Wellington doctor Carol Shand said yesterday delays were caused by abortion laws, which required women to go through a complex series of steps including numerous medical referrals before they could get an abortion.
This report doesn't surprise me having recently accompanied someone to an abortion clinic as support. First, the person has to see a counsellor. Then they have to see a doctor. Then they have to come back on another day to have the abortion. On this occasion the first two processes took three hours (and that was after some queue-jumping). People are herded in, some with partners and children in tow, at the rate of around one every ten-fifteen minutes. The consultations can't possibly keep up with the intake. There is one small women-only waiting room and then a much bigger area with a TV. There is no privacy. Some of the women looked quite distressed and tearful even.
This set-up is a sham. And it is leading to unacceptable delays.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Maybe I have missed something, but a process that can take as little as three hours plus another day for the abortion, doesn't seem too long. Not 8 to 10 weeks which seems to be the case with the late abortions.
Couple of thoughts on that Mark. Depovera seems to be a popular contraceptive today. It stops menstruation. It isn't fail safe and any accidental pregnancy is masked. GPs are getting more difficult to get into in lower-socio economic areas. He then refers the patient. Another wait. I heard the receptionist at the clinic dealing with people on the phone and there was quite a focus on how pregnant the person was. "You're only --weeks." Which might infer overloading resulting in a rationing/waiting system. I don't suppose there is any reason why getting an abortion would be very different from other services provided by hospitals. Waiting is the norm.
Carol Shand is an abortionist and therefore hardly a neutral party. Why do the media go to the likes of her for comment? She owns part of Istar which imports RU-486 into New Zealand. Shand's career, like that of all abortionists, has been an abuse and exploitation of her medical qualification since the majority of abortions are non-medical. Thus we see that abortion is promoted for ideological reasons by leftwing/feminist ideologues; it has nothing to do with medical facts or science.
Afterall:
"Around the world, we find a systematic campaign clamoring for the destruction of the embryo and fetus as a cure-all for every social and personal problem. I, for one, find it a bitter irony that just when the embryo and fetus arrive on the medical scene, there should be such a sustained pressure to make him or her a social nonentity."
--Sir William Liley, the 'Father of Modern Fetology.'
Unlike her fellow New Zealander Sir William Liley, Carol Shand, Margaret Sparrow et al, are an abomination to the medical profession. They are loyal to their form of ideologically-justified death, not the facts as medical science tell us. They are defined not by medicine but by their radical feminist ideology.
Post a Comment