Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JAMA Gets Angry E-Mails From Abortion Foes
Yahoo News/AP ^ | 8/25/2005 | LINDSEY TANNER

Posted on 8/25/2005, 4:53:33 PM by Mike Bates

The editor of a medical journal that published an article this week saying fetuses likely don't feel much pain until late in pregnancy says she has received dozens of angry e-mails from abortion opponents.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of The Journal of the American Medical Association, said Thursday she had to take a walk around the block after receiving dozens of "horrible, vindictive" messages.

"One woman said she would pray for my soul," said DeAngelis said Thursday. "I could use all the prayers I can get." She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose.

Critics said the article in Wednesday's JAMA was a politically motivated attack on proposed federal legislation that would require doctors to provide fetal pain information to women seeking abortions when fetuses are at least 20 weeks old, and to offer women fetal anesthesia at that stage of the pregnancy. A handful of states have enacted similar measures.

One of the five authors of the article is a University of California, San Francisco obstetrician who works at an abortion clinic and a second author — a UCSF medical student and lawyer — worked for several months at the advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

DeAngelis said JAMA will publish properly submitted critics' comments in an upcoming edition and will give the authors a chance to respond. But she stood by her decision to publish it.

"There's nothing wrong with this article," DeAngelis said. "This is not original research. This is a review article," based on data in dozens of medical articles by other researchers.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose.

'Splain that to me again.

Michael M. Bates: My Side of the Swamp

1 posted on 8/25/2005, 4:53:34 PM by Mike Bates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

"She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose."

These murderers are walking contradictions.


2 posted on 8/25/2005, 4:56:30 PM by LibSnubber (liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

Well following the logic the left will use, then if I was to have some type of weird disease where I could not feel pain (and I seem to recall there is some type of condition that does affect people to this level somewhat), then it's okay to kill me because if I can't feel it, my death doesn't count. Yep, I get it now (right).


3 posted on 8/25/2005, 4:58:17 PM by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

Any study based on a collection of previous, disparate studies can lead to only two conclusions:

The one you want and:

The conclusion that such efforts are a waste of time.


4 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:00:06 PM by neksterbor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

Yeah, like supporting the troops but opposing the war.


5 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:00:39 PM by rushmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rushmom; All

CINO
""One woman said she would pray for my soul," said DeAngelis said Thursday. "I could use all the prayers I can get." She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose."


6 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:02:34 PM by vrwc0915
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose

Why not teach women to CHOOSE not to get pregnant if they do not want to be Pregnant.
All this talk about empowering women is such crap if they insist on pretending like women who get pregnant are VICTIMS of something beyond their control.

7 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:03:46 PM by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
This woman may be a Catholic, but she needs to change her ways and head to confession fast. From father Corapi: The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, although "sin is a personal act, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them" (CCC #1868). We can be accomplices in the sins of others: -by participating directly and voluntarily in them; -by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them; -by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; (emphasis author's) -by protecting evil-doers" (CCC #1868). The Catechism is thus consistent with traditional Catholic teaching which held that there are nine ways we can be an accessory to another's sin:

1. By counsel. I.e., "I think you should have an abortion; go ahead and have the abortion. It will help preserve your lifestyle."

2. By command. I.e., Telling your child, your friend, or your co-worker, "Have an abortion, you may lose your job if you don't."

3. By consent. I.e., "If you and your partner feel it's the best thing, go ahead and have a sexual relationship, get married.even if you're both of the same sex, etc. It's nobody's business."

4. By provocation. I.e., "Have the abortion! Aren't you in charge of your own life. The Pope is old and sick and who cares what he says anyhow."

5. By praise or flattery. I.e., "Oh, Senator, you are so courageous and kind in defending a woman's 'right' to an abortion."

6. By concealment. I.e., The pastor allows the senator, judge, president, etc. who has voted for, or otherwise promoted, abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, same-sex marriage, etc. to appear to be in good standing, when, in fact, they have caused grave public scandal by their actions. When the sin is public, the redress must be public. Although, I don't disagree with the courageous bishops who would deny such persons Communion, I do believe that the "confrontation" should take place, without question, long before they arrive at the altar rail.

7. By participation. I.e., "I'll drive you to the clinic. You need that abortion to be able to continue your lifestyle."

8. By silence. I.e., You refuse to speak out against what is a clear violation of human rights, an incredible persecution and prejudice against a class of human beings (the unborn). You hide behind the Supreme Court's unjust and inherently illicit decision on abortion, saying it's the law of the land, when in fact it is the subversion and perversion of authentic law. The Nazi SS officers tried for war crimes used a similar defense, saying they were only following orders. They hung them, guilty as charged! 9. By defense of the evil. I.e., "It prevents child abuse by eliminating unwanted children; Women are more in charge of their lives, more liberated; it's so much more sophisticated and educated a thing to do., "etc. etc.

8 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:04:22 PM by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Rodney King

Some more:

"DeAngelis said the obstetrician's experience is not a conflict because performing abortions is often part of that job. She said she would have published the medical student's NARAL connection as a potential conflict of interest had she known about it in advance, but that not mentioning it does not mean that the article or journal are biased."


"DeAngelis said she attends Mass at least weekly and is also a Eucharistic minister, which allows her to administer communion to fellow Catholics."


10 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:05:59 PM by LibSnubber (liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All; biblewonk
She said she a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose.

How can someone like this expect to be taken seriously?

ping

11 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:06:03 PM by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farm Fresh Onions
Right to choose WHAT??

The death of an unborn child. That's why they won't say it.

12 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:06:32 PM by Mike Bates (Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose.

HUH!!? What the hell is that - Clinton-speak?
13 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:07:51 PM by reagan_fanatic (Proud member of the 21st century Christian Crusaders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
… she had to take a walk around the block after receiving dozens of "horrible, vindictive" messages.

That’s interesting. She’s upset over “horrible, vindictive *messages*.”

Haha. Honey, you’re playing around with things that are eternal in nature – but you’re upset over nasty messages. There’s something a tiny bit weird about that.

14 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:08:55 PM by Who dat?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
She said she is a staunch Roman Catholic and strongly opposes abortion, though she also supports women's right to choose.

She is also apparently schizophrenic.

15 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:09:20 PM by atomicpossum (Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Insane troll logic.


16 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:09:21 PM by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates
Why are they "abortion foes"?

Why aren't they "friends of the unborn"?

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

17 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:11:05 PM by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BibChr

For the same reason that they're "anti-choice." The MSM has decreed it.


18 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:12:13 PM by Mike Bates (Irish Alzheimer's victim: I only remember the grudges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

Kerry-speak


19 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:13:53 PM by berkley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mike Bates

Guess what? She's a friggin pediatrician.


20 posted on 8/25/2005, 5:18:14 PM by LibSnubber (liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson