The Seattle Times Editorial: Secret abortions need to stay secret

If you were holding out hope that The Seattle Times' editorial board could ever break ranks with the most extremist elements of the abortion lobby, their Sunday March 28th editorial should have settled the issue once and for all.

We already knew that the radicals at The Times had never seen an abortion they didn't like, but their inability to identify the moral clarity regarding the inhumanity of brutally killing unborn children failed to prepare us for their simultaneous inability to identify the grave moral injustice when a young girl was manipulated by governmental authorities into an abortion she and the family probably did not want and certainly that she was not ready to deal with.

So the editors took refuge the only place they could: the totalitarian mindset of, "No laws were broken." Power rules the day according to the Seattle Times Editorial Board. If you can do it and get away with it, go for it!

When the public heard the facts in the case of the Ballard High School secret abortion program, it caused a local, state, and national outrage, and the editors at the Seattle Times apparently realized that some damage control was necessary to help their friends in the abortion industry.

Thanks to this young girl and her mother, some of the secrets regarding how abortions are facilitated -- and the abortion industry is supplied with new customers from local high schools -- are finally out.

The details that caused the most public outrage, perhaps, only came to light after the spotlight shifted from the school to the Ballard Teen Health Center (BTHC). It was bad enough to discover that "medical professionals" can perform an abortion on a minor without parental involvement, but it was the role of empoyees at the BTHC and Hopelink in facilitating the abortion that, with the backing of the county health department, and with DSHS gladly picking up the entire tab, that sent people over the edge.

Social workers and/or nurses at BTHC put her in a taxpayer-funded taxi that transported her from school to an abortion clinic and back, all without ever notifying the parents about the child's condition, her plans, absence from class, transport off school premises, isolation with an unknown stranger in a car, and undergoing surgery, perhaps including anesthesia.

Rather than firing the individuals responsible, the public education and health care establishment is blithely claiming: "no laws were broken", and hoping everyone shuts up. Too bad for them this brave girl and her mother blew the whistle on the reality of what is happening. The lie of "choice" has been exposed.

It seems the Times's editors and their abortion buddies would like secret abortions to stay secret. When women start talking about what really happens before, during and after an abortion the narrative about abortion from people like the Seattle Times editorial board starts to crumble. The soothing words of "health", "science", "safe", and "choice" are exposed as nothing more than propaganda to paper over the truth that some people have the power to kill without limitation. And the Seattle Times is ok with this.

Revealing 'Choice' of Words

It's worth noting that The Times has never -- and we mean never -- published a word of opinion critical or even probative of the abortion industry.

These are the folks who glorifed Seattle's premier abortion over-achievers Marcy Bloom and Deb Oyer, with over 60,000 abortions under their belts.

These are the folks who after cowboying up to the cruel reality of partial birth abortion, simply couldn't say enough nice things about it.

So it is perhaps of no surprise that they are no longer smearing even the thinnest of lipstick over the pig that is their radical and ideological pro-abortion position.

Readers are no doubt aware that the abortion industry and their friends in the media have for a while now engaged in linguistic gymnaistics in their effort to avoid using the word 'abortion' when talking about, well, abortion. They know what abortion is and so even they try to avoid using the word at all costs. Instead, they use the word 'choice' as a verbal proxy.

'Choice'? It's as if they believe the entire realm of human freedom can ultimately be reduced to their desire to execute unborn babies. It used to be that such extremist rhetoric was confined to Planned Parenthood fundraising letters to the (un)faithful. Now it has spilled over into self-proclaimed 'mainstream' newspapers.

If you love abortion so much, how come you can barely bring yourselves to use the word?

Their sophistry should probably be condemned out of hand, but because of their position as the public relations arm of the abortion industry, perhaps this public ideological self-soiling could be used as a teachable moment. Let's examine some of their 'arguments'.

"Nothing to do with the School"

First, they claim that critics are wrong to condemn the school because the clinic is run by Swedish Hospital, not the school.

"SPS does not run the clinics." They claim that the clinic counsellors only "gave the girl information."

This is the same argument being scribbled out in the comments sections of various news websites by 15-year-old students. They must think we're morons. If the cafeteria is being run by American Food Service, Inc., and poisons some children with botulism, are we to believe that the moral aliens at The Times would instruct us: 'don't blame the school, blame the cafeteria contractor'?

When parents drop their kids off at Ballard High School in the morning, they're not entrusting them to the care of Swedish Medical Center, they're entrusting them to Ballard High School. That's where the buck stops. Swedish doesn't transport children off-site for medical experimentation without permission from the school. If a child skips out of school for half a day based on the clinic's recommendation, it's going to show up on their school  attendance record and their parents will be notified. (Unless, of course, the school participates in a cover-up.)

In the leap to defend the school, the tail appears to be wagging the dog. Wise parents would be smart to ask: Who is running the school? The principal and school board or the abortion industry and the teen health centers.

"No Laws Were Broken"

Second, they claim no laws were broken. Even if that's true -- which we will call into question in subsequent posts -- that's not a defense, it's its own scandal! And either way, when you drop your children off at school, is your implicit contract with the school: do whatever sick crap you can think of with my child, just as long as you don't break the letter of the law? That may be what the perverts at the Times have in mind with their children, but the rest of us have slightly higher expectations for those we entrust with the care of our children.

They argue that Washington's law allowing medical professionals to talk 13-year-olds into an abortion without their parents' involvement provides some sort of moral justification for the school's behavior. Let's ignore for the moment the fact that the law itself is completely immoral. The law simply states that a minor may procure an abortion, on her own time, at her own expense, on her own initiative. It doesn't obligate anyone else to take part in her plans.

Bestiality is legal in Washington state. Can we expect our "teen health clinics" to keep "teen confidentiality" if they stumble upon evidence of some such ungodly behavior?

Remember exactly what the school did here: It facilitated the abortion decision at every step, and perhaps even pressured her into it. It almost certainly provided her with an abortion clinic referral, including phone numbers, and references. It helped her figure out how to arrange payment without her parents' finding out; it arranged for special transportation which was paid for by the state; it provided her with an excused absence from school, including allegedly getting her attendance records falsified; it put her into a cab on her own driven by a stranger, with no criminal background check. And finally it let her undergo a 'medical' procedure, perhaps including anesthesia, antibiotics, surgery, not to mention having her baby killed, a decision known to cause all sorts of physical and emotional consequences, many of them permanent, not the least of which being the violent death of the baby. And all without even mentioning a word to her parents.

All of these actions were the school's and clinic's free choice, and there are many places where they could have notified the parents without violating any laws. The individuals running the school, the clinic, the health department all failed to meet the most basic standards of moral and ethical decency at every turn.

One could argue the Times editors are simply ignorant about the actual laws of this state, which nowhere require complicity or facilitation of an abortion, let alone conspirary to conceal the homicidal surgery, including transportation, from parents. But they are not ignorant. They are simply so beholden to their radical ideolgical of Abortion Uber Alles that it seems to compel them into pretzel-like contortions of logic and tortuous assaults on basic decency to shore up their morally bankrupt position.

The 'Welfare of the Child'!

Thirdly, they go on to argue that full scale concealment, including conspiracy, of any and all information pertaining to abortion is somehow critical for the welfare of the child because of the exceptional cases where rape or incest are involved. The editors, like the clinic counselors, school authorities, and abortion clinic workers knew full well that there was no rape or incest involved here. They knew that there was no reason this girl shouldn't seek help from her parents. They could easily have said: "Listen, this isn't an exceptional case which requires you to proceed without your parents. We refuse to take part in this."

But they did not.

The absence of parental notification law in this state is defended by these exceptional cases, yet when you have a thoroughly unexceptional case like this one, the abortion industry apologists pretend that the law is 'protecting' these children too. The Times editors know that the law is only protecting their sexual predator friends as they victimize these poor children and their innocent babies.

Lastly, they claim the mother knowingly signed all her rights away because the form allowed her child to access "reproductive health care". For the moral deviants at the Times, it is "crystal clear" that "reproductive health care" includes abortion. This doesn't even deserve further comment, but perhaps they could enlighten us by explaining just exactly how executing an unborn child is health care. Do tell us what disease was cured. Enlighten us as to what sickness was cured. We won't wait up for your answer. Perhaps it's time your screeching fringe-rag came with a warning label.