42nd Charnel House Closed This Year

The Gosnellification of the baby slaughter industry continues.

“This is the 42nd abortion clinic to close nationally in 2013. Clinic safety regulations have contributed to many of the closings. This number far eclipses the 24 abortion clinics that closed in 2012. Since 1991, over 70% of all abortion clinics in the U.S. have closed.”

If baby slaughter clinics were crisis pregnancy centers, the Dems would be demanding Congressional hearings and Homeland Security SWAT team assaults. The NY Times would run two inch headlines every day for six months.

No matter. The key words are “Since 1991, over 70% of all abortion clinics in the U.S. have closed.”

Americans want this issue to go away and don’t want to think about it. As long as we keep closing these little Auschwitzes I’m content with that (though I’d really like to see the huge majority of Americans who passively dislike abortion grow a pair and actively oppose it). But as long as our side keeps gaining ground, I won’t complain. This is good news and we should give thanks for it.

Memo to pro-aborts: When you hail Satan that doesn’t make him like you or want to help you anymore than sticking your arm in a crocodile’s mouth to feed him some chicken is likely to make him develop tender feelings for you. I know you don’t believe in Satan. But Satan believes in you and is quite happy to take your soul and give you *nothing* in return. It’s his idea of a joke.

  • kirthigdon

    This is good news, but is it as good as it sounds? Are the number of abortions nationwide decreasing significantly? My intuition tells me that abortions have not dropped 70% since 1991. Are only or mainly smaller, low volume abortuaries going under? Is any continuing demand being picked up by larger more expanded clinics, or new clinics, or doctors’ offices or hospitals? Does anyone have stats on any of this?
    Kirt Higdon

    • HornOrSilk

      Well, I think other things are hiding the abortion stats, such as birth control pills, more “plan b” use, and the like. So while it is good that any abortion “clinic” is closed, we must not, as you suggest, make more of it as if the problem has gone away. It has become more hidden, imo. That’s why there is a push to get more kids access to contraceptives (while cold medicine is becoming nearly impossible to buy).

  • CS

    I saw this piece of news as well an would like to know it is true…but I have come to dislike Life News and am cautious about anything I read there. (That site is also not the same as LifeSite news, which is marginally better although its recent fawning over Vlad Putin makes its readership, at least, a little alarming.)

    LifeNes doesn’t ever both to link/source anything, so it is hard to use it in conversation, or even to know where the numbers come from.

    • Dale

      CS, here is a link to an article in the local newspaper.
      http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013307310064

      Both the newspaper and Life News agree that the clinic’s license was suspended, and thus is closed in the short term. The newspaper quotes a clinic doctor as saying they will re-open as soon as possible. The article goes on to note that two other abortion clinics in North Carolina closed this year. One which was closed in May has since re-opened. The other site has remained closed since June

      Those things do call into question the number of clinics which were permanently closed this year.

      • CS

        Yes, I did look up other sources but I am really interested in the source for “there have been 42 others” and more background on that. I am not saying I doubt it, but in fact I would really like documentation and info in order to be able to reference it!

        Life News is frequently guilty of hyperbole.

  • Slocum Moe

    Around here, Catholic churches are closing. I’m not all crowing and full of braggadocio about it. The number of things usually fluctuates with need. Things change.

    Aren’t you special, Mark.

    • meunke

      There’s the great story you should try reading. It’s about this talking fox and these bunches of grapes…

    • enness

      If they regularly killed people for money, I’d be crowing.

  • meunke

    I’d like to see all these slaughterhouses burned to the ground by mobs and then ‘unburden’ myself upon the ashes. But then, God’s ways are better than my ways. We are winning, we just have to keep it up.

  • Sven2547

    “little Auschwitzes”, “Pro-aborts”, “Hail Satan”

    By all means, keep up the extreme rhetoric. Moderates love that stuff, just ask the Republican Party.

    • Dillon T. McCameron

      The “Hail Satan” bit has to do with protesters of a bill in Texas. Unfortunate fact, not a rhetorical device.

      • Sven2547

        The FACT is that the pro-choice crowd does not literally worship Satan, which Mark spends an entire paragraph claiming.

        • Dillon T. McCameron

          “I know you don’t believe in Satan.”

          ?

        • TheodoreSeeber

          Sure looks like they do to me. Why else would anybody chant that?

        • enness

          How do you know?

    • Dan Li

      If abortion is indeed murder, and abortion clinics target a certain group of people for extermination, the Auschwitz ( insofar as it was an institution of that kind) comparison is fitting.

      The “Pro-aborts” may be slightly misleading, but the sad truth is that there are people who view the right to terminate another’s life as intrinsic to their view of human dignity.

      “Hail Satan”. Their words ( pro-choice supporters chanting in the Texas legislature) not ours.

      • Sven2547

        Because terminating Savita Halappanavar’s life-threatening miscarriage is totally equivalent to the kidnapping and murder of Anne Frank…

        • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

          Oh, is that all that goes on in there?

          • Sven2547

            Given Mark and Shea’s characterization of Nazis and gas chambers, I’m pretty sure they don’t have a flipping clue what goes on in there.

            This may come as a complete and total shock, but the primary purpose of abortion is to help women. Frequently that involves saving their lives. Did Auschwitz save any lives?

            • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

              What if it turns out that abortion doesn’t actually help women?

              • Sven2547

                I again refer you to Savita Halappanavar. Maybe you’ve heard of her? In accordance with the Catholic doctrine that all life is sacred, she was allowed to suffer and die.

                But that’s just one example. Roe v Wade was one of the best things to happen to American women in the 20th century, right up there with Suffrage and the Pill.

                • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                  Why was Roe v. Wade one of the best things to happen to American women?

                  • Sven2547

                    Talk to any woman who had an abortion as a teenager.
                    Talk to any woman who had an abortion because they couldn’t afford a baby.
                    Talk to any woman whose job or education made pregnancy and/or maternity leave impossible or unrealistic.
                    Talk to any woman who had an ectopic pregnancy, or any one of dozens of other complications.

                    You cannot honestly be so dense as to think that Savita Halapannavar is the only one in “50 million” who could have benefited from an abortion?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Just because something makes a problem go away doesn’t mean it’s a good solution.

                    • Sven2547

                      Always moving the goalposts aren’t we?
                      First it was “Does it actually help women?”
                      I gave an example where yes, it would.
                      Then you wanted more examples.
                      So I gave them.

                      And now I suppose you’re going to tell me that teenage motherhood, losing careers to pregnancy, or dying from complications are “good solutions”?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Yes. That’s exactly what I’m going to ask. If your goalposts are set so low (or whatever) that ripping a developing child out of a teenage girl’s body, killing that child, and telling her that that was the best we could do for her is a “solution to her problem”, then I think your goalposts are set way, way too low (or close or whatever).

                      An amputated leg is a “solution”, of sorts, to a gangrenous toe, but that doesn’t make it a good solution.

                    • Sven2547

                      An amputated leg is a “solution”, of sorts, to a gangrenous toe, but that doesn’t make it a good solution.

                      That’s my line. Amputating the TOE is the correct solution. Only an idiot would amputate the leg.

                      Look at ectopic pregnancies: The embryo must go. Catholics say removing the embryo is murder. Removing the embryo plus part of the Fallopean Tube (permanently damaging the woman’s fertility) is acceptable though. Catholic logic: it’s like amputating the leg to deal with the toe.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      That wasn’t the example I used. Put ectopic pregnancies to one side. Everyone admits those are very difficult cases. But they don’t even come close to being the greater percentage of abortions in this country. If I was president and a bill came to my desk outlawing all abortions except in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, I would sign it so fast it would make your head spin.

                      I stated that giving an abortion to a teenage girl is equivalent to cutting off the leg. I’m arguing that we owe her much better care than to destroy the developing life within her.

                    • Sven2547

                      Oh, now we’re talking about “the greater percentage of abortions in this country”? Because based on your earlier description of “ripping a developing child out of a body, then killing it”, I thought the extreme fringe edge-cases were in play.

                      Moving the goalposts again. Now complications in pregnancy don’t even count towards the argument for you. Well, they count for me. This stuff matters. Here in the REAL WORLD, not everyone exists in this cookie-cutter template that all sex is consensual, no pregnancies have complications, all women are capable of healthy childbirth, adoption is easy or readily available, no women’s careers are endangered by pregnancy, and on and on and on.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Of course they count for me. I would outlaw as many abortions as I could, but I recognize that politics is the art of the possible, and there are some things we allow because stamping them out would cause an even greater evil.

                      What I’m doing is trying to pin down which classes of abortions you would agree we could stamp out without causing greater evil. I gave an example of one: teen pregnancies. I think there are many, many other ways to take care of the evils involved with being a pregnant teenager than killing her child. Do you agree that that’s possible? Do you have any classes of abortions that you would agree are not justified, since they would cause more evil than they would remedy?

                    • Sven2547

                      I think there are many, many other ways to take care of the evils involved with being a pregnant teenager than killing her child. Do you agree that that’s possible? Do you have any classes of abortions that you would agree are not justified, since they would cause more evil than they would remedy?

                      Yes, there are many, many options, and I would personally disagree with a lot of abortions. That’s why I’m pro-choice. Everybody’s situation is different, and there are tons of options out there, which is why women should be allowed to figure out what’s best for them. The pro-choice position is frequently misunderstood/misconstrued to be “pro-abortion”, but nothing could be further than the truth. It’s about supporting the choice to go through with it every bit as much as supporting the choice to do otherwise.

                      The “pro-life” position, in stark contrast, promotes a one-size-fits-all top-down big-government approach: you will have the baby, or you get 25-to-life for murder. Not exactly supportive of those “many, many options”, huh?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Okay. But the termination of a pregnancy is so drastic (it involves the death of a human being and serious damage to the woman whose pregnancy is terminated), that it should not be one of those options in the vast majority of cases.

                      Your suggestion that abortion is a matter of the woman figuring out what’s best for them is unintentionally disingenuous, since society knows for a fact (or ought to) that it’s not a good solution, it’s a horribly tragic solution. That’s why most surgeons refuse to amputate healthy limbs of people who are psychologically messed up, and why even sex-change surgeons have very stringent psychological requirements: because we recognize that certain “solutions” are so drastic that they should not be options except in very extreme circumstances.

                      Abortion is not about providing a solution for a woman. Abortion is about providing a solution for society. If a woman is pregnant, we recognize that we are responsible to care for her and care for her child. And if she’s unable or unwilling to care for that child, we have to care for that child. It’s far easier for us to place the burden on her (she made a “choice”, we say, she exercised her right, and she had the natural process of her body twisted and wrenched, she deals with the emotional aftermath of having killed her child). Rather than us being on the hook for 18 or so years of that child’s minority, we’re on the hook for a few months of therapy.

                      Furthermore, your characterization of the pro-life position is false. I would vote for a law that would only imprison the abortion provider and do nothing to the woman. “25 to life for murder” is disingenuous. It’s not what anti-abortion people are advocating.

                    • Sven2547

                      since society knows for a fact (or ought to) that it’s not a good solution, it’s a horribly tragic solution.

                      You say the word “fact” when you mean “opinion”.

                      Many times, while tragic, it is still the best solution available. Many times it is the only solution.

                      That’s why most surgeons refuse to amputate healthy limbs of people who are psychologically messed up, and why even sex-change surgeons have very stringent psychological requirements: because we recognize that certain “solutions” are so drastic that they should not be options except in very extreme circumstances.

                      And who is the judge of how extreme those circumstances are, in the case of pregnancy? The two examples you gave were examples of people experiencing psychological/emotional issues. Pregnancy is not a psychological issue: these women are capable of making decisions. Shocking, I know. If a woman is shown to be psychologically unstable, that’s one thing. Your comparison is grossly (and unintentionally) misogynistic to put pregnant women in the same category as deeply troubled people.

                      Abortion is not about providing a solution for a woman. Abortion is about providing a solution for society….

                      Hahahaha, so the woman-centric approach is for society to make the choice for her, and the society-centric approach is for the woman to make her own decision? Your entire paragraph here is a fascinating mental backflip. I give it a 9.2, you really stuck the landing.

                      “25 to life for murder” is disingenuous. It’s not what anti-abortion people are advocating.

                      Mark Shea LITERALLY compared abortion to the Holocaust, and now you’re saying ‘Woah woah, it’s not like the pro-life movement would treat it like murder.’ Are you freaking kidding me?! “Murder” is exactly what the “pro-life” movement considers abortion to be! It’s the entire point of this exercise! You tell me: is it murder, or is it something-less-than-murder?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      You mistake the point of my comparison. It’s not to argue that women are “emotionally disturbed”. It’s to point out that some solutions that appear (for whatever reason) to an individual to be a solution, are recognized not to be so. If you cannot make proper distinctions, then you should leave rational argumentation to those who can.

                      In no case does a woman make these kinds of decisions “on her own”. That is to deny our social nature and assume we exist as philosophical monads. A woman’s understanding of the nature of her situation, her viable options, etc, are very much determined by the available services in her community and the prevailing attitudes of people around her. It’s just not true that this is a decision she makes “just on her own”. The fact that abortion is considered a viable “option” in our society has led millions of parents and men to put considerable pressure, not always overt, on their girlfriends, wives, and daughters, to abort, to “take care of the problem”. Thus they change the nature of the woman’s communal situation and hence her evaluation of the psychological issues that she’ll have to deal with.

                      The idea that we make our decisions in a kind of social vacuum is common in our society, but absurdly false.

                    • Sven2547

                      I did state that your comparison was unintentional. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on that one, but the point stands: it was an awful comparison comparing completely different situations… namely: whether or not that person is capable of an informed decision.

                      You’re absolutely right that these decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. I think it’s wrong when people pressure women one way or the other on their personal choice, when instead people should support her choice, whatever it is. For that reason, I advocate the availability of non-biased educational resources on the subject… the sort of thing the “pro-life” movement tries to shut down in favor of “crisis pregnancy centers”, which lie about abortion and discourage it at all costs.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      I think people might quibble with the content of “non-biased educational resources.” Would that non-biased education include the metaphysical and scientific truths that the developing fetus is a human being? Would it take the position that the emotional trauma of an abortion is a legitimate response based on the very real instinct that the woman has done something extremely damaging to herself and destructive to a developing human being? Or would it describe the emotional trauma as ephemeral detritus of superstitious mis-education by churches, families, and non-accepting societies?

                    • Sven2547

                      All of the above (with the exception of “metaphysical truths”… that’s a very nebulous term if I ever saw one). People react to abortion differently, that’s why I’m against a government-mandated one-size-fits-all approach.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Metaphysical truths are not nebulous. “You are a human being” – that is a scientific truth – “who possesses certain rights and deserves the protection of law” – that is a metaphysical truth. It is a different kind of judgment, but not at all nebulous.

                      The question is not of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to solutions of various problems. The question is which solutions are too drastic and cause too much damage to be tolerated as solutions to normal situations in our society. The anti-abortion position is that abortion causes too much damage to be looked upon and tolerated as a normal solution in our society.

                    • enness

                      I see I was right! What a shock.
                      We don’t lie about abortion, Sven. We don’t need to — the truth is bad enough.
                      Have you ever even been to a CPC?
                      And hell no, you do not get to tell me that I ought to support killing just because it’s one of many possibilities.

                    • enness

                      No, but let me guess, you loathe crisis pregnancy centers too…

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      The Archdiocese of NY, where I grew up, has an open offer of long standing that all may come and they will ensure that nobody must abort due to financial circumstances. I have no doubt that this is not the only diocese with that policy.

                      Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated and are terminated by Catholic institutions. They just can’t be chemically terminated. You see, one day we’ll figure out how to pop even such an early pregnancy into an artificial womb, saving that life, and Catholics will do so as, no doubt, others will as well.

                      You cannot honestly be so dense as to think that the vast majority of babies aborted are done so because of health reasons. If that’s all you’re disagreeing on, you’d be categorized as moderately pro-life as you’d be in favor of illegalizing a large majority of abortions that are presently done in the USA.

                    • Sven2547

                      Ectopic pregnancies can be terminated and are terminated by Catholic institutions. They just can’t be chemically terminated.

                      Abortion that’s harmless to the woman? Unacceptable.

                      Abortion that permanently damages the woman? Acceptable.

                      Catholic logic!

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Ah yes, the administration of chemical poisons are harmless, while only surgery is permanently damaging.

                      The Mayo Clinic’s page on ectopic pregnancy should be acceptable all around as a description of the options.

                      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ectopic-pregnancy/DS00622/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

                      Methotrexate has a number of complications, occasionally fatal. Depending on the skill of the surgeon, surgery can also be fatal.

                      There is no magical wishes and unicorns option where it all turns out ok every single time. Falsely saying that such a thing exists is the mark of a hack who cares about the politics more than the people.

                    • Sven2547

                      Except “indirect abortion” permanently damages fertility every time it is employed, by design. Comparing it to a drug’s possible side-effect is the mark of a hack who cares about the politics more than the people.

                      Abortion while trying not to harm the woman: unacceptable.
                      Abortion while trying to harm the woman: acceptable.
                      Catholic logic!

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Permanently damaging fertility by design is a sin in Catholic teaching and would not be done in any system that was faithful to the Church. Which means that it still could happen but would be condemned by the Church if it does. I certainly would condemn it.

                      You are now accusing the Church of intentionally betraying its own rules to reduce female fertility and doing so without any evidence whatsoever or even much argument beyond repeated assertion.

                    • Sven2547

                      You didn’t know? Here’s the evidence: the Catholic-approved procedure for aborting an ectopic pregnancy involves the (completely unnecessary) removal of part of the fallopean tube (permanently damaging a woman’s fertility). Abortion that does not remove part of the fallopean tube is unacceptable. This is well-documented.

                      http://www.uffl.org/vol12/bowring12.pdf

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      According to your link, salpingectomy is the procedure that is approved by the Church and what you are protesting (let me know if I’ve mistaken your position). The Wikipedia page is pretty clear:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salpingectomy

                      “It is often related to tubal pregnancies and is a procedure that is preferred over its ovarian tube-sparing counterparts due to the high rate of recurrence in said ectopic pregnancies.”

                      That means that there are sound medical reasons why they do it apart from any religious or moral considerations and it’s permitted for the same reason mastectomies are permitted. The procedures you advocate have associated with them an increase in risk for follow on ectopics. Furthermore, there are other procedures which are under debate which means just that, not decided yet. In situations like this, some Catholics do, others do not but neither choice can be said to be a binding opinion of the entire Church.

                    • Sven2547

                      That means that there are sound medical reasons why they do it apart from any religious or moral considerations

                      Wrong. The procedure is “justified” by “The Doctrine of Double Effect”, which specifically disregards consequentialism (in other words, weighing the outcome into the decision). They don’t consider it an abortion because the intent, the entire purpose, is the (unnecessary) removal of part of the Fallopean tube. In this case, according to Catholic doctrine, the death of the Embryo is merely a side-effect.

                      By arguing that they’re doing it for medical reasons, you are claiming that they are employing consequentialist thinking, which they explicitly reject.

                    • wineinthewater

                      You obviously don’t understand consequentialism or the Principle of Double Effect. PDE *does* weigh the outcomes. In fact, it is a necessary part of the evaluation. The good outcome must outweigh the evil outcome or else PDE is not met. The difference from consequentialism is that PDE also considers the morality of not just the ends, but the means.

                      I think that those who embrace consequentialism should take a hard look at the bedfellows it gives them. It underpins both the pro-choice and the pro-torture position .. strange bedfellows indeed.

                    • Sven2547

                      Will you Catholics make up your minds? I’m repeating to you what other Catholics have explained to me about this process when I called them out on it.

                    • wineinthewater

                      The Church does not decide things rashly. And Catholics aren’t perfect; they don’t always convey Catholic teaching correctly. Sorry if “the solution that is most likely, maybe even almost certainly, in accord with Catholic teaching” got conveyed as “Catholic-approved.” But we’ve already established that nuance is an issue in this discussion.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      In any billion plus organization, it is reasonable to expect that there is going to be diversity of opinion as well as diversity of competence in arguing the position of the organization.

                      In this case, there’s also the complication that certain aspects have the Church issuing no definitive opinions as of yet. They are under debate.

                      So you will get fuzz. You will get error. And you will have division on certain questions.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      If you feel the reduction of risk for further, dangerous ectopic pregnancy is unnecessary and only harmful for a woman, I really can’t help you further.

                      I am not arguing that they are doing it for consequentialist reasons. I’m saying that your medical argument is flawed because it is simply not true that it has a purely negative effect from a medical viewpoint. That someone uses different reasons to get at the same result does not make them evil or even particularly wrong, just different.

                    • Sven2547

                      Except you feel NEITHER women NOR doctors should have the choice of what surgical procedure is best to remove any given ectopic pregnancy. Apparently the Church is a better judge than both?

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Whatever the merits of my arguments (I actually haven’t put up any on the particular subject in this thread), the flaws in yours don’t change whatsoever and you aren’t defending your own point, merely attacking the straw man of what you think I believe.

                      I renew my general objection to people stuffing words in my mouth.

                      As for the medical judgment on which procedure to use I expect that the repair procedures you are championing will largely go away in future as stem cell therapies permit us to create replacement tubes that are more reliable than the patched original equipment from the woman’s own fat stem cells. The absolute horror of post viability abortion as a matter of convenience is a much bigger issue in terms of numbers and effect. I thought it was our side that was supposed to be obsessed with minutiae. Wasn’t it the number of angels that could dance on a pin?

                    • wineinthewater

                      Oversimplification is sloppy rhetoric. If you look at actual medical science, you can see that removal of the fallopian tube is actually often the best choice regardless of morality. Most ectopic pregnancies are not just a fluke. Usually, they are caused by an underlying problem, such as a malformation of the fallopian tube. In such cases, the woman’s fertility is already damaged and removing the malfunctioning tube does not damage fertility, but actually has the chance to improve it. Methotrexate may be less invasive, but it has its risks and it does nothing to treat any underlying pathology that might be present, leading to more ectopic pregnancies, more miscarriages and more psychological trauma. But you don’t seem to care about the nuances of reality because they undermine your rhetoric.

                      As to ectopic pregnancies, though often used as an example of double effect, removal of the fallopian tube is not “Catholic approved.” The Church has no clear teaching on the procedure and moral theologians are not unanimous about whether it meets the criteria of double effect.

                      But that doesn’t matter because, as is often the case in these matters, there is another option. Ectopic pregnancies have been successfully moved from their ectopic location to the womb. Success rates are not high, but it is possible. That means that there is a solution out there that saves the life of the mother and just might save the life of the child. That is clearly the morally superior option, no need to even worry about unintended consequences or the Principle of Double Effect.

                    • enness

                      Unnecessary *in your opinion.*

                    • enness

                      I know a woman who had an abortion as a teenager. She’s infertile because of it. Thanks for nothing.

                • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                  Having actually read the case, I find it much more likely that socialized medicine’s general slow decline into hazardous medical conditions for all is a much better candidate for the poor woman’s death. But that wouldn’t fit the narrative.

                  • Sven2547

                    What does socialized medicine have to do with the fact that the staff deliberately waited until the miscarried fetus lost its heartbeat because, and I quote, “This is a Catholic Country”?

                    “Narrative” indeed. This never had anything to do with national health care, but for the American Right-wing, anyone who dies in Europe has socialism to blame.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      The cause of death was septicemia and I believe that the hospital was just operating in filthy conditions, in significant part because of socialized medicine. It’s been awhile but I recall reading how they’d been criticized for how unsanitary they’d been running the place in cases not connected to Savita Halappanavar’s tragic death.

                      Catholicism does not cause a lack of sterile conditions.

                    • Sven2547

                      Of course she died of septicemia! She was dilated for THREE DAYS, leaking amniotic fluid, with a dying fetus inside her. Catholicism, not “socialism” withheld proper medical treatment. The cleanest hospital on Earth couldn’t prevent infection under those circumstances.

                      You people will blame “socialism” for anything. It’s truly amazing.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      An incompetently run hospital with high infection rates does not mean that they got an A in theological fidelity. If you actually care about the truth and are not just looking to score political points using a dead body, a bit more is required.

                      The first question should be what was the result of the mortality and morbidity investigation as well as the follow on government investigation. Specifically, why did this woman die is a crucially important question. Right behind it is did the hospital actually follow Catholic teaching or were they as careless as that as they generally were with their sanitary procedures?

                      The rupture of the amniotic membranes has a medical term, PROM. I recommend you click the link. It’s not a catholic site but a medical one and it’s fairly clear that PROM is a serious medical condition that can kill both mother and child and the earlier it happens, the trickier the choices for the doctor.

                      A further possibility is that she walked into that hospital with the sepsis due to the PROM and that surgical removal as well as chemical abortion would have been too dangerous in her weakened state.

                      The Anchoress, if you haven’t heard of her lays out a reasonable precis of the theological issues.

                      But all of this would require you to actually care about the truth as well as the woman instead of just spouting off a sheet of talking points.

                    • Sven2547

                      The story changes! You’ve shifted from the boogeyman of socialism to “well they were incompetent, and they weren’t following true Catholic teaching anyway”.

                      We are in agreement that they were grossly incompetent. We are in agreement that PROM is a very serious condition. They should have operated immediately. They waited three days because, again, in their words: “this is a Catholic country”. Their cited reason for this incompetence, the FACT that you keep trying to sweep under the rug, was religion. Maybe they were dumb Catholics, but they were Catholics nonetheless.

                      By the way, the fallout from this case was an act passed in Ireland to clarify and expand laws around life-saving abortions… the kind of thing that would have saved Savita’s life. Unsurprisingly, it was opposed by the Catholic Church. “Culture of life” indeed.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Did you miss the part where in the previous link that waiting was a legitimate medical option in cases of PROM? No, we don’t particularly agree because I don’t have an opinion on whether they should have waited, not having the M&M report to ground my opinion in fact.

                      As for socialism, I’m not backing off on the theory that socialism had a role to play in this. I’m elaborating it. Socialized healthcare keeps wages down and lets other industries bid away the best labor to do work for them instead of the hospital system just like it does in any socialized sector of the economy.

                      Mediocrities and incompetents leavened with the occasional good quality worker who does it as a calling is what you end up with. In any case of suspected incompetence with a socialized system, this dynamic should be put up as a potential contributor to the bad situation. So I put it up as my first competing theory. It’s still surviving.

                      I don’t mind you challenging my ideas. It stirs me to do more research and thus get closer to the truth. Now I have two competing theories.

                      What, specifically, was the Church in Ireland’s objections to this legislation? Having actually looked at the legislative sausage factory in operation in the US, I am reluctant to jump quickly to conclusions.

                      Now as to dumb Catholics getting to define the Church, does that mean that evil atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot get to define atheism and every time I meet an atheist I should think 100M dead from atheistic communism? Now that’s a very dark view of the world but the Church *still* comes out as the best of a very bad bunch unless you like to flavor your philosophy of life with a heavy dose of hypocrisy and double standards.

                    • Sven2547

                      I’m not backing off on the theory that socialism had a role to play in this.

                      You know what’s not a theory? The doctors waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop because, in their words, “this is a Catholic country”. If all you have is speculation and a kneejerk hatred for “socialism” then stop wasting my time.

                      I cited Savita Halappanaver as an example where an abortion is not only a good solution, it was the only solution. You seem to agree with that point. The rest of this discussion has been a ongoing cavalcade of damage control to spin that “this is a Catholic country” has nothing to do with Catholicism. I am unimpressed.

                      I’m not judging the entirety of the Roman Catholic Church on the malfeasance of those Irish doctors. Hell, MOST Catholics differ from the Church on life-saving abortions. I’m judging it on its ongoing policy of being anti-abortion at all costs, without regard to the lives of the women involved. The Catholic Church’s objection to the Irish life-saving-abortions bill was on the fallacious grounds that abortions performed to save women’s lives is a ‘slippery slope’. “This bill represents a legislative and political Trojan horse which heralds a much more liberal and aggressive abortion regime in Ireland”, according to Cardinal Sean Brady. Your claim that the Church would approve of life-saving abortions rings hollow. Oh they sometimes claim they would, but when push comes to shove and anyone tries to legislate it, they fight it tooth and nail.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      We are several decades beyond the point where it is credible to say that the Church overreacts where it fears a slippery slope when it comes to abortion. The slope has been slipped in country after country.

                      You are taking a very common, but no less dishonest for it, take that you are dealing with facts while the other side only deals in theories. You still haven’t addressed the fact that proper medical procedure sometimes calls for waiting in cases of PROM such as Mrs. Halappanavar. That would require you to stop jerking your knee and risk going beyond your talking points.

                      “Preterm PROM presents more difficult treatment decisions. The younger the fetus, the more likely it may die or suffer serious permanent damage if delivered prematurely. Yet the risk of infection to the mother and/or the fetus increases as the length of time from PROM to delivery increases. Depending on the age of the fetus and signs of infection, the doctor must decide either to try to prevent labor and delivery until the fetus is more mature, or to induce labor and prepare to treat the complications of prematurity. However, the baby will need to be delivered to avoid serious risks to both it and the mother if infection is present, regardless of the risks of prematurity.”

                      Given the information I have now, I’d say that from both a Catholic and a medical point of view they blew the call but I recognize that I don’t have sufficient information to actually render such a judgment so it’s tentative. One of the things that a mature Catholic decision would have made would be to try to induce labor and then do your best for a miracle and to save the baby. That’s expensive and if your budgets have been constrained by the usual progression of medical socialism, there might have been pressure to not incur such expenses and to cast blame on the Church if something goes wrong. This too is tentative as I don’t have enough information.

                      Were I to be the husband, things would possibly have gone differently as we would be arguing the doctrine of double effect and explicitly asking them to deliver the baby and save it. Mr. Halappanavar was perhaps less equipped to navigate that minefield.

                      The Church does make mistakes. I have had occasion (though rarely) to protest and to fix those mistakes. The question here is what is the nature of the mistake. Was it local laity adopting a too strict vision of what direct abortion is. Were they penny pinching? Did they just blow the medical call? Are the Irish bishops teaching the doctrine correctly? Is the doctrine in error?

                      You are consistently skipping all the possibilities except the last when a just examination would consider all of them.

                      Please stop being unjust.

                    • Sven2547

                      You still haven’t addressed the fact that proper medical procedure sometimes calls for waiting in cases of PROM such as Mrs. Halappanavar.

                      Ah, you seem to have missed a crucial fact from the case (which you claimed to have read). As you say, PROM poses a dilemma: delay delivery to give the fetus a better chance, or act immediately to give the woman a better chance.

                      Here’s the thing: they didn’t delay to give the fetus a better chance. The fetus was doomed. This was a miscarriage and they told her as much the day she arrived. Your whole theory that this was a difficult decision is bunk from the get-go. There was one recourse: get it out of her ASAP. But “this is a Catholic country”, they told her husband. But for you to admit that your theory doesn’t fit the facts, you would have to stop jerking your knee and risk going beyond your talking points.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      The schizophrenic nature of the response, that there was no chance to save the baby yet we must wait to give the baby a chance is the very thing that makes me think that the simple narrative you’re giving is wrong. If there is truly no chance to save the baby, Catholic doctrine does not require you to do futile things that increase the risk to the mother for no possible benefit. Either it was a false statement that there was no chance or there was some sort of other constraint operating (such as budget or unexamined hospital policy) or there was some sort of incompetence going on. And I don’t know which of these is true and I suspect neither do you.

                      The fact that it can be a difficult decision means you have to ask the questions. But the pro-choice side isn’t doing anything other than waving the bloody shirt with this woman’s case. You seem to have bought into that but I certainly haven’t. Railroading and mass hate events are usually not too popular with me. What’s their attraction for you?

                    • Sven2547

                      If there is truly no chance to save the baby, Catholic doctrine does not require you to do futile things that increase the risk to the mother for no possible benefit.

                      And I have already provided you an example of where that is categorically false: the Catholic Church’s approach to ectopic pregnancy. It increases risk to the mother with no added benefit. You need to start reading up.

                      The fact that it can be a difficult decision means you have to ask the questions. But the pro-choice side isn’t doing anything other than waving the bloody shirt with this woman’s case.

                      The side that asked the questions was the pro-choice side. There was an inquiry over this woman’s needless death. As a result of the inquiry, a law was passed to clarify and expand life-saving abortion procedures in Ireland. The Catholic Church opposed the whole thing.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      Sorry, but salpingectomy does not increase the risk to the mother. It lowers it by reducing the chance of future ectopic pregnancies.

                      On the legal point, I’d have to find both the law and the position of the Church, neither of which you’ve given a pointer to so far.

                    • Sven2547

                      Google pretty much any combination of ‘Ireland life saving abortion law’ for the law. Virtually every article has accompanying outrage from the Catholic Church and/or the “pro-life” crowd… who are protesting the saving of lives.

                    • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

                      No thanks to wading through all the partisan garbage to get to a reliable source.

                    • enness

                      “Life-saving abortion” is an oxymoron.

                • enness

                  And I would refer you to Tonya Reaves and the two young women who are known to have been killed by Leroy Carhart. If you think you can trot out one example then I see you and raise you, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

            • enness

              The primary purpose of abortion is to kill a baby, whether it helps the woman or not (and it kills her too often, as well).

  • enness

    “I’d really like to see the huge majority of Americans who passively dislike abortion grow a pair and actively oppose it”

    Hear hear!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X