May 25, 2010

By Dave Andrusko

Part Two discusses how pro-abortion Democrats are neglecting the people of faith they convinced to vote for them in 2008. Part Three is an update on how pro-abortionists are attacking Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Be sure to read "National Right to Life News Today" (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org) . We have a great story there about a program to honor children with Down syndrome. Please send me your thoughts at daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like join all those who are now following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

I love the way life imitates life. Last night I was giving an informal talk on (for lack of a better phrase) the Joy of Surprise. This morning a friend sends along a heads-up whose conclusion is no surprise but whose source leaves you smiling in stunned surprise.

The headline on the press release (IN ALL CAPS) was "OB-GYN RESIDENTS WHO INTEND TO PROVIDE ABORTION SERVICES OFTEN DO NOT ACTUALLY DO SO." If it had ended there, it would be nothing new for the Guttmacher Institute (GI), formerly the in-house think tank for Planned Parenthood, now just a "friend."

But the subhead--"Professional Obstacles, Not Fear of Harassment, Primary Barrier to Provision"--now THAT was a shocker. Not because pro-lifers didn't already know this to be true but because an organization which is pro-abortion up to and including its acronym admitted that the determinative pressures come from the inside, not from outsiders.

The received wisdom espoused in the abortion community--mindlessly passed along by the media--has been that more doctors don't trade their stethoscopes in for curettages because of a fear of harassment. To find out why there are so few abortionists (that's my guess was the real motivation), Lori Freedman, Uta Landy, Philip Darney, and Jody Steinauer conducted their study.

In 2006 they did in-depth interviews "with 30 obstetrician-gynecologists who had graduated 5–10 years earlier from residency programs that included abortion training," we read in a synopsis of Obstacles to the Integration of Abortion Into Obstetrics and Gynecology Practice. "Eighteen physicians had wanted to offer elective abortions after residency, but only three were doing so at the time of the interview."

Why? Bear in mind I am working from a press release (you have to be a subscriber to Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health to access the full article which appear in the journal's September issue), but the major reasons seem to boil down to three.

One--"The majority reported that they were unable to provide abortions because of the formal and informal policies restricting abortion provision imposed by their private group practices, employers and hospitals." Sometimes they knew this going in, other times they learned after they'd "joined a practice or institution." This included opposition to "moonlighting"--performing abortions after hours, so to speak.

Two--"Respondents indicated that the strain abortion provision might put on their relationships with superiors and coworkers was also a deterrent."

Three--a combination of the absence of bargaining power, peer support, and experience at negotiating the tensions that crop up when some physicians decide they want to be abortionists, full or part-time.

Even though "new physicians often lack the professional support and autonomy necessary to perform abortions," there is hope. We read,
"[T]raining programs may be able to help prepare them to continue providing abortions as they make the transition from residency programs to practice."

The authors "suggest that training new physicians in contract negotiation and leadership skills related to conflict management, as well as linking them with colleagues and community members who support abortion provision, could be beneficial."

However what's really intriguing is what you find under "conclusions" found in the abstract: "The stigma and ideological contention surrounding abortion manifest themselves in professional environments as barriers to the integration of abortion into medical practice." That's quite a bit more revealing than the bland press release.

There is a "stigma" to killing unborn babies which contributes to an "ideological contention" making for "barriers" to weaving a death-prompting practice into a profession rooted in caring for and saving lives.

When I get my hands on the full article, I'll give you more background. For now, there is the Joy that knowing a very surprising source has helped us deposit one more Abortion Myth into the dustbin.

Please send me your thoughts at daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part Two
Part Three