothing but condemnation for the shooter and sympathy for the abortionist’s family and church. This entire incident is a tragedy all around. The doctor was prevented from repenting his lifestyle of death (as some of the folks who used to work for him did) and becoming a voice for life instead. Thousands of babies were killed by the man. And the cowardly act of the shooter is not doing anything positive for the pro-life movement. We don’t need violence to win the hearts of our country. We’ve got logic and morality on our side.

I like Annie’s post at Generations for Life.

But the truth is that the kind of peaceful prayer witness, compassionate sidewalk counseling and lawful protest that the Pro-Life Action League and Generations for Life promote has NOTHING to do with violence.

The sort of person who will go out to humbly pray at an abortion clinic week after week or reach out to abortion-bound mothers with hope and love has nothing in common with someone who would turn to
violence.

Let’s pray that God will be able to use this terrible act to open the eyes of America to the truth of what abortion is doing to our collective soul.

Pro-Lifer Challenging Oakland Law

Walter B. Hoye is challenging a recent ruling by the Oakland City Council that prevents a person from standing within 100 feet of an abortion clinic, on public property, if they try to pass out pro-life literature or persuade women to choose alternatives to abortion. His challenge comes in the form of taking said actions within 100 feet of the clinic. He’s been arrested already. He might be arrested again.
Here’s his story…

I am praying with two African-American women (a ninety (90) year old and an eighty-four (84) year old) and a dear Catholic sister who is a very good friend of mine. We are asking God to use us to reach the men and women going into the abortion clinic, right across the street, with the love of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

We agree that the women will stand across the street with literature sharing alternatives to abortion while I stand on the same side of the street near the door of the abortion clinic with the same literature and a sign that says “God loves you and your baby. Let us help you.”

As we take our positions, I am fully aware that this may be my last opportunity to do all I can to save my people.

This morning may be the last morning I will have a chance to stop the shedding of innocent blood in the African-American community.

This hour may be the last hour available to me to reach out to the men and women with child considering pre-natal murder.

Arizona To Entertain New Pro-Life Law

AZCentral.com is reporting that a new bill is making its way through the Arizona legislature that would provide a big win for pro-lifers after years of vetoes by Arizona’s former pro-abortion governor.

The legislation would require a pre-abortion waiting period and mandatory disclosures to women seeking abortions. It also would allow pharmacists and health care providers to refuse to participate in abortion or emergency contraception on moral grounds. Other provisions toughen the existing law on parental rights.

Former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democratic abortion rights supporter, vetoed every anti-abortion bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature during six years in office.

Dr. Candace Lew, a Planned Parenthood Arizona leader and an obstetrician-gynecologist who practices in Tempe, said the so-called “informed consent” provisions are insulting to women.

“It is not government’s place to make a woman’s decision for her and this bill certainly attempts to do that,” Lew said.

Huh? Dr. Lew, the government is NOT trying to make the woman’s decision for her. It is trying to ensure that the woman is more informed before making a life-changing (and life-taking) decision. Why do pro-abortion activists always get riled up when it comes to making the public better informed about abortion?

A Wise Doctor

Thanks to my dad for sending me this story. I’m not sure who the author is.

A Wise Doctor
A Gift of Life

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

‘Doctor , I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said: ‘Ok, and what do you want me to do?’

She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

‘I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.

He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!

Another Story of Survival

I know this is a bit old (it’s from June of this year), but let’s just put this together with my last post and call today Survival Wednesday. This is another great story from the UK’s Telegraph about a baby that survived its mother’s attempted abortion.

The 25-year-old mum and her fiance Billy Crampton had already lost one child and their second was born with a serious kidney condition, so they decided they couldn’t cope with the strain of having a third.

So, at eight weeks pregnant, Miss Percival decided to abort the child she had conceived whilst on the contraceptive pill.

But nearly three months later she felt a flutter in her stomach. She visited her doctor who, after giving her a scan, confirmed she was 19 weeks pregnant.

Her first child lived for only 20 minutes after she was forced to deliver him prematurely. Her second, a 20-month son named Lewis, was born with a similar condition and now has just one kidney.

However, doctors told the couple from Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, that this child was likely to survive.

In November, Finley was born three weeks premature, at 6lb 3oz. He has some damage to one kidney but is expected to lead a normal life.

Miss Percival said: “I just couldn’t believe that this child had got through it all and looked so perfect.

“He may need an operation but as only one of his kidneys is affected he can survive. I still struggle to believe just what he has fought through. Now he’s here I wouldn’t change it for the world.”

I wish more mothers who are considering aborting would hear about stories like these.

A healthy baby despite abortion recommendations

UPDATE:Bob Ellis has a great post on this at Dakota Voice.

This is a great story from the UK’s Telegraph about a couple who twice didn’t give in to the “expert” advice of their doctors to abort their baby because he might have some abnormalities if he was born.

Gaynor Purdy was warned her first child could have a fatal chromosome defect and a life threatening heart condition.

But she rejected two suggestions to terminate the pregnancy and she and her husband Lee are celebrating life with their “perfect” ten-month-old son.

Mrs Purdy, 28, a quality control inspector, said: “We refused to give up on him, and decided throughout the pregnancy that as long as he was fighting, we would continue fighting with him.”

Four months into the pregnancy doctors told them that part of their unborn child’s heart was narrow and underdeveloped and would mean open heart surgery if the baby was born.

They were warned the condition could worsen and around Christmas last year, an immediate termination should be considered.

Further tests conducted a few days later on New Year’s Eve suggested the baby could also have Edwards Syndrome – the presence of an 18th chromosome – with a life expectancy of only up to four months if birth is survived.

Consultants again recommended the couple consider aborting the baby, fearing he would little to no quality of life once he was born.

One side of his heart was slightly bigger than the other which may need an operation to correct in the future, but regular tests have been showing the condition is constantly improving.

Mrs Purdy added: “Doctors told us he was a little miracle baby. They said his heart must have been mending itself.

“Last year we were still on a knife edge thinking things would go wrong. But now he’s out of the woods we are delighted that 2009 will be Kai’s year.”

So when doctors detect something like they did in this case, why don’t they err on the side of life and say, “Hey, the odds might not be the greatest, but there’s a chance he will be okay”? By recommending to end the baby’s life, the doctors are not even giving him a chance. I hate to sound cynical here, but could it be that the hospital’s policy is to err on the side of saving money? To simply abort the baby, the hospital would be avoiding potentially many costly procedures.

If you read the entire article, you get the impression that the doctors in this case really pointed out the “incoveniences” of trying to keep the baby. At the end of the article, the hospital says they try to “offer prospective families the full facts and options”, but if they’re making a recommendation to kill the baby, how much impartiality are they really showing?

New Link–Susan B. Anthony List

I’ve added a new website to my bloglist. The Susan B. Anthony List is an organization that was “founded by a diverse group of women in 1992 to advance the role of pro-life women in the political process. Today the Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of over 145,000 Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilizing and representing pro-life women in the political process. Its connected Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.”

You can sign up for their mailing list to stay apprised of pro-life issues and the work that the Susan B. Anthony List is doing to promote the cause of the pro-life movement.

Obama’s Q&A site stifles free speech

In yet another sign of how things might be under the Obama administration, if you go to President-Elect Obama’s Open For Questions website, you’ll see a blatant example of the way that the Left really believes in the freedom of speech.

This website was set up to allow Americans to post questions that they have for Obama. You can vote for questions to help move them up the list. You can also flag questions that you think are inappropriate, and they are then disqualified from being sent to Obama’s team to be answered.

Do a search for “Freedom of Choice Act” or “abortion” and you’ll see many questions about Obama’s promise to make his first legislative act to be signing the Freedom of Choice Act, which would remove all state restrictions on abortion. You’ll also notice that any questions asking if he would rescind that promise have been flagged as inappropriate. The pro-abortion activists have made a concentrated effort to cut pro-lifers out of the discussion.

Here are a few that were flagged as inappropriate:

“Would you consider rescinding your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, given your desire to reduce abortions and to seek common ground, and in light of the fact that it would invalidate every measure and law intended to reduce abortions?”
Justin Taylor, Chicago

This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.

“Will you still follow through with your promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, even though Maryland has passed similar legislation and their abortion rates have risen significantly compared to their prior numbers and the rest of the nation?”
Jonathan Baird, Magnolia, AR

This submission was removed because people believe it is inappropriate.

You can register and leave feedback here. They’ve closed the first round of questions, but should be opening again soon. I sent feedback, asking for them to hire a moderator panel to make final decisions on the appropriateness of questions before they’re disqualified from the website. Otherwise, their stated goal of giving Americans unprecedented access to their administration is just a joke.

Hat tip to LifeNews.com