Praise God!

Good to hear. Close your legs if you don't want a baby. The cost of one night of pleasure.... killing a baby. that makes sense(blatant sarcasm).

They have detected a heartbeat as early as 1 1/2 months. Stopping a heartbeat is murder. plain and simple.

Some women's lives depend on ending a pregnancy. That is a traumatic moment. This decision by Abington (to eliminate ALL abortions, not just elective ones) forces women to change their OBGYN at a traumatic moment in their life, to save their life. I am very disappointed in Abington's decision and, when possible, will go elsewhere. It used to be my hospital of choice. BTW, I am male but don't like women's rights taken away from them based on someone's religious belief (that has no basis in religion anyway).

I applaud you, Abington!!!

@Jules: We seldom agree, but in this case, to eliminate all abortions (especially medically necessary) at Abington is in my opinion reactive. I appreciate and respect Holy Redeemer's anti abortion policy, but have they taken over Abington, or is it a joint venture??? Bad move AMH!!!

Thank you Abington Hospital! Praise God, and don't cave into any governmental pressure to do a reversal on your decision. Regarding abortion to save the life of a mother, most thinking people know that this event is exceedingly rare, and in event that the mother's life is truly at risk, what would be required would be early delivery of the fetus and heroic measures to save the lives of both the baby AND the mother. That is what doctors are supposed to do: Save lives, not kill them.

For those who are ignorant by accident or by choice, a Catholic hospital would deliver a fetus prematurely to save the life of the mother, and a Catholic hospital would attempt to save the life of both the baby and the mother. If the fetus died as a result of being born too early, it would not be considered an abortion. An abortion is ALWAYS the deliberate killing of a fetus.

Secondly, in a Catholic hospital a diseased organ that happened to contain a fetus would STILL be removed in order to save the life of the mother. That would result in the indirect death of the fetus, not the deliberate act of mutilating and killing the fetus. An example might be cancer of a pregnant uterus, or an ectopic pregnancy where the fallopian tube would need to be removed before it were to rupture. Your caricatures of best practices in Catholic hospitals are deceiving.

What will happen now for Abington Reproductive Medicine which does IVF? Will the hospital discontinue that portion of medical services for women as well? How far will the hospital go now? Guess everyone is Catholic now, wether they choose to be or not.

They love them unil they are born....

My maternal great-grandfather was Dr. Milton K. Neiffer of Wyncote, a very prominent ob/gyn and Episcopalian who practiced medicine until his death and burial in Old Goschenhoppen Cemetery in 1925, and one of the founders of Abington Memorial Hospital. I don't know what his views were on making patients' reproductive decisions for them, but I doubt whether he envisioned that the venerable old institution he helped to create would eventually become a Vatican annex and a victim of anti-choice hysteria.
The poll here indicates that nearly 2/3 of respondents support the rights of pregnant women, and only ~1/3 want them taken away. If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one; it's just that simple.

here's how simple it is: stopping a heartbeat is murder. whether a heartbeat is located inside another person, or of a guilty person...

THE STOPPING OF A HEARTBEAT IS MURDER! why can't you liberals be "BLEEDING HEART" for that? stop being so partisan.

Typical pro-abortion, pro death of innocent human life SPIN. Capital punishment can NEVER be equated with abortion. The human preborn child is an innocent human life. It should be conferred equal rights and protections, but by a law passed in 1973 that right is gone. The criminal who is executed is guilty and his or her human rights are no longer protected as retribution for the crimes he or she has committed. Next, the Roman Catholic church has not made it mandatory for all pro-life people to be anti-death penalty, and there are many Roman Catholics who are pro-death penalty, as anyone with a brain in their head can see the difference between the two acts: one act is murder and the other is death by the state. Nowhere in the Bible can you find anything indicating that capital punishment is against God. Nowhere. One's sins may be forgiven, but that does not remove the human and governmental consequences of one's actions.

Next for the lying accusation that pro-lifers do not care about the lives that are born: Who are those who are supporting and volunteering for Crisis Pregnancy Centers all over the country? The pro-choicers?! No, it is those who care about both the mother AND her baby, and who are tirelessly seeking help for them in the form of diapers, formula, housing, and job placement. Catholics are the #1 providers of social services and charities worldwide, but right, Catholics don't care about mothers and their babies. I hope that there are enough thinking people her to see through the usual liberal pro-death spin that justifies abortion on demand.

Finally for those who say if you don't want an abortion don't get one, try this: if you don't like what Abington Hospital is doing, go to another hospital!

Thinking people know that "pro-choice" is "pro giving the right to women to murder their preborn child, a child who has a separate set of DNA, a separate brain, and a separate set of organs, etc." When you are "pro" the right of "some" women to murder their offspring, then you are in fact pro-abortion and pro-death in those selected cases.

Pro-choice is a euphemism for pro-murder-of-innocent life. It is anti-human-rights, and it is anti-science, since it states that the life who breaths, moves, hears, and sees in utero is not a human being and therefore not really a life but a "blob of cells" ---WHEN it's mother doesn't want it. And yet if the mother does want the child at the same gestational age, and that child is killed by negligent homicide/manslaughter in a car accident or drive-by shooting, then that child is suddenly a person. So to recap. Unwanted = not a person; wanted = a person.

This is the insane law of the land that you support, and it's amazing that people like you think that just because an unjust law is passed, that makes it morally right. Slavery was wrong but it was once the law of the land. Just because Roe v. Wade is the law doesn't mean it should stay the law. It is an unjust law that makes the woman the sole arbiter of life and death over an innocent human being, irrespective of anyone's wishes, including the father's. It is woman's lib gone off the deep end. I choose to speak up for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.

@Albury, I'm not sure what qualifies you to tell me that because you support abortion, I and others like me should pay for it. You don't like the suggestion that you change hospitals. I don't like the suggestion that if someone believes abortion is murder and wants it to be illegal, the answer to that is "just don't have an abortion." That is the usual employment of the absurd that is used to bypass the legitimacy of someone else's point on this very important issue.

The HHS mandate is not about Catholics forcing others not to get abortions. The crux of the HHS mandate is that the government is suddenly deciding what makes an institution "religious enough" to exercise its own religious freedom. This is unprecented and anti-constitutional. This government definition has been narrowed purposely so as to become untenable for Catholic hospitals and universities to operate while remaining genuinely Catholic. Which is the whole point. Government makes it impossible for them to operate, it then removes its funding, they shut their doors, and government takes them over.

Albury, you wrote: "the current flap is over contraception, not abortion, and no one's forcing anyone to pay for abortions." Your statement is patently false. The HHS mandate originally stipulated that every employer must provide health care insurance that includes the following: contracteption, abortifacient drugs, abortion, and sterilization. At the 11th hour on a Friday, the Administration issued a false "compromise" that stated that although dissenting organizations such as Catholic hospitals and universities (neither of which meets the deliberately narrow classification as "religious" under the Administration's new definition) now do not have to directly provide such coverage, the health care insurance providers that they do use then themselves must provide such coverage as part of a separate plan. Only problelm is that the dissenting organizations still end up paying for these services and still end up stuck with health care insurance providers that provide coverage for pharmaceuticals and procedures that directly go against their own beliefs.

Albury: You wrote "feel free to quote the Bible on abortion, Lisa." First of all it is a fallacy to say that because something is not mentioned in a document, this indicates that the document *condones* the thing that is not stated. The Bible does not mention all possible crimes, such as inhumane torture of a prisoner, but that doesn't prove that the Bible endorses such action. Second, the Bible is FULL of passages that indicate that the preborn child is not only a person, but a person with an immortal soul, forknown by God before conception. I do not have time to pull out every single verse beginning in the Torah and extending into at least the Psalms. Finally the word "abortion" is first mentioned in the oldest church document outside of the New Testament, and it was written around the same time as the book of Acts, or somewhere between 50 A.D. (earliest) and 100 A. D. (latest) Many of the original Apostles are believed to have collaborated on this document, which codifies the earliest rules of behavior and doctrines of the church. Here is the Didache:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/the_fathers_know_best/2011/10/the-d.html

In the Didache it states:

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, *you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.*

note: divided post in wrong sequence.

Hi Albury,

It's always fun to open up my inbox and find more of your interesting material. My two initial statements speaking of the difference between capital punishment and abortion have no relation to the third statement, indicating that the lack of a mention of something doesn't indicate the promotion of that thing.

I challenge you to find evidence to support your two claims:

1) The Bible is replete with approving references to aborting fetuses, usually of women who are deemed "sluts" It also approves of infanticide if the kid's unfortunate enough not to meet Biblical criteria, and it even sanctions the execution of "sluts."
2) The Church itself has been inconsistent on the topic at various times in its history - at one point distinguishing between "quickening" and that 'blob of cells" you mentioned, and permitting abortion for the latter.

Find it: Go ahead and find it here for instance (and try to restrict your answers to the topic of abortion and not execution of an adulterer under the old covenant):

http://www.openbible.info/topics/womb

You are asking this readership to accept that God, the Bible, and the Church have ever accepted abortion as a moral good, and this I find laughable.

Albury wrote:

"Religiously-affiliated hospitals and other institutions are not religious institutions in their own right, and are subject to secular law."

This must be a deliberately misleading statement. They are religious institutions with their own bylaws. They do receive federal funding. The secular law is supposed to uphold the rights of religious organizations, even those who receive federal funding, to operate on the basis of their own religious convictions. The government in seeking to pass Obamacare and shove the HHS mandate down the throats of America, has redefined the criteria upon which an organization can now be deemed "religious." The definition is now so narrow that most erstwhile religious organizations no longer fall under this category. This has been a hostile takeover by the government as part of a larger socialistic plan. Most thinking people can see that. The rest who can think know this is happening and want it to happen, and that is because they hate the Church and religion in general and want to see it stamped out in their lifetime.

"No one is requiring you to pay for anyone's abortion,"

The HHS mandate will require religious institutions to pay for abortions. Period. That is what we were discussing, but nice attempt to deflect.

Albury: Since you appear not to have a clear understanding at all of this issue, I will supply this statement written by the USCCB:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/march-14-statement-on-religious-freedom-and-hhs-mandate.cfm

Since you also do not seem to have a clear understanding of how the Constitution was designed to protect religious liberties and the free exercise thereof, here are some tasty quotes by Thomas Jefferson:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428

"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378

"Our Constitution... has not left the religion of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to any desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to New London Methodists, 1809. ME 16:332

"I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

You just built a house of cards under the questionable notion that religiously-affiliated hospitals are religious institutions, Lisa dear. Jeffersonian Democracy is not your friend here. :-)

Insults and condescension do not help your case. If religious hospitals were never religious institutions to begin with, there would be no controversy. I do not care to dance with you on this issue, as you will simply keep flinging insults rather than being able to speak intelligently on the issues. I hope that one day, even if you never embrace the Church's teaching on abortion, you will see that abortion is a human rights issue and that the only hypocrisy here is a government that protects the rights of the unborn when it is wanted but supports the murder of the unborn when it is unwanted. God bless you, and take care.

I've simply tried to address your specious attempts to justify the belief that our government and public institutions have the right to force their abortion views on people who don't share them, Lisa, especially interested parties to a specific pregnancy. It's hard to imagine anything more insulting and condescending than your position on this issue, and it wasn't my intent to reciprocate.
You've now achieved a resounding victory at AMH, and want to impose it on the whole country by overturning Roe v Wade, completely disregarding the fact that many of us are not practicing Catholics, and will "never embrace the Church's teaching on abortion." Since criminalizing abortion at any stage of pregnancy is the ultimate goal, and Prohibition taught us the importance of coherent and effective law enforcement policy, please tell me what you think the penalty should be for women who still opt for it.
Thanks in advance.

No ma'am, that statement is in and of itself specious, since that is not what was being dicussed. My personal opinion that Roe v. Wade should be overturned has no bearing on the topic at hand, which was initially whether Catholic hospitals or hospitals that have merged with Catholic hospitals should have the right to refuse to perform abortions. Next we talked about the HHS mandate and whether the government should have the right to impose a mandate on a Catholic hospital or any other religious institution that directly conflicts with its own beliefs and bylaws, thus jeapardizing religious liberty. That I interjected my opinion concerning Roe v. Wade as being an unjust law has nothing to do with public institutions forcing abortion views on the public. AMH is not a public institution, and it is now merged with a Catholic hospital, thus changing the game. A private insitution has a right to its own bylaws, much like the Boy Scouts has a right not to allow homosexual scout masters. A private religious institution has a right not only to its own bylaws but to its own set of religious convictions, and a hospital or university is no exception to this. If it does not have this right, then it is absurd that it should be able to take the name "Catholic" at all.

Next you imply that those who are against abortion and want to see Roe v. Wade overturned are a threat to those who are not practicing Catholics, who necessarily must have an opposing view. This ignores the atheist/agnostic pro-lifers, the Jewish pro-lifers, the secular science pro-lifers, and so on. You engage in another fallacy which is to suggest that because I am pro life and because I am Catholic, only Catholics are pro-life.

As far as your question regarding what should happen to a woman who would defy the law of the land (should Roe v. Wade be overturned) and murder her innocent pre born child: The result should be the same as if she gave birth to it and then stabbed it to death. I see no difference.

I will bet you believe that the government has no right to "legistlate morality" and therefore abortion must be permitted, blithely ignoring that any law on the books is an attempt to legislate morality.

Hi Indian Valley Patcher:

I just read the article you supplied. Thank you very much for it. I am reserving my opinion for now. There is much that is not stated in the article, but besides that, I have questions about what you wrote. You wrote:

"11 weeks pregnant woman with preeclampsia" It said it was pulmonary hypertension, which is different.

"She was too fragile to move to another hospital and the mother and father wanted the abortion. The bishop that ousted the nun, stated, in a very politically correct manner, that the life of the mother was secondary to the life of the fetus. This was then backed by the Vatican."

These statements are not supported by the article, so I was wondering if you read these somewhere else?

The topic here is a (suddenly) CATHOLIC institution, Lisa, not the "[non-] practicing Catholics...atheist/agnostic pro-lifers, the Jewish pro-lifers, the secular science pro-lifers, and so on." It's absurd to accuse me of ignoring them, when you're obviously ignoring the rights of every pro-choicer in the world. A private institution does have a right to its own bylaws, but AMH is not a private institution when it accepts public money.

You also ducked my question about legal penalties for the new class of criminals you want to create, so please dispense with the red herrings and interject your opinion on that.

Your illogical thinking is mind boggling. If the legalization of abortion created unjust laws to begin with, then the so-called "rights" of pro-choicers are built on a house of sand.

It is hilarious that you say I am ducking the question when I just wrote to you that I see no difference between a woman who murders her own baby snuggled in her womb versus a woman who gives birth to her baby and then stabs it to death. In whatever way the laws would apply to a woman who commits infanticide, those laws should apply to a woman who aborts her baby and to the doctors and nurses who aid and abet that abortion. Asked and answered.

Next you completely avoid any evidence I present to you that proves your shrill accusations to be false, such as bible verses that speak of the infant in the womb, or the fact that the same apostles who wrote the books of the New Testament also wrote the Didache, which expressly forbids both abortion and infanticide.

Your responses are getting increasing hysterical. You aren't going to succeed in bullying me by your typical liberal ad hominem attacks into backing down. People who support abortion cannot do anything but squawk about women's so-called "rights" to murder innocent life. Abortion is anti human, anti-science, and anti-morality, and it is build on a pack of lies that we have been force-fed ever since the rabid women's lib movement hijacked the real women's lib movement, which had to do with pay, voting, and property.

And by the way, you would make a *great* politician :-)

It's funny. You have done a boatload of projection, and yet I was able to refrain from playing armchair psychologist. Still waiting for evidence to back up your claims. Still waiting for chapter and verse as well as proof AMH's funding stream.

I am not willing to keep dancing back and forth with this. Go ahead and get your parting shot. I'm sure that will make you feel morally superior to me, even though you "love and practice a lie," which is that abortion is morally good, acceptable, ethical; that the life of the fetus is of lesser value because it is smaller; that fetuses are persons when wanted but nonpersons when not wanted; that abortion should be available on demand.

Since Roe v. Wade is still very much the law of this land, I'm really not sure why your panties are in a bunch about my own personal opinions on this issue, but go ahead and keep foaming at the mouth and get that last word in. It will massage your ego, but it won't help you in the end, when you have to make an account to God after you die.

P.S. If you scroll you will land on the part where I answered your question. There is still numbing silence on your part where I showed you Bible verses to prove the personhood of the preborn fetus and the ancient document written by the Apostles indicating that abortion and infanticide are prohibited. Cheers, and I will not be answering another one of your parting shots. God help you, for what you champion is evil.

I encourage all people who are pro-choice and utilize AMH physicians, services or facilities to transfer their care elsewhere. I have utilized AMH neurology, ophthalmology, dermatology, GI, and pain management physicians and have had bloodwork and radiology services performed their multiple times. No more. I am switching all of my care to other providers.

I've been a patient of Abington physicians my entire life. 22 months ago I gave birth to my first child at AMH and bragged to my "natural" parent friends, who claim home births are the best way to go, how wonderful my hospital experience was there. As my husband and I plan our second child, I find myself wondering how I can support AMH after a decision like this. I fully support Holy Redeemer's right to steer their health care services by their religious beliefs. I will happily choose a different provider. But to have my secular community hospital with an independent staff run over by these religious views is devastating to me. Regardless of how you personally feel about abortion, taking away the rights of women based on your religious views is just wrong. I can't see how I will continue to support AMH after this news.

Shame on you Abington Hospital for taking the rights of women away...you used to be better than that.

I too am appalled by the proposal to limit women's health care at AMH, my community hospital. As a woman who has experienced gynecological problems that required a D & E, I can attest to the necessity of this procedure, more commonly known as an abortion. The religion beliefs of some should not prevent me from receiving the medical care I need. Medical decisions are best left to the individuals and their health care providers; uninvited interference from religious organizations has no place in the process.
PS I am a thinking person and I am not squawking.

I still haven't found out about curtailments to fertility treatments.

I will no longer patronize Abington Hospital until they lift their ban on abortions. This is a step backwards and women have fought long and hard for the last 50 years to make abortions legal. Linda

I am quite sad about having to find new providers. I finally found docs I like in the AMH system, but cannot live with this new policy. Not just because of the abortion debate, but because Catholic hospitals are now mandated (2010) to keep a body alive with nutrition and hydration even when in a vegetative state. So if I am brain dead and in a Catholic hospital, my husband will have to have my body moved to a new hospital in order to follow my end-of-life wishes. If AMH is adopting Catholic values, then presumably they will also adopt this mandate. No thanks. I subscribe to the neurological view - life begins (and ends) when the brain begins (and ends) functioning. If my brain is dead, I am no longer alive.

I will defend to the utmost everyone's right to their own beliefs, but resent having others' beliefs forced on me.

AMH was one of the deciding factors in selecting our house [sigh]. A big healthy system with great doctors. Now I will have to travel to see doctors. I wonder how many AMH doctors will decide to leave too...

And I'm not religious at all - I'm a well-educated individual, who has considered this issue from all sides. I have read the arguments from all angles, and made an informed decision. Incidentally, in accordance with my beliefs, I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty - no human being has the right to take the life of another. But if I choose to bring my own life to an end, I should have that right. It's my life.

I do believe in Freedom of Religion. I do not understand how the Catholic Church (and its hospitals) can inflict their beliefs on people of other religions. Somehow through this merger, the Catholic Church has inflicted its beliefs on all of the people in Abington, regardless of their religious beliefs. Those who choose to go to Abington Hospital but who are not Catholic now have to find another hospital..and where would that be? Abington Hospital and its doctors (Catholic or not) are outstanding. I do not understand why in this merger the larger, more profitable hospital decided to cave to the wishes of the smaller, less profitable hospital. As it was, Holy Redeemer did not allow its physicians, regardless of their religious beliefs or the religious beliefs of their patients to prescribe birth control pills. Is that next for Abington?

Good for you ABINGTON Hospital!!!! I applaud you. Doctors - take an oath to preserve life not end it. Finally - Doctors and administrators that are not afraid to turn away a buck for a life!!!
Nice,
God Bless all of you.........Annie Byrne

Doctors are preserving life! not a religious issue.

Holy Redeemer has been on the brink of bankruptcy for quite sometime. Abington, has maintained a thriving, growing medical community since its inception. How then, is the institution looking for salvation (from closing its doors), allowed to dictate the terms of service to be provided? Abington is a non-secular facility that has been successfully caring for its diverse community for years.To subscribe to the doctrine of a singular faith will remove its position as a non-secular community healthcare system. That is unacceptable to me.

By the way, ever heard of the first ammendment????? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

If we all followed the Bible for how we perform modern medicine, most of us would likely be dead by now. So why are we listening to religious beliefs regarding abortion? I lost a significant amount of respect for Abington Hospital.

I don't see it as a religious decision for AMH. It is a business decision. They have every right to decide what procedures they conduct as well as what is served in the cafeteria.

Score one for the innocent. Women can take their choice elsewhere. Yes, there are instances when it's a choice between the life of mom or baby, but where I work, I hear daily the question "was it planned?" and our docs refer to planned parenthood for those women anyway, never to other Abington providers. I fully support this move. Also, I have listened to descriptions of providers of the sterile process of an abortion. Women seeking advice are given a sterile diluted version of the barbarism that takes place on the little life inside them. How many women would choose termination if the graphic truth of their choice was made plain to them?

Awesome! Abortion should never be an option. Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. I support you wholeheartedly Abington. Let freedom ring for all, born and unborn!

Since hospitals are supposed to protect and heal I think it is an awesome idea!

I strongly support Abington's decision to end abortions. The jobs of doctors and nurses are to preserve life, not destroy it. Abortions not only kill the innocent but they also have negative effects on the mother's health and wellbeing.

I am hoping that the ban on abortions at AMH stands up. Abortion is neither a Catholic issue, nor a religious issue, but a moral issue. We have laws against murder that should apply to all human life. Location and size of the person should not matter. We fought to save the bald eagle because the eggshells were too fragile, but human babies have no rights.

Abortion proponents call this "women's rights" or "health care," but a woman never has the right to end the life of another, especially her own child. I find it appalling that there are parents and grandparents who are fighting for the ability to kill their children and grandchildren. The child in the womb is a separate person from the mother. It is a dependent person, but so is any child--a day, a week, a month, a year old.

Just because something has been determined to be the law of the land doesn't mean that it is a moral law. Slavery was legal and the Supreme Court determined that slaves were not people either. That was clearly immoral and unjust. So is abortion. When does the child get rights?

The vast majority of women who have abortions are not under any health threat, nor have they been raped. Many women have multiple abortions. Perhaps those of you who are pro-choice but claim to be against abortion are really bothered by the lack of services provided to mothers who are unprepared for pregnancy and motherhood. What are you doing about that?

Jeanne
Kelly was right on. I agree. I am happy that AMH has agreed to ban abortions but I am concerned about what will happen down the road. Since this all about money, I pray that HRH will be able to stand up to their principles. Merlis and Laign said that the new entity would be a secular organization. This statement appeared in the Sunday Inquirer. So, you see already, a plan is in the works. I called Michael Laign's office yesterday and spoke with his secretary and was promised a call back from him. I haven't heard as of yet. Anyone interested in this comment made in the Inquirer should also call Mr. Laign's office at HRH for an explaination. Peace

I applaud Abington Hospital for their decision to stop killing unborn children.

I am appalled that a well respected, community hospital would agree to merge with a Catholic hospital and cave in to their anti abortion demands.
Abington Hospital has a mission to serve all of its patients without reservation. This is just one more attack on women's rights and another example of the power of a small segment of our population to get their way regardless.
The matter was handled poorly. Mr Merlis did not contact staff before he made this deal
This is a sad day for AMH and its mission to be a community hospital that has served its people without concern for their religion or lack thereof.
Women in the community must speak out for their right to choose what happens in their private life.

The "Pro-Abortion" people on this thread should really take their grievances to President Obama and his fund sucking ObamaCare legislation. Abington had to merge w/ Holy Redeemer, Jefferson was looking to buy HR and Abington knew they could never complete....especially with all of the new costs that will be put on hospitals, doctors and patients. So send your crying e-mails to the White House...or maybe you should vote for someone else come November.

It's a life not a choice! Abortion will go down in history as the greatest holocaust ever, with the US at the forefront. God Bless America, for how much longer?

Why is it OK to kill a life before it's born but not after? Why is it OK to choose one life over another? Tests & doctors can be wrong. Why make such a drastic & life-changing decision based on the POSSIBILITY of a problem? Also, more abortions are done because the child is considered an inconvenience. What is needed is more talk about building up girls so they don't need to have sex to feel wanted, stronger families, and a greater emphasis on personal responsibility. What is not needed is more birth control i. e. the pill, the Depo shot etc. b/c that only leads to promiscuity and ultimately more abortions.

We know what this is about and it is not Obama care.
It is about the right wing doing everything possible to take this country back to the days when many were second class citizens, including women
We have fought too har to get equality for ALL
The other thing that it is about is MONEY

I'm gonna guess Virginia that you are a bitter baby boomer...my Mom talks about how this generation destroyed the true feminist. I'm so glad you women worked so hard to get women to be so respected. Now women are expected to pump their bodies up with hormones, silicone...and then if God forbid our body works correctly and we get pregnant...we are expected to dispose (kill) the problem.
I'm also so confused by your "right-wing" accusations...you do realize Jim Crow laws were a result of Democrats legislation...s

Abortion does not treat or prevent a pathology. It is not a medical procedure but a form of social engineering. It also remains extremely controversial in the U.S., going on 40 years after Roe v. Wade, with half of the population objecting to this legalized attack on human lives. Local residents have held regular protests against abortion at Abington Hospital for over thirty years! The planned merger with Holy Redeemer Health Care System is a welcome opportunity for Abington Hospital to "spin off" that part of its "services" and focus its resources on quality medical care.

Abington Memorial, your decision to stop performing abortions is positive on several counts, for:
the merger
the mother
the child
our community
my generation (50 million of my brothers and sisters have already been denied life)
and more!
I know more than a few people in the Abington/Philadelphia area who would support your decision to cease performing abortions.
Thank you!

I challenge all pro-abortion minded people to seize their challenges of choice, feminism, and politics and see what a real abortion is all about. Visit YouTube and view 'Silent Scream' from beginning to end, then proceed to 'AbortionNO.org.' If you had the guts to watch these all the way through and at the end of these films still see abortion as "progressive" then God be with you.

Thousands and thousands of abortion doctors & workers have changed their minds because of these films, including the very women who's names are represented in Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton.

If they can change, so..can..you.

Women who use Abington Hospital will continue to have the right to choose. The meger has been shut down.