Missouri, as with any State, has the sovereignty right to enact laws to ensure the safety of its citizens. So, it is befuddling to many that Planned Parenthood has filed to stop the implementation of safety standards for abortion providers:
Missouri Vs. Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood and Mid-Missouri Inc. (it is nice to see you can incorporate an abortion mill) testified that “should the law be enforced, the clinics would have to end abortion services because of the high cost of upgrading the clinics.”
Why doesn’t this action from Planned Parenthood surprise me? If you were to read Planned Parenthood’s Charter (Mission and Policy Statement) you would read a thousand words devoted to the freedom of abortion, and the word safe used only 5 times, and not until the last section of the Charter, and never in direct reference to a patient. Planned Parenthood cares very little about the safety of their patients, and more about ensuring the continued extermination of our youth.
The justification that the recommended standards enacted by this law are cost prohibited is ridiculous! Elizabeth Shadigian, a University of Michigan obstetrician and gynecologist, stated “that medical abortion drugs carry risks of complications. Better medical facilities can help address them.” Beauty shops, tanning faculties, tattoo parlors, and dog groomers all must adhere to safety standards established by Missouri law, so why shouldn’t abortion providers?
What is even more frightening is the stated hostilities from the judge, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith, whose line of questioning was one-side (at least based on the what I read in the article), and never once addressed the fact that there was no “victim” named on the case. That’s right, once again Planned Parenthood filed a court case alleging the lose of a “perceived” Constitutional right, which is reserved for individuals (not corporations), yet no citizen has alleged any violation.
Time and time again, federal courts have allowed the advancement of “progressive” agendas at the cost of the integrity of our Constitution. The judge didn’t address the health issues at all, preferring instead to questioning whether the law was merely an attempted to stop women from getting abortions. Excuse me if I am wrong (which I am not), but hasn’t every presidential candidate stated that reducing abortions should be the goal of all Americans?
The standards proposed by Missouri are strict, but will ensure the safety of their citizens, and will save lives. And that should be all that matters. Besides, the abortion mills will simple pass on the cost to their customers….I mean “patients.” I wonder what the going rate for murder is?
Missouri Vs. Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood and Mid-Missouri Inc. (it is nice to see you can incorporate an abortion mill) testified that “should the law be enforced, the clinics would have to end abortion services because of the high cost of upgrading the clinics.”
Why doesn’t this action from Planned Parenthood surprise me? If you were to read Planned Parenthood’s Charter (Mission and Policy Statement) you would read a thousand words devoted to the freedom of abortion, and the word safe used only 5 times, and not until the last section of the Charter, and never in direct reference to a patient. Planned Parenthood cares very little about the safety of their patients, and more about ensuring the continued extermination of our youth.
The justification that the recommended standards enacted by this law are cost prohibited is ridiculous! Elizabeth Shadigian, a University of Michigan obstetrician and gynecologist, stated “that medical abortion drugs carry risks of complications. Better medical facilities can help address them.” Beauty shops, tanning faculties, tattoo parlors, and dog groomers all must adhere to safety standards established by Missouri law, so why shouldn’t abortion providers?
What is even more frightening is the stated hostilities from the judge, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith, whose line of questioning was one-side (at least based on the what I read in the article), and never once addressed the fact that there was no “victim” named on the case. That’s right, once again Planned Parenthood filed a court case alleging the lose of a “perceived” Constitutional right, which is reserved for individuals (not corporations), yet no citizen has alleged any violation.
Time and time again, federal courts have allowed the advancement of “progressive” agendas at the cost of the integrity of our Constitution. The judge didn’t address the health issues at all, preferring instead to questioning whether the law was merely an attempted to stop women from getting abortions. Excuse me if I am wrong (which I am not), but hasn’t every presidential candidate stated that reducing abortions should be the goal of all Americans?
The standards proposed by Missouri are strict, but will ensure the safety of their citizens, and will save lives. And that should be all that matters. Besides, the abortion mills will simple pass on the cost to their customers….I mean “patients.” I wonder what the going rate for murder is?
Update - Sept. 4, 2007:
Judge Smith has temporarily blocked the stronger, patient safety standards in Missouri. Another hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2007.
Missouri Judge Blocks Stronger Patient Safety Standards
Missouri Judge Blocks Stronger Patient Safety Standards
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment