Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart, posing the question:

If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

Let’s read and understand the source of this piece. She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers. On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception. This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship, where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.

Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another is the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine. These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah, making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well. With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists spawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.

According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America, how from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them, thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided. On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice, how in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.

The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born, calling them “pregnancy tissue” and abortion opposers “anti-choice”. She did also brush through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions – mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. She also made a note on how much better earlier abortions were, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.

If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.

Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

I would dare to answer: No.
No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.
No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it does not become truth.
No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.

Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/15/theyre-not-abortion-doctors-anymore/

Posing the question:

If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

Let’s read and understand the source of this piece.

She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?_r=1

On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities, offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception.

This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship. Where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.

Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program. Also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another, the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine.

These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah. Making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well.

With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists dawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.

According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America. How from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them. Thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided.

On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice. How in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.

The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born. Calling them “pregnancy tissue”. And abortion opposers “anti-choice”.

She did also brushed through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions. Mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. Also making a note on how much better earlier abortions where, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.

If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.

Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

I would dare to answer: No.

No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.

No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it is not becoming a truth.

No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.

Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart, posing the question:

If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

Let’s read and understand the source of this piece. She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers. On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception. This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship, where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.

Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program, also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another is the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine. These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah, making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well. With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists spawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.

According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation. Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America, how from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them, thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided. On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice, how in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.

The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born, calling them “pregnancy tissue” and abortion opposers “anti-choice”. She did also brush through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions – mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. She also made a note on how much better earlier abortions were, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.

If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.

Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

I would dare to answer: No.
No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.
No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it does not become truth.
No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.

Elizabeth Landau recently posted an entry in CNN’s The Chart: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/15/theyre-not-abortion-doctors-anymore/

Posing the question:

If these doctors succeeded in making abortion more mainstream and esteemed in the medical profession, the article asks, “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

Let’s read and understand the source of this piece.

She was obtaining her information from a New York Times piece called The New Abortion Providers: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?_r=1

On this, rather lengthy piece, Elizabeth Bazelon researches how now many Universities, offer a 2 year program that follows their fellowship to sharpen their skills in abortion and contraception.

This program started in UC San Francisco, and is called the Family Planning Fellowship. Where they will train here or abroad, side to side with the W.H.O., especially in third world countries.

Another program is the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program. Also started in UC San Francisco. This program gives the medical schools two or three years of seed money for abortion training for OB-GYN residents. Another, the Center for Reproductive Health Education in Family Medicine.

These programs are not limited to UCSF, or liberal Universities. They are also in Conservative states like Utah. Making the purveyors of the residency think that abortion is not only tolerated, but mainstream by conservatives as well.

With these programs the founders try to keep a continuity between the older abortionists dawned by Roe v. Wade, and the younger medical students, so this practice is not lost.

According to the author, most if not all the money comes from the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation.

Throughout the piece, they talk about how hard it has been for the abortionists to provide this service across America. How from the 70’s clinics had to be formed, since most hospitals or practices wouldn’t do them. Thus creating a cottage industry, but also an isolation that couldn’t protect doctors from being murdered by extremists because of the services provided.

On and on they go about their struggles and tribulation through history, and how they feel that offering these programs they will finally be a mainstream practice. How in the same practice a doctor could remove a precancerous mole or perform first or second trimester abortions and no one will think anything of it.

The author chose her words very carefully when referring to a pre-born. Calling them “pregnancy tissue”. And abortion opposers “anti-choice”.

She did also brushed through the fact that some doctors put a self-limitation on how far along they will perform abortions. Mainly to avoid seeing the baby moving on the ultrasound. Also making a note on how much better earlier abortions where, thus avoiding seeing recognizable fetal parts.

If they recognize a life is being (brutally) terminated, then, deep down they know what they are doing is intrinsically wrong. They are just providing a false escape to a woman with a deeper problem.

Returning to the author’s question: “would the politics surrounding it finally change?”

I would dare to answer: No.

No, because, in their own numbers, abortion providers have fallen 37% since the 1980’s.

No, because, even if the same lie has been told a thousand times, it is not becoming a truth.

No, because the younger generations, the survivors of this silent holocaust get it. And through a conciliatory democratic process they will teach the older generations how to love and respect our most important treasure: Life.