http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170649,00.html
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A doctor has offered to perform free abortions on hurricane evacuees, saying it may be too dangerous for them to wait until they return home.

Despite protests from abortion opponents, Little Rock Family Planning clinic director Dr. Jerry Edwards said he has already performed six free abortions. The clinic usually charges between $525 and $600 for a first-trimester abortion.

"If we didn't provide it now, they would get it later — a late-term abortion that would give greater risk to the mother's health," Edwards told KTHV-TV in Little Rock.

Edwards, who runs the only abortion clinic in central Arkansas, was unavailable for further comment Tuesday, a clinic employee told The Associated Press.

Rose Mimms, executive director of Arkansas Right to Life, said Edwards is risking further traumatizing women who have already lost their material belongings. "This just adds to the devastation these women already have in their lives," she said.

But Marvin Schwartz, spokesman for Arkansas-Oklahoma Planned Parenthood, said Edwards is providing women with a needed service.

"The timing of the abortion procedure is, of course, extremely critical. The earlier in the pregnancy, the less critical it is," he said.

Nothing helps a suffering person more than denying them requested medical services.

These free abortions are being given to women who want abortions. I hardly see how it's going to add to their devestation. It's not like this guy is running around forcing abortions on women who don't want one.

Damnit, man! Rose knows better what is good for these women than they do. Why do you question this?

A question for Ms. Mimms... and having a child that they can't take care of is any less traumatizing?

It is interesting and I agree that time is essential, so I support the MD, but I do have some concerns as well. People who have just been traumatized by an extreme situation may make decisions that they later regret. In the medical field, getting informed consent from someone experiencing mental anguish isn't much better than getting it from someone on drugs, they can sue you later and claim that they weren't capable of giving consent based on their mental condition.

Some of these women may feel completely hopeless and helpless right now, but in 4-6 months, may be back on their feet and feeling completely differently, and may regret the decision they made earlier.

again, I'm not against it. Doing something for free that is requested doesn't make it any more wrong or right than charging for it, but it is just a messed up situation all together. I'm guessing that some of these women would NOT have wanted an abortion if the hurricaine hadn't happened.

true, but some of the women who want the abortions are probably doing so because their entire life was destroyed. tons of them will lose their jobs, homes, and some family. looking at it from the an outsiders point of view, a child is the last thing that woman needs. a job and a fresh start is more like it.

Free? Where do I sign up!?

Abortion= "requested medical service".

Great album name.

You mean it's being forced upon them? Where will these women raise their children if their entire hometown has been leveled, they have no job, and they have nowhere to go? Is your house available?

Just because situations are far from perfect doesn't mean a child has to be killed. Should we kill everyone under 5, since their hometown was destroyed as well? I'm sure that recovering will be tougher for the younger children then for the unborn ones who aren't aborted.

Last I checked, killing children was not a legal medical procedure, but good effort.

Let's get back to the ACTUAL issue in this story. A doctor is providing FREE medical services to patients. What is the difference between a free abortion and one that costs several hundred dollars?

The answer is, "the several hundred dollars," and it has nothing to do with killing children.

Punk you know what he/she/it meant. The debate once again comes down to those who feel a fetus is a living being and those that do not.

And once again I have no major problem with abortion, but the constant promoting of it is quite disgusting IMO. And I define the promoting of abortion as spending the majority of the time on the debate defending it. But then again, I am happy that the type of people who have abortions are not raising children. With the population problems we are facing in the future, I am in a sad way glad that such a sadistic act became acceptable.

Well, in addition to the fact that we've had the general discussion on abortion here countless times, and I was trying to focus back on the new issue in this story, I can't abide someone who equates abortion with killing a three year-old. It's an absurd argument, regardless of anyone's opinions about whether abortion itself is right or wrong.

I feel that you should only be killing babies if you're able to turn a profit doing it.

On that note, it seems that those who oppose what this doctor is doing seem to think that this is somehow "promoting" abortion. It's not. It's providing abortions to some people who would otherwise be unable to pay for the procedure. Charging money changes the situation only by making a poor person less able to obtain medical services. A rich woman will not be more likely to get an abortion just because she can save a couple hundred bucks this week.

*refrains from making joke about mother-in-law*

...yes that is the question here. Are some women who wouldn't have had abortions doing it now because it's free?

Hypothetically, how many more abortions would be performed in this country if they were free? Twice as many?

Does Planned Parenthood still get some sort of Federal Funding, because as of a few years ago, some Libertarian hardliner was yelling at a planned parenthood rep on this topic.