Abortion vs Blood Transfusions

The following letter to the editor from Jackie Lane of Battle Ground (WA) appeared in the Aug 11 Columbian:

Horrified by right to decline
I am horrified to see that the Bush administration is attempting to expand the definition of the word “abortion” to include some forms of birth control.

I am horrified that the administration supports “right to decline,” allowing medical staff to refuse to inform women of their legitimate medical options based on the caregiver’s religious beliefs. By this logic, we can have physicians who do not believe in blood transfusions allowing people to die in emergency rooms because of their own religious objections.

I want the people who provide my medical care to have my best interests first and foremost, and I want them to communicate with me clearly and completely about my options.

The phrase "legitimate medical options" is a reference to abortion. What is an abortion? It is the termination of the being residing in the woman's womb. In other words, Lane is horrified that caregivers may refuse to inform women that they can kill their innocent, vulnerable, unborn child because it violates the caregivers' conscience.

So Lane is comparing a physician who refuses to provide a patient with a transfusion (albeit because of conscience) to a provider who refuses to inform a patient about abortion.

The problem is Lane's comparisons are not equivalent. Blood transfusions are given to save a patient's life. The overwhelmingly, vast majority (it's not even close) of abortions are done for convenience NOT to save a woman's life.

To deny the blood transfusion would be to deny life. To deny an abortion does not deny the woman her life. It also continues the life of the innocent, vulnerable, unborn child within her womb.