Now I join with many other folks in questioning how a woman with no job and six kids was able to get IVF treatment so as to give birth to octuplets. After all, where did she get the money and how is she going to support the kids? I think we all know the answer to the second question.

But what is most shocking to me is the response of so many folks in the media over this. After all, we regularly hear about “reproductive freedom” and “a woman’s right to choose” – and even about the necessity of government providing funding “reproductive health services” for poor women. But suddenly, the MSM and its talking heads are up in arms, expressing outrage over these births and the medical professionals who assisted this woman in conceiving and bringing the kids to term. I’ve heard some guests on cable news shows this weekend suggesting that the doctor had an obligation to refuse her services, based upon his/her subjective view of whether someone in her situation ought to be permitted to bring more (and certainly that many more) into the world.

Hold on! What about “reproductive choice”? What about “a woman’s right to choose”? Doesn’t “her body, her choice” enter into the discussion? And haven’t we had court cases regarding doctors choosing to deny services to a woman based upon the fact that his or her belief system led to the conclusion that the home to be provided by the prospective mother was an acceptable one? After all, these are the same folks who objected to “conscience clause” protections for those medical professionals who object to participating in abortion procedures.

Now mind you, I think that perhaps there are some interesting legal and ethical questions raised by this situation. But why is it that, once again, it is when the choice is “live birth” we have the “pro-choice” opinion elite coming out in favor of limiting those choices.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.