Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
  • Content
    • Blog
    • Myths
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Embryonic Hearts
    • Publications
      • Overview Brochure
      • Why Secular People Should Care
    • Collections
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Why support SPL?
  • Donate
  • Menu Menu

Quick News Roundup: 10/14/10

October 14, 2010/7 Comments/in Uncategorized /by Matthew Newman
Domestic News: After a 9-hour hearing on Wednesday in New Jersey, Steven Brigham, the late-term abortionist under fire for his actions across the PA-NJ-MD borders, had his medical license suspended. They said he skirted state laws by beginning an abortion procedure in New Jersey and taking her across state lines to complete the procedure in Maryland. The Associated Content had an editorial recently that discussed years later how different states adapted their local laws following Roe v. Wade. It’s an interesting read that shows why much of the front line of the abortion battle is taking place on the state level. In California, an abortionist, Dr. Feliciano Rios, continues to take patients despite legal troubles – including awaiting a hearing on whether or not his medical license should be suspended. In 2010, he was indicted on five charges of Medi-Cal fraud and grand theft by a Grand Jury. He’s also been charged with perjury for his statements before the Grand Jury.

Scientific News: A study in Iran confirms the link to an increased risk in breast cancer for women after they have an abortion. How much is the increased risk? Based on the Iranian study, a 195% increase in the risk of breast cancer. Studied performed in the US, Turkey, Canada, and Sri Lanka in the past 18 months have all confirmed similar trends, but with different specific increase in the risk.

Discussion Topic: As a poster on this website, you obviously feel very strongly about abortion. What other political issues do you feel strongly about? Me – I mostly concerned about the fiscal wellbeing of our country and my state. How about you?

Related Posts

Tags: abortion providers, effects of abortion, international issues
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png 0 0 Matthew Newman https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Matthew Newman2010-10-14 12:51:002021-11-08 12:58:24Quick News Roundup: 10/14/10
You might also like
What would you say to an abortionist?
Brodie Donegan and Nick Ball’s crusade
Comfortable pro-choice people: can we just not talk about the “killing babies” part?
One week, two abortion businesses disrupted
Human Rights Day
MPs shine light on Canadian abortion survivors left to die
In their own words: why abortion is not health care
Stories from the weekend
7 replies
  1. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:
    October 14, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    I care deeply about the First Amendment, as our readers have probably noticed.

    Reply
  2. Nulono
    Nulono says:
    October 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    I also feel very strongly about censorship, even by corporations. I'm very concerned with economic equity and non-consensual body modification.

    Reply
  3. Michelle Perjak
    Michelle Perjak says:
    October 17, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    Ok, this is going to be controversial, and thus far no one I've talked to has been able to do anything but call me names like bigot and homophobe, but what the heck, I'll give it a shot…
    There are many issues I am worried about right now, but the one closest to the pro-life issue is same-sex marriage.
    Now hold on, hear me out.
    I was a big supporter of LGBT rights until a couple of years ago. I feel the same compassion for their struggles for acceptance now as I did when I supported them politically. I really really really don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as they aren't hurting anyone and children aren't involved.
    Now, here is my point. The LGBT community and their activist judge friends continue to claim that there is no rational difference between two moms, two dads, or a mom&dad when we talk about a family.
    Well, the only way that argument can work (that I can see) is to say that there is no natural relationship between a mother/father and her/his child.
    Think about it. If there is no difference between two dads and a mom&dad, that implies there is nothing a child gets from his relationship with his mother that he does not get from his father. And a similar argument goes for two moms.
    Guess who else agrees with the idea that there is no natural relationship between a mother and her child – the pro-abort feminists.
    Now, if women's rights and LBGT rights are seen as dependent on the law not recognizing a fundamental/natural relationship between a mother and her child, how can we effectively argue that a mother has a responsibility, under the law, to protect her unborn child from physical harm?
    I'm really curious as to what other people think about this point-of-view, but I have to admit, I'm not hopeful anyone will address my actual point. Hear what I'm saying, though – if we want same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights, can we please find another argument or rationale for them so that we don't undercut our pro-life efforts?

    Reply
  4. Matthew Newman
    Matthew Newman says:
    October 18, 2010 at 8:01 pm

    nick – I disagree that women's rights / LGBT rights have anything to do with "law not recognizing a fundamental/natural relationship between a mother and her child."

    LGBT rights generally focus more on the law as equal for same-sex couples and that of heterosexual couples more than on parental issues. I also don't see the implication that same-sex couples adopting a child or having a child via surrogate or artificial insemination implies anything about specific parent-child relationships. That's the same as saying that a person can't feel the same way about an adopted child than they do for a child that they give birth to; as a brother of 5 adopted siblings and 2 biological siblings, I know that to be untrue.

    I fail to see how anything to do with same-sex marriage detracts or frankly has anything to do with abortion arguments.

    Reply
  5. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:
    October 18, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    I do think there's a natural relationship between biological parents and their children. But the law accepts deviations from that norm when it's in the child's best interest. The obvious example is adoption, which certainly doesn't undercut pro-life efforts.

    Welcome aboard, Nick!

    Reply
  6. Michelle Perjak
    Michelle Perjak says:
    October 21, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Ah! I just typed up a response, and when it asked me to sign in I lost it 🙁
    Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with your points, Matthew and secularprolife, but I appreciate your not throwing the proverbial rotten tomatoes at me for bringing up this issue.
    Since I am so not typing up my response again, at least not tonight, I will just say this: I am not saying the average same-sex marriage supporter walking the street does not recognize a natural relationship (which I define as a defined set of rights and responsbilities recognized under law) between parents and their biological children. I AM saying that the recognition of that relationship is directly related to our pro-life efforts, and that we should keep an eye on how the official legal opinions are being argued and accepted in the courts with respect to marriage. There are usually many ways to reach the same conclusion – this website is a great example of that – but certain ways of reaching the conclusion that same-sex marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage are bad for pro-lifers, and some may not be. I fear that the current legal arguments ARE bad. Also, by making same-sex marriage equivalent to heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage does not become just another accepted deviation – it becomes folded into the norm.

    Reply
  7. Michelle Perjak
    Michelle Perjak says:
    October 21, 2010 at 4:57 am

    Oh, and when I say relationship, I mean with respect to the law, not in terms of affection or personal value of that child as seen by the parent. Of course, adoption is very important to the pro-life movement, and adoptive parents can love their adopted child just as much as their biological parents. I have no doubt that same-sex couples could harbor just as much love for an adopted child as heterosexual couples in the same situation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Administrative
  • Adoption and Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • Late-Term Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, and court cases
  • Medication Abortion
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • SPL Emails
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Your Stories

Archive

© Copyright 2022 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

Good news, bad news on free speech Nebraska fetal pain law goes into effect today
Scroll to top