Who’s behind the public policies that have led to millions dead from abortion?

By C. Topeth

When the killing of human beings becomes a pre-meditated methodical policy — put forward as a public good — massive slaughter results, and can be called a “holocaust.”

History puts a face on leaders who considered mass murder a political “good” — leaders like Adolph Hitler of Germany, Mehmet Talaat of Turkey, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Mao of China and Joseph Stalin of Russia. 

But what about American leaders responsible for our own ongoing holocaust: abortion? History has yet to put a face to them, but those who value the sanctity of human life are obligated to ferret them out and hold them responsible. This is the third article in a newCalifornia Catholic Daily series, “Faces of the American Holocaust,” in which we put faces to those behind the mass murder of innocents in the U.S.

Dr. Irving Feldkamp III, 67, a San Bernardino dentist and second owner of the California/Chicago abortion chain, Family Planning Associates (FPA), is in an incredible position. Overnight, he could close all of his 22 abortion mills and stop the massive slaughter of unborn infants.

In 2005, Dr. Edward Allred, an abortionist and original owner of FPA, retired and sold the entire business the following year to Feldkamp. His son, Dr. Irving Feldkamp IV, 34, graduated from Loma Linda Medical School in 2004 as a general practitioner, and is now listed with the California Secretary of State as the “agent for service of process” for FPA. It is unknown if the younger Feldkamp does abortions there, but his official address with the California Medical Board is the same as that of the Downey FPA, where both surgical and non-surgical abortions are performed. The younger Feldkamp has no specialty credential with the American Board of Medical Specialists.

Allred was also a Loma Linda graduate. He owns the Los Alamitos Race Course for racing horses and the Rolling A Ranch in Atascadero. In 1980, Allred boasted that he made $12 million that year doing assembly-line abortions.

FPA owner Feldkamp also owns a chain of dental offices and is co-owner of the sprawling Lostine River Ranch on the edge of the Eagle Cap Wilderness near the town of Lostine, Oregon. He also owns and runs the Glen Helen Raceway, a dirt track for motorcycle racing in the San Bernardino area. Felkamp and his wife live in a luxurious 7,835 square foot, six-bedroom, 5.5-bathroom home in Redlands.

While FPA does not reveal the identities of the abortionists who work or once worked at their sites, some are known. Dr. Robert Santella works at the FPA in San Diego. He has been disciplined twice by the California Medical Board and placed on repeated probation. Dr. Kenneth L. Wright, 77, is the abortionist at FPA in Fresno and often travels the chain. Dr. Jack Dym, 74, is at the Mission Hills FPA. Bernard Weiss, M.D., 79, works at FPA in Los Angeles. Dr. Thomas L. Grubbs was in his late 70s and still doing abortions when he died. Dr. Ruben Marmet, 73, and Dr. Lawrence Hansen, 86, are also FPA abortionists. Dr. Hansen was recently disciplined by the state Medical Board for gross negligence in the death of Maria Garcia on whom he performed plastic surgery.

FPA — both under Allred and Feldkamp — has a history of significant medical malpractice cases. The Los Angeles County Superior Court alone lists a total of 76 civil cases, including medical malpractice.

In July 2010, the mother of a minor, Alexandria Kiser, filed a lawsuit against FPA. According to court records, Alexandria went to FPA for an abortion of her child at about 16 to 18 weeks of pregnancy. She claimed that FPA doctors did a “successful” D&C on her, but, according to her civil complaint (Case BC4421310): “the following day, Alexandria started cramping and contracting. She proceeded to sit on the toilet at her home and the fetus was expelled into the toilet. (She) saw the fetus coming out and screamed… pulled the fetus including the head and fetal structures from the neck down which were distorted out of the toilet.” Both Alexandria and the fetus were taken to a local hospital. The lawsuit alleges that Alexandria “suffered severe, debilitating and permanent emotional injuries.”

Another recent medical malpractice lawsuit against FPA is Los Angeles Superior Court case SC104780. Tadrauna Palmore, a young woman, went to FPA on June 21, 2008 for an abortion. After the abortion, FPA received a pathology report that the abortion was not “successful” and that there was a perforation of Tadruana Palmore’s uterus. FPA allegedly did not disclose this to Palmore. About three weeks later she was rushed to the ER, where she was told that she was still pregnant. She opted to keep the baby. The hospital doctors told her to demand a copy of FPA’s pathology report, which she did, but they allegedly refused to provide it. By September 2008, Tadruana was vomiting blood and was again taken to the ER, where she was told she was hemorrhaging — and the baby had died. An emergency hysterectomy was done. At the age of 24 she was sterile. She sued FPA, Dr. Bernard Weiss and Dr. Jack Dym. The case was recently settled for an undisclosed amount.

Stacey Espinoza was 22 weeks pregnant when she went to FPA in Long Beach for prenatal assistance. She was told that she had placenta previa, a rare obstetric complication involving the placenta, and that she could die. She was advised to have an abortion. During the abortion, her uterus was ruptured and Stacey required emergency surgery.

Anush Tagvoryan, a 37-year-old, morbidly obese mother of two who had six prior abortions went to the Glendale FPA for an abortion. They sent her to Dr. Ruben Marmet at the Long Beach FPA, where, despite the enormous high risks, FPA decided to go through with the abortion. Anush suffered uterine perforation, bled heavily and was sent across the street to Long Beach Memorial Hospital, where emergency surgery was performed. Neither Dr. Felkamp IV nor Dr. Marmet has medical staff privileges at Long Beach Memorial Hospital. Dr. Gene Parks, a Marina Del Rey abortionist, testified that FPA did not act below the standard of care and the court dismissed Anush’s lawsuit.

The Feldkamp family is widely known as belonging to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has the following guidelines regarding abortion:

(1) Prenatal human life is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of human life, in God’s image, and requires respect for prenatal life. However, decisions about life must be made in the context of a fallen world. Abortion is never an action of little moral consequence. Thus prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons. — General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council session in Silver Spring, Maryland, October 12, 1992.

The Loma Linda University School of Medicine displays the following statement in regard to abortion on its official website:

The practice of abortion is contrary to: The revealed, written Word of God. Respect for the sanctity of human life. Traditional, historical, and Judeo-Christian medical ethics. — Approved by the CMDS (Christian Medical and Dental Society) House of Delegates May 4, 1985.




Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:20 AM By OSCAR
HOLOCAUST or Genocide is appropriate terminology for the 50 million + abortions in the USA since 1973. It is the greatest human/civil rights violation that our Country has ever known. And it is the fault of voters who call themselves “Catholic”, and the lack of clear moral voting instructions from the USCCB and Diocese Bishops over the years. Next we will be killing our elderly, our handicapped, and our mentally deficient because they are too expensive and a drag on society. Bishops and Catholics wake up !

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:33 AM By Juergensen
What of the role of silence and inaction in the American holocaust? As in, 40 years of relative silence and inaction from the American bishops? As in, 40 years of silence from the pulpit on the intrinsic evil that is abortion, mortal sin, damnation, and hell? As in, 40 years of deliberately refusing to enforce Church law and allowing open and notorious abortionist politicians to receive and profanate the Holy Eucharist? As in, 40 years of tacit if not overt support of a political party whose high sacrament is abortion? Where are these faces?

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:31 AM By Life Lady
As has been said before, this is truly a crisis of faith in the Church when shepherds must speak and do nothing. I attend Mass at a parish that is shepherded by priests of the FSSP and this past Sunday heard a homily that would never be given in a Novus Ordo parish, about the family and the responsibility of us, as Catholics, to vote in elections according to the Church’s teaching on abortion and the family: “God’s Law is where we must look in these matters, not secular law. God’s Law is above any secular decisions on abortion and the family.” Ask your bishops for more of these parishes to be established, and pray very hard that they listen. The sheep may have been scattered, but that does not mean that another shepherd can’t gather them up again. Instead of wringing our collective hands and lamenting our losses, how about taking the proactive stance of moving toward true effective change, within ourselves, and our parishes. We have that duty, and that right, to be shepherded properly.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:33 AM By Bud 
Just what is holding them responsible????? “But what about American leaders responsible for our own ongoing holocaust: abortion? History has yet to put a face to them, but those who value the sanctity of human life are obligated to ferret them out and hold them responsible. This is the third article in a new California Catholic Daily series, “Faces of the American Holocaust,” in which we put faces to those behind the mass murder of innocents in the U.S” It can’t be too difficult to find the responsible parties from top to bottom, starting with Obama, his Harvard philosophers complete with an ex-governor of Kansas and an ex-Catholic at that…. all at the HHS czardom. Then enter the Capitalists to get rich on it!

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:50 AM By Anne T.
Thank you for this information, Cal Catholic. I wonder if the Dr. Edward Allred, retired abortionist, who is mentioned in this article is related to Gloria Allred.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:30 AM By JOHN
Juergensen is right! The Catholic hierarchy pretended to be pro-life by promoting the least effective action—like Walks for Life and ProLife Sundays. but when it comes to the agenda of the Democrat Party, the bishops raise holy hell for anti-death penalty, union perks, daycare, and so-called Peace and Justice actions. The last time I heard a sermon about abortion was 25 years ago and the only action we were told to take was “to pray.”

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:50 AM By Jessica
My husband is a Seventh Day Adventist and is very prolife. The Feldkamps are to the Seventh Day Adventist chuch as Nancy Pelosi is to the Catholic church.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:23 AM By Dennis Fischer
Seventh-day Adventists do not encourage abortions as a form of birth control, but they allow elective abortions in some of their hospitals. Sadly, the Seventh-day Adventist organization is not officially opposed to abortion. Dennis Fischer

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:53 AM By Idaho Pete
Today’s Catholic Daily has an article in which it’s documented that Pope Pius XII saved many Jewis lives but many today try to deny this. Sadly though in some future date, as it will be well recorded and documented and hard to deny, whether we like it or not, will be the CATHOLIC face on abortion perpetrated by the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, and many many other so-called Catholics and state voting records. It will also document the weak response from those in the Church’s leadership positions some who give the appearance of collaborating with these politicians. I would like any priest to please explain to me, what is the difference between a uniformed Nazi who may never have pulled a trigger but instead signed many documents authorizing others to murder untold numbers versus our Catholic politicians who do the same through promoting and voting for abortion. Nothing will change until the bishops start leading and come fully aboard against the fight against the crime of mass murder.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 9:57 AM By MacDonald
Bishops silent??? Are you kidding??? They are constantly speaking up against abortion and about every issue on the planet. Of course, when they do speak up, people tell them to shut up.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:03 AM By Catherine
OSCAR and Juregensen, God Bless you both! Thank you for not being distracted. Who has the real power and authority to steer the sheep and society away from this evil? Who has the power and authority to insist that each Diocese adheres to all Church teaching? Who has the power and authority to undo the damage of poor voting instructions? Allred and Feldkamp are slaughtering Christ’s lambs but they have no apostolic power and authority to truly feed and protect the sheep. Where are the faces of those in apostolic power who refuse to enforce Canon 915?

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:24 PM By Life Lady
I guess the point of being responsible for your own salvation has been missed by a lot of folks, especially some on this site. The Pope himself has declared that the faithful are as responsible for their own souls as the bishops, but it appears that some would rather BLAME the bishops for ‘poor leadership” rather than the faithful, knowing what they know, to be responsible to what they know. Our Lord held us all to this in his teaching, especially with the Sermon on the Mount, and the story of the man who was bypassed by several persons after being robbed and beaten and left for dead, when a Samaritan stopped and took care of the man. WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE, PEOPLE, not just the bishops. We, who know our faith, are responsible to find the best confessor we can, to help us lead good and holy lives. I have personally found that in an FSSP parish. Those priests have made it a point to ignore the secular ravings of the world, and admonished us all to pursue perfection, make sacrifices, receive the sacraments often, and to pray, ardently for our brothers and sisters who struggle everyday with the world, the flesh and the devil. I can’t say it any stronger: STOP STANDING THERE, RINGING YOUR COLLECTIVE HANDS IN DISTRESS OVER HOW YOU THINK YOU HAVE BEEN WRONGED BY THE BISHOPS, AND THEN TAKE ACTION. NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU BUT YOURSELVES. If you are not praying and sacrificing daily to end abortion, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is not entirely a secular battle, but a battle for the hearts of people who have bought the hype that abortion, and same-sex marriages, are okay. THEY ARE NOT, but if you are not speaking to that point, you are part of the problem. I am glad to know who is behind the atrocities of abortion, but I am more concerned with what everyone else is doing to end those atrocities. Is anyone of you praying and sacrificing to end abortion? If you are not, shut your pie hole. Empty words are falling on my deaf ears.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:36 PM By JLS
MacDonald, I also speak up against abortion, yet my results are pretty much the same as the bishops’ speaking up, which is zero. And, right in step with the bishops, I do not apply Canon 915 either … and amazingly the results are about the same. So you see, MacDonald, I get the same results as the bishops by doing the same thing as they do.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:39 PM By JLS
Good point, Idaho Pete, the public perception of Catholicism comes from Catholic politicians, and almost all of them say ok to abortion, either overtly or by their votes.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:44 PM By JLS
No, Jessica, the Feldkamps are within the rules of Adventism; whereas, Pelosi violates the Catholic doctrine which says abortion is always a grave sin, no exceptions. Hopefully you can see the difference: Adventism allows abortion, and the Catholic Church does not … ok, well here is the caveat as far as Catholicism goes. The Church teaches no abortion no exceptions, but many bishops and priests allow it. So where these bishops and priests are acting hypocritically, the Adventists are not. Hypocrisy is the worst sin, for as Jesus says, “the harlots shall enter Heaven before the pharisees” due to their hypocrisy.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:58 PM By Anne T.
The only procedure that the Church approves of where the child is lost and is needed to save a mother’s life is the removal of the fallopian tube in an etoptic pregnancy. That is when the child is conceived in one of the fallopian tubes of the woman, and both the mother and child will die if the tube is not removed. The Church does not consider it an abortion since the child’s death is not willed when the tube is removed with the child in it since he or she will die anyway when the tube bursts as the child grows, and the mother dies.

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:56 PM By Abeca Christian
Do Catholics know that having an abortion is a grave sin? Do they know not to receive communion when they have had an abortion? Do they know that they can go to confession only when they do feel sorry for their sin and understand the gravity of what they had just committed by having an abortion?

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:05 PM By Abeca Christian
Bravo to comments Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:44 PM By JLS! Very well explained and I like especially the example of the hypocrisy, you are so right on JLS!

Posted Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:12 PM By Abeca Christian
JLS you are funny but the question is do you have the authority to enforce Canon 915? I mean what good would it do if you did not. You know how there is a law or use to be a law called citizens arrest? Well I wonder if there is a law that gives the lay faithful permission to apply Canon 915 in rare cases? Just kidding, of course not but I liked your humor so I wanted to join in except for the fact that you are funnier than I! LOL

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 10:30 AM By Eduardo
FPA hires only geriatric, bottom rung docs who can’t get on staff anywhere. Do any of these old guys have malpractice insurance? Chillingly deadly and ultra cheap operation by the Feldkamps. Time to close up shop.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:43 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Is the abortionist in this CCD article, as an Adventist, “within” what you call “the rules of Adventism”? (By “rules,” I take it you mean the objective moral order as it is understood by Adventism.) You conclude that he is. I conclude that by-and-large he is not. Your mistake, I think, is to have overdrawn the first phrase of your formulation “Adventism allows abortion…the Catholic Church does not.” When what is at issue is the position of a religious tradition on the question of abortion, we are under an obligation to understand that position. Although deficient in certain respects, the Seventh-day Adventist position on abortion is clear that “Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience” are not condoned. Residually however, that is, beyond indirect abortion in cases in which the pregnant woman’s life is in jeopardy, Adventism also allows abortion in the following circumstances: “serious jeopardy” to the pregnant woman’s health; “severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus”; and “pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.” Source: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee, Annual Council Session, Silver Spring, Maryland, October 12, 1992. In light of the Adventists Silver Spring _Guidelines_, JLS, the most that can be said is that Adventism allows for abortion in certain delimited circumstances. Withal, for the sake of accuracy, these circumstances must needs be identified, lest a false impression be conveyed in regard to the Adventist position on abortion. Contrary to your post, on the evidence, the abortionist in question is by-and-large proceeding outside “the rules of Adventism”; or better put, outside the objective moral order, within which order all preborn infants are vested with the right to life.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:01 PM By Juergensen
Maguire: The Seventh Day Adventist sect does not condemn abortion in a single instance, and explicitly condones it in many instances. The sect teaches: “Abortions for reasons of BIRTH CONTROL, GENDER SELECTION, OR CONVENIENCE are NOT CONDONED [nor condemned]. Women, at times however, may face EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, SUCH AS significant THREATS TO THE PREGNANT WOMAN’S LIFE [all pregnancies pose threats to the woman’s life], SERIOUS JEOPARDY TO HER HEALTH [all pregnancies jeopardise the woman’s health], SEVERE CONGENITAL DEFECTS CAREFULLY DIAGNOSED IN THE FETUS, AND PREGNANCY RESULTING FROM RAPE OR INCEST. The FINAL DECISION whether to TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OR NOT should be MADE BY THE PREGNANT WOMAN AFTER APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit” (“Guidelines on Abortion,” Adventist Website, 2012). This is a veritable license by this sect to abort for any and all reasons. As such, JLS is spot on when he says the Adventist sect “allows abortion”. It does.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:22 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Idaho Peter, 9:53 AM, Will the historians also record how the Knights of Columbus leadership claimed to be pro-life while in violation of their own Constitution and By-Laws protected the memberships of many of the main figures in the holocaust?

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:46 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to JLS: Although Adventism allows abortion in delimited circumstances within the context of its general opposition, that opposition has been undermined by certain Adventist hospital administrators and certain Adventist officials. Pro-life Adventists are fighting the good fight against these administrators and officials. To understand this fight, however, we must recall what Adventism is. Whereas the Catholic Church holds that FOUR marks identify the true Church (viz., One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic), the Seventh-day Adventism of Ellen White (1827 – 1915), that is, the upstate New York Adventism born of the crisis that came to the fore in the nineteenth-century Millerite movement, holds, in effect, that a “remnant church” has but ONE predominant identifying mark, not FOUR. Whence Adventism’s Proposition 18, which we may fairly regard as pivotal: “[The gift of prophecy and just] [t]his gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White.” ~ Proposition 18, verily, is an attempt to replace the Four Marks of Christ’s true Church with but one predominant mark of the (in Ellen White’s opinion) ‘remnant church’ — with White herself as this remnant church’s sole prophet. Still, what I want to emphasize here is the import of Ellen White’s position on abortion for Seventh-day Adventists today. Is Ellen White right on the subject of abortion? Was she silent on the subject, as certain Adventist hospital administrators have claimed? In this matter, Nic Samojluk is my guide. An assiduous researcher, Samujluk discovered the following text penned by White:

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:03 PM By John F. Maguire
An assiduous researcher, Nic Samojluk discovered the following passage penned by Ellen White: “If the father would become acquainted with physical law, he might better understand his obligations and responsibilities. He would see that he had been guilty of almost murdering his children, by suffering so many burdens to come upon the mother, compelling her to labor beyond her strength before their birth, in order to obtain means to leave for them” [_Selected Messages_, Vol. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1958), pp. 429-430). Granted, Ellen does not use the word abortion here, but as Nic Samoljuk asks, “If neglecting the health of a pregnant woman is almost murdering the unborn, can we conclude that Ellen was neutral regarding the actual killing of an unborn baby?” See generally Nic Samoljuk, _From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes Towards Abortion_ (Lulu Press, 2011).

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:39 PM By John F. Maguire
Apropos of his discovery of Ellen White’s intervention against the sort of husband who so burdens his pregnant wife (“so many sufferings to come upon the mother”) that he risks incurring the guilt of negligently inducing miscarriage, Nic Samojluk reports: “…I did share this finding with a leading Loma Linda University ethicist and theologian and this was his immediate reaction: ‘This does it! We can no longer argue that Ellen White was silent on abortion.'”

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:23 PM By John F. Maguire
_Adventists and Abortion_ is an online colloquy on one of the questions at issue in this thread. An excerpt reads as follows. QUESTION: “Those who advocate abortion… [within the Adventist movement] admit that John Kellogg and J. N. Andrews [two early leaders of this movement] spoke against abortion, but they don’t mention that James White also spoke against abortion. Why?” [Point of information: James White married Ellen Harmon on August 30, 1846.] ANSWER: “Probably because James White and Ellen White were almost always in agreement. Here is James White’s quote: ‘Few are aware of the fearful extent to which this nefarious business, this worse than devilish practice, is carried on in all classes of society! Many a woman determines that she will not become a mother, and subjects herself to the vilest treatment, committing the basest crime to carry out her purpose. And many a man, who has as many children as he can support, instead of restraining his passions, aids in the destruction of the babes he has begotten. ~ The sin lies at the door of both parents in equal measure; for the father, although he may not always aid in the murder, is always accessory to it, in that he induces, and sometimes even forces upon the mother the condition he knows will lead to the commission of crime'” [James White, _Solemn Appeal_ (Battle Creek, Michigan: Stem Press, 1870), p. 100. Evidently then, the co-founders of American Adventism, Ellen White and her husband James, opposed abortion.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:04 PM By John F. Maguire
The colloquy continues: QUESTION: “Did Adventist pioneers make statements regarding abortions? ANSWER: “J. N. Andrews [after whom Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, is named — JM] made this statement: ‘One of the most shocking, and yet one of the most prevalent sins of this generation, is the murder of unborn infants. Let those who think this is a small sin, read Ps. cxxxix, 16 (Psalm 139:16). They will see that even the unborn child is written in God’s book. And they may be well assured that God will not pass unnoticed the murder of such children.'” Source: J. N. Andrews, “A Few Words Concerning a Great Sin,” _Review and Herald_ (November 30, 1869), p. 184.

Posted Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:51 PM By John F. Maguire
Another prominent Adventist opponent of abortion was John Harvey Kellogg who, with his younger brother Will, co-founded the Kellogg Corn Flake Company. See generally Gerald Carson, _Cornflake Crusade_ (New York: Rinehart, 1957); also Ronald L. Numbers, “Sex, Science, and Salvation: The Sexual Advice of Ellen G. White and John Harvey Kellogg,” in _Right Living: An Anglo-American Tradition of Self-Help Medicine and Hygiene_, ed. Charles E. Rosenberg (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), pp. 218-220.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:00 AM By John F. Maguire
The historical record is clear: The Adventist heritage, as represented by Ellen White, James White, J. N. Andrews, and John H. Kellogg, is staunchly pro-life. That this heritage was scanted by the 1992 SDA Executive Committee _Guidelines on Abortion_, does NOT warrant the wholesale condemnation of the Adventist assembly as having issued “a license to abort for any reason and all reasons” (J. Juergensen). The Adventist assembly did no such thing. As for the SDA Executive Committee, it specifically identified three unacceptable reasons for resort to abortion (birth control, gender selection, and convenience). Is the Executive Committee intervention adequate? No — and there is a burgeoning Adventist pro-life movement working hard to redress (1) the Silver Spring Guidelines, and (2) the scandal of the cooperation of Adventist hospitals in facilitating abortions. What recommends Nic Samoljuk’s book _From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes Towards Abortion_ (2011) is that it discloses in detail this “shift” in all its contrariety to the traditional acknowledgement — the traditional Adventist acknowldgement — of the personeity and rights of preborn infants. As regards those Adventist hospitals that defy Adventist tradition, pro-life Adventists are keenly aware that as Adventists they lack what the Catholic Church has, namely, canonico-episcopal power to remove a hospital’s religiously-affiliated name where that hospital has lost the right to that name.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:29 AM By Juergensen
Maguire: It speaks volumes that you (attempt to) defend both the USCCB’s document that misleads Catholics to vote for abortionist politicians (“Faithful Citizenship”) AND the Adventist sect’s explicit license to abort (“Guidelines on Abortion,” Adventist Website, 2012). Hmm.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:34 AM By JLS
The volume Maguire speaks is 1.2 million abortions per year … in this nation alone.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:15 PM By John F. Maguire
No fair reading of my posts can support the suggestion that I disagree with those pro-life Adventists who are working hard to REDRESS the SDA Executive Committee’s Silver Spring “Guidelines on Abortion” to the FULL EXTENT that these Guidelines are defective. In the present thread, Mr. Juergensen, I wrote approvingly: “…there is a burgeoning Adventist pro-life movement working hard to redress… the Silver Springs Guidelines.” Yet here you come to claim that I “defend… the Adventist sect’s explicit license to abort.” Why would I endorse the efforts of pro-life Adventists to redress the SDA Executive Committee’s Guidelines if I supported — which you know I don’t — any such thing as a “license to abort.” You seem to have forgotten (1) my opposition to all direct killing of preborn infants, and (2) my opposition to the Neo-Republican position that _Roe v. Wade_ should be overturned ONLY SO that state-legislatures can issue an “explicit license to abort” for their part, that is, if they so choose. Isn’t your own position on abortion just that: to see _Roe_ overturned so to clear the path for state legislatures to vote thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the right to life, yes, quite as if the _Roe_ Court’s holding that preborn infants are non-persons — non-persons from within the horizon of the Consititution — were correct? Mr. Juergensen, there is no such thing as a “time-out” on the Fourteenth Amendment right-to-life of each and every living human body — each and every extant person.

Posted Thursday, January 12, 2012 8:09 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Maguire, You say “no fair reading” so often. Well it is obvious that a large number of people who contribute to this post, at least in your mind, do not know how to fairly read your way too long post. It is obvious that you never learned the “KISS” principal as well. God bless, yours in Their Hearts, Kenneth M. Fisher

Posted Friday, January 13, 2012 12:14 PM By John F. Maguire
Why would I document the pro-life position of the founders of American Adventism unless I intended to disclose the Adventists’ own benchmark on the subject of abortion so better to measure how far the SDA Executive Committee’s Silver Springs Guidelines have departed from the White-Andrews-Kellogg tradition? Why would Nic Samojluk have done the same thing — to be sure, in far greater detail — had he not had a comparable motive? See Nic Samoljuk, _From Pro-life to Pro-choice: The Dramatic Shift in Seventh-day Adventists’ Attitudes Towards Abortions_ (Lulu Press, 2011). This book, Mr. Fisher, is the working manual of the Adventist pro-life movement.