expressing their guilt

Overall, a great article in the Fort Wayne Gazette by Rob Stein about the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction.  Run by Thomas Hilgers, the institute treats women using “natural procreative technology,” and the article even has a local connection in it.

Their destination was the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, which has become perhaps the most prominent women’s health center serving Catholics and other doctors, medical students and patients who object for religious reasons to in vitro fertilization, contraceptives and other aspects of modern reproductive medicine.

“We have built a new women’s health science,” said Thomas Hilgers, who runs the institute. “Our system works cooperatively with the natural fertility cycle and enables doctors to treat women and married couples, especially Catholic married couples, in a way that allows them to live out their faith.”

Hilgers and his supporters say the approach, called “natural procreative technology,” can address a spectrum of women’s health issues, including family planning, premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and infertility, without the use of birth control pills, sterilization, abortion or in vitro fertilization. Instead, Hilgers said, he uses diagnostics, hormones and surgery to identify and treat underlying causes of reproductive ailments that other doctors often miss.

But as good as the article is, the columnist has to insert the obligatory bitter comments from "the other angle." 

But many mainstream authorities question Hilgers’ assertions that his techniques are equal or even superior to standard therapies. They worry that women are being misled and given unproven, ineffective treatments, denying them the best available care.

“This is anti-science,” said Anita Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Los Angeles. “I respect people’s personal values. But I am deeply concerned that they are giving treatments and making claims that are not scientifically proven as safe and effective.”

"safe and effective" like the morning after pill that has a side effect of death.  Safe as in pumping a young girl's body full of un-natural chemicals to suppress a natural function.  Effective as in most contraceptions that have a sizable failure rate, and those 'failures' often lead to abortions, safe and effective in its own way.  As long as you don't consider the health and well-being of the baby or the mother.

Although some independent experts say that some of the institute’s offerings may be acceptable alternatives for religious patients, as long as they are fully informed about their options, others view its work as a disturbing example of religion intruding into secular society.

“Combining medicine and religion is dangerous,” said the Rev. Carlton Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. “This tendency is creeping into our health care system.”

I like the Curt Jester's response to that one.  I guess the Rev. Veazey never heard of St. Luke's, Holy Family or Sacred Heart hospitals.  Just look at the health care industry, how many of the hospitals have Catholic names on them?  Most all that have been around for some time, unless they have changed to a secular name.  No, Rev. I would say the tendency towards ripping faith and religion out of medicine has had its full and dangerous course.  Perhaps the pendulum is starting to swing back towards natural treatments, towards treating the fertility as normal rather than a disease.

“If you look at what’s happened with abortion services being severely limited in large parts of the country, this is not at all an unrealistic fear,” said R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The controversy is part of a larger debate over the relationship between religion and medicine, which is being sparked by conflicts between patients and religious health care workers who refuse to provide care they find offensive, citing a “right of conscience.”

These supporters of Pro-Choice don't think much of choice when it isn't their choice.  There is no way the title of bioethicist should follow that person's name.  It seems to be a case where they "doth protest too much."  They seem to express their guilt with their narrow-minded attack on women who make the CHOICE to seek alternative care.  Case in point is this money quote:

“They might as well be advocating prayer for infertility,” said Richard Paul, a fertility expert at the University of Southern California.

“The reason that this is dangerous is because women have a biological clock, and while they are using up time with less effective therapies, time may run out.”

That oxy-moronic quote shows the pro-choice world has shown that they don't care about the women.  They care about their pocketbook.  Any choice that doesn't feed their greed shouldn't be a choice in their mind.  This person would probably be able to turn around and say (with a straight face) that women should have the choice not to be forced to bear a child should they get pregnant. 

Although on the positive side, it shows their excess protestations may show that the conscience is not yet dead.