Yeah, drew, it is not so much about blaming pro-lifers (who mean well, I'm sure) as it is about connecting the dots - i.e., unintended consequences: if pro-lifers are successful, there will be disastrous consequences.
Kermit Gosnell, MD.
by Glander 65 Replies latest social current
-
-
soontobe
Gosnell is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Much of the media has been trying to bury this gruesome piece of news.
-
soontobe
Why Kermit Gosnell hasn’t been on Page One
News outlets have been struggling to explain why until now there’s been so little coverage of the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of delivering live, screaming children and then beheading them.
The Post and other mainstream news outfits are on the story now, belatedly, so maybe critics like me shouldn’t act like the mother who, when you do call her, spends half the conversation asking why you haven’t called.
But, why wasn’t more written sooner? One colleague viewed Gosnell’s alleged atrocities as a local crime story, though I can’t think of another mass murder, with hundreds of victims, that we ever saw that way. Another said it was just too lurid, though that didn’t keep us from covering Jeffrey Dahmer, or that aspiring cannibal at the NYPD.
Yet another said it’s because the rest of the country doesn’t care about Philadelphia — that one was especially creative, I thought. And a friend argued that any “blackout” boiled down to the usual lack of media interest in the low-income community Gosnell “served.” (While he routinely turned poor, black patients over to assistants who lacked even a high school education, according to court testimony, the white patients he seated separately, and treated himself.)
I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage.
Now, I assign plenty of “rights under threat” stories myself, for She the People, and see them as perfectly valid. But we in the news business do cover the extremism of some who oppose abortion rights — attempts to run after pregnant women with transvaginal probes, for example — far more than we do the extremism of some who favor abortion rights, as per the Planned Parenthood’s Alisa LaPolt Snow, who said recently that when a baby somehow survives an abortion, it’s up to the woman, her family and her doctor to decide that child’s fate.
Two years ago, I wrote about the good doctor Gosnell’s “pro-choice enablers,” for Politics Daily:
“The ultimate non-partisan body – a criminal grand jury – has supplied us with thegraphic, 261-page horror story of Kermit Gosnell, M.D., who stands accused of butchering seven babies – yes, after they were born alive — and fatally doping a refugee from Nepalwith Demerol in a clinic that smelled of cat urine, where the furniture was stained with blood and the doctor kept a collection of severed baby feet. As often as possible, the report says, Gosnell induced labor for women so pregnant that, as he joked on one occasion, the baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.” Then, hundreds of times over the years, he slit their little necks, according to the grand jury report:
[He] regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it.
And the kicker? This nightmare facility had not been inspected in 17 years – other than by someone from the National Abortion Federation, whom he actually invited there. For whatever reason, Gosnell applied for NAF membership two days after the death of the 41-year-old Nepalese woman, Karnamaya Mongar. Even on a day when the place had been scrubbed and spiffed up for the visit, the NAF investigator found it disgusting and rejected Gosnell’s application for membership. But despite noting many outright illegalities, including a padlocked emergency exit in a part of the clinic where women were left alone overnight, the grand jury report notes that the NAF inspector did not report any of these violations to authorities.”
My point, then and now, is that I am a big fan of regulation; wasn’t it the loosening of regs in the financial world that led to the meltdown of ’08 and in the oil industry to the BP spill of ’10? Those who normally agree with me about the need for oversight, though, make an exception when it comes to the abortion industry, which they feel should be self-regulating even when what that gets us is the likes of Kermit Gosnell.
The counter-argument, then and now, is that it’s the restriction of abortion rights that creates such shady operators, though there are other clinics in Philadelphia — and if his practice was restricted in any way over the years, I can’t see how.
Which “side” was Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Gosnell? Well, there’s no mystery about where Gosnell could have gotten the idea that his youngest victims weren’t human, or entitled to any protection under the law. There aren’t just two sides, though, but a whole continuum of points of view, from those who see several cells as a legal person to those who insist that even a baby who could walk Kermit Gosnell to the bus stop is only a person if his mom says so.
Gosnell himself seemed confused, when he was charged with so many counts of murder, as to how that could be. Because even at that point, he didn’t appear to see the children he’s accused of beheading as people.
Planned Parenthood’s Snow was similarly obtuse, either willfully or out of habit, in testifying against a Florida bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
Her answer was a familiar one: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.”
Though it pains me to say so, that’s the same stand Barack Obama effectively took when he voted against a similar Illinois bill — even after the addition of a “neutrality clause” spelling out that the bill would have no bearing on the legal status of the (you say fetus, I say unborn child) at any point prior to delivery, and thus could not be used to outlaw abortion.
Recently, MSNBC host Melissa Harris mocked those who see a fertilized egg as a fully human person: “I get,” she said, “that that’s a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”
But I wish she and those who agree with her also got this: To insist that a baby born at 30 weeks, as one of Gosnell’s victims was, only qualifies as a person if his mom decides to keep him is also “a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”
-
BizzyBee
Perhaps the ultimate irony of the right-wing’s imagined controversy is that — even in states where it’s not against the law to perform late-term induced abortions — Planned Parenthood clinics don’t provide that type of service. Many Planned Parenthood affiliates only perform abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, when women can either take a pill or have a less-invasive surgical procedure. It’s actually the women who don’t have access to Planned Parenthood clinics, which are under attack across the country as GOP-controlled legislatures do their best to shut them down, who are forced to resort to dangerous, illegal, late-term abortion services like the ones described at the Florida hearing.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/04/1824201/right-wing-fake-planned-parenthood/?mobile=nc
-
soontobe
Have we found the one issue where BB is against increased government regulation? If so, color me shocked!
Most Planned Parenthood clinics do not offer abortions after 18 weeks. So one has to wonder - did Planned Parenthood refer women to Gosnell? For instance, Planned Parenthood in West Chester only performs abortions up to 13 weeks but offers to provide "a referral list of health care providers in your area that offer other abortion services."
At this time that is just speculation. What we know as fact, however, is Gosnell was no back-alley rogue abortionist. His clinic was fully licensed and recognized as an abortion facility in the community for decades.
And now that Gosnell has been exposed, you would think there is common ground on the action that's needed to make sure these horrors do not happen again. One would think that those performing abortion surgery should be treated just like any other who performs surgery, right?
Not Planned Parenthood.
When Pennsylvaniatook this exact action, Planned Parenthood was up in arms; describing the change as "dangerous," "scary," "unnecessary," and "threatening."
They supposedly think making abortion clinics follow the same rules as everyone else is unnecessary and dangerous. They said abortion clinics were plenty regulated already - even before Gosnell was shut down.
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20774
(map at link)
Who Referred Women to Dr. Gosnell’s Murder Clinic?
Dr. Gosnell is a multi-millionaire. He was getting lots of business. Credit Ace for asking the question that any good reporter should be asking at this point “Who referred Gosnell such a steady stream of business?”
No doubt some of it was word of mouth, but is it just possible that other clinics in the area who weren’t willing to “help” certain women because they knew it was illegal to do so, might mention Dr. Gosnell as an option.
As it happens, Planned Parenthood has a whole bunch of clinics (marked blue) within a half hour drive of Dr. Gosnell’s Women’s Health Society (marked red). There are also lots of independent abortion clinics (marked green):
View Philidelphia Area Planned Parenthood Clinics in a larger map
Not that Planned Parenthood (or any clinic) would ever, ever do anything illegalor unethical. Yeah, that never happens.
-
BizzyBee
So much smoke and mirrors here it's hard to know where to begin.
Why is Planned Parenthood being injected into this case? In my research I have yet to find a connection between them and Gosnell.
"We have consistently said that this is a horrifying and outrageous case, that Gosnell ran a criminal enterprise, not a health care facility, and that he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," Eric Ferrero, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told ABC News recently.
Dayle Steinberg, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania has said:
"Planned Parenthood strongly condemns the alleged actions of Kermit Gosnell, and we would condemn any physician or health-care provider who did not follow the law or recklessly endangered the health of others. Planned Parenthood maintains strict policies and procedures to ensure the highest standard of health care."
Steinberg reiterated her criticism of Gosnell in an April 24 Philadelphia Inquirer letter to the editor:
"Our staff told these women that issues of cleanliness should be reported to state officials. If we had heard anything remotely like the conditions that have since come to light about Gosnell's facility, of course we would have alerted the state and other authorities.
"Nobody who believes in good health care, access to safe and legal abortion, and respect for women would ever look at Kermit Gosnell's facility and call it a health-care center. He preyed on women in their most vulnerable moments."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/26/the-five-pretends-planned-parenthood-has-never/193804
As for "increased government regulation" let's look at Mississippi, with one remaining clinic providing abortions for the entire state and that thanks to federal intervention:
Gov. Phil Bryant, has publicly stated that he would like to see his state be “abortion-free.”
The lawsuit brought on behalf of the clinic notes that supporters of the new law have publicly stated the broader intention to limit abortions. It cites Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves’s Web site, which says that the law “not only protects the health of the mother but should close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi”
Judge Daniel P. Jordan III of Federal District Court found the argument compelling, writing, “Plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/judge-blocks-anti-abortion-law-in-mississippi.html
Passing onerous and capricious regulatory legislation is typical in red states whose transparent goal is to drive abortion providers out altogether.
-
Glander
Passing onerous and capricious regulatory legislation is typical in red states whose transparent goal is to drive abortion providers out altogether.
1 This is called making stuff up.
2. Who decided that PP and current legal abortion laws are interchangeable definitions of the same thing.
3. Who decided that people opposed to abortion don't have a right to work against it?
-
MrFreeze
Not only did he kill the babies, he killed women too. They had rats (or mice, can't remember) so he got a cat to get rid of them and the cat used every place as the bathroom. The place was a house of horrors.
-
BizzyBee
This is capricious and onerous:
Judge Daniel P. Jordan III of Federal District Court found the argument compelling, writing, “Plaintiffs have offered evidence — including quotes from significant legislative and executive officers — that the act’s purpose is to eliminate abortions in Mississippi. They likewise submitted evidence that no safety or health concerns motivated its passage. This evidence has not yet been rebutted.”
They have a right to work for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Elected officials have a sworn duty to uphold the laws of the land, whether they agree with them or not.
Still no dots being connected between Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell.
-
Berengaria
Passing onerous and capricious regulatory legislation is typical in red states whose transparent goal is to drive abortion providers out altogether.
1 This is called making stuff up.
2. Who decided that PP and current legal abortion laws are interchangeable definitions of the same thing.
3. Who decided that people opposed to abortion don't have a right to work against it
1. Actually this is easily verifiable fact.
2. Please show where anyone has made this claim.
3. Working to overturn laws is one thing. Underhandedly preventing their application is another.
And B, your 1-3 are incompatible. If 1 is true what is the point of 2 and 3?