Texas and Abortion: This is How Pro Choice Created Gosnell

Convicted abortion doctor kermit gosn 001

I’ve written before that Dr Gosnell is the monster that pro choice built.

Dr Gosnell is the recently convicted serial killer/abortionist who operated what some people have described as a “chamber of horrors” in Pennsylvania.

I knew I would catch some flak for saying that, and I did. But I had said it advisedly, based on my experience on both sides of the abortion wars. I knew what I was talking about.

We are seeing the dynamic I referred to acted out once again in Texas; pro choice people are going over the top to fight the regulation of abortion clinics in the name of “women’s health.”

Wendy davis filibuster 660

About a week ago, Senator Wendy Davis of the Texas State Senate engaged in a 13-hour filibuster that resulted in a legislative train wreck for a good piece of pro life legislation. Her actions, along with some filibustering from the Senate gallery, effectively killed a bill that would have required that:

1. Abortion clinics provide the same kind of patient safety as any other ambulatory outpatient surgical center,

2. Doctors who perform abortions in clinics must have hospital privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic,

3. Abortion clinics provide their patients with a phone number which would be answered 24 hours so that they can call for medical follow-up to their abortions,

4. Abortion clinics give women the name and phone number of the emergency facility nearest to her home where she can go for medical care in the case of an emergency after her abortion,

5. Doctors, and not staff, prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion according to FDA guidelines, and that the drugs for chemical abortions may not be dispensed until after the prescribing physician has examined the patient and determined that she is not carrying an ectopic pregnancy.

6. Doctors who perform abortions who prescribe drugs for a chemical abortion also provide follow-up care, including a follow-up examination by the physician to determine that the abortion is complete and a 24 hour phone number in case the woman needs questions answered.

7. Doctors who perform abortions must report adverse affects caused by drugs used in chemical abortions to the FDA according to FDA guidelines.

These are the “outrageous” regulations that pro choice people are demonstrating to stop. In my humble opinion, there is not one thing on this list of requirements that even the most pro choice person would not want for their daughter if she was undergoing an abortion.

Doctors who do abortions — which are a surgery — should have hospital privileges?

Duh.

Abortion clinics — which are outpatient surgical clinics — should comply with the same health and safety regulations that every other outpatient surgical clinic does?

Abortion docs should examine their patients before surgery and follow up with them afterwards? They should report side effects of the drugs they prescribe to the FDA? They should make sure that women they give abortion-causing drugs aren’t carrying an ectopic pregnancy, when giving those drugs to a woman who is carrying an ectopic pregnancy can cause her to bleed to death?

Er

These regulations are exactly what anyone who is interested in “safe, legal” abortions should want. Frankly, I think the pro choice people should thank the pro life legislators who are pushing this bill for cleaning up their dirty little industry.

However, the pro abortionists have pulled out all the stops to kill this bill, including misrepresenting it to their own followers. I doubt very much that the many “pro choice” people in this country who are buying the stuff the abortion industry is putting out about this legislation actually know what the bill contains.

If they did, most of them would favor the legislation. Frankly, anyone who favors “women’s health” should favor this legislation. But they’ve been conditioned for many decades by the constant drum beat of pro abortion extremists to believe any stupid thing those extremists say. There is little actual thinking that goes into the positions they take on abortion.

I would imagine that even most of the legislators who oppose this bill think they are doing it because if they don’t women will be “sent to the back alleys.”

The Texas legislature can not overturn the United States Supreme Court. Roe is not in danger. What is in danger is the lives of the young women who go to clinics that are protected from providing good medical care by abortion zealots who are so caught up in their cause that they don’t have a genuine thought in their heads.

Abortion rally texas

I read this morning that there are plans for celebrities to come to Texas and speak against the bill. The whole thing has turned into a cause celeb, both literally and figuratively. After all, it turns out that many of the clinics in Texas will have to close because they can’t comply with operating like regular outpatient surgical clinics do.

They want, they demand, that they be exempted from providing good medical care to women because if they do have to provide the same level of care that other outpatient surgical clinics provide, it will endanger women’s health.

Does anyone know who’s on first?

Lessee …

What are we making sure of?

That women’s doctors are free to not follow up with them, don’t have to provide the same health and safety for them that they would for any other surgery, don’t need to examine them before doing surgery on them or administering dangerous drugs to them, and … get ready for this now … don’t even have to have hospital privileges at a nearby hospital.

That’s “women’s health,” abortion style.

Remember Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors? This kind of folderol is exactly how pro choice built that monster.

They fight against any and all pro life legislation on the grounds that even safety standards “narrow” Roe. They tell poor deluded women that if laws like this one pass, they will be “forced into the back alleys” again.

So what happens to the women?

A lot of them end up suffering harm that would have been prevented by better medical care. I’m not even talking about what happens to the baby here. I am talking solely about women’s health.

I had to have a couple of surgeries last year. I came home the same day after both of them. Neither of them was as risky as poking around in a pregnant uterus.

I can tell you that I wanted a doctor with hospital privileges holding the knife when he went to work on me. I wanted him to examine me beforehand and make sure that he knew what he was doing and that I was a good candidate for the surgery. I wanted health and safety standards dutifully enforced in the place where he did this surgery. I would have been outraged if I had learned that I was on my own after the surgery with no support or follow up if something went wrong.

Nobody anywhere was out demonstrating for the doctor who cut into my foot to be free to practice dirty medicine, not have hospital privileges and dump me after the surgery. Not one person thought it was outrageous or a violation of my rights that my doctor was required to practice competent medicine on me.

But if I had been a woman who was seeking an abortion, they would have been jumping up and down, demonstrating, filibustering, importing celebrities to defend my “right” to incompetent medical practices.

That’s how pro choice built Dr Gosnell and his chamber of horrors. It’s how they endanger women’s lives all over this country.

Look at this carefully and tell me: What’s wrong with this picture?

Does the Pro Abortion Media Really Care About Women’s Health?

Mollie, who blogs at Get Religion, wrote a post a couple of days ago that fits right in with a discussion we’ve been having here at Public Catholic.

I published two posts yesterday which revolved around the question of how much genuine concern for women the pro choice movement truly has. They have spun the whole issue of abortion as being one of women’s health care. But what do they do when abortionists ignore what is best for the health of an individual woman, sometimes to the woman’s great peril?

In addition to lobbying for and passing laws which make it possible for “medical personnel” (including midwives) who are not doctors to perform surgical abortions on women, how do they react when an abortionist actually kills a woman?

Mollie’s post takes on several pillars of the mainstream media for their reporting of the abortion death of a woman. This reporting appears to be biased to the point of deliberate inaccuracy.

If these abortion advocates (and it seems quite clear that these publications are abortion advocates) truly cared about “women’s health care” one would think that they’d be all over this story. Instead, they do their best to sweep the whole thing — along with the life of the woman — under the journalistic rug.

You can read my first post on this issue, Woman Sues Planned Parenthood for Forced Abortion and Medical Malpractice which was about Planned Parenthood forcing an abortion on a woman and then dumping her when she experienced complications here.

My second post, California Governor Signed Law Allowing Non-Physicians to Do Abortions, which describes state laws that allow medical personnel who are not doctors to perform abortions on women can be found here.

Mollie’s fine article, Mainstream media defense of abortion never rests says in part:

I once served on a jury that convicted a man of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. We all thought he did it, but we weren’t sure the government had made its case. The evidence was strong but his defense attorney had done such a good job of explaining it away or striking various aspects from the record that we almost let him off.
It didn’t work, but it almost did. His attorney did such a fantastic job that I remember thinking, “If I ever am accused of a crime, I want this man to represent me.”
And that’s how I feel about this Washington Post write-up we’ll look at shortly. My thought is, “If I ever kill someone, I sure hope the Washington Post covers for me.” Only problem with this plan (other than my fervent hope I never commit such an act) is that I think they may only provide this exculpatory service for abortionists.
Let’s first look at the story as written up by the Journal News, a Gannett publication most recently known for publishing the home addresses of legal gun owners. The piece, “Coroner: Jennifer Morbelli bled to death following abortio n,” begins:
A New Rochelle woman died of complications from a late-term abortion at a Maryland clinic, the Montgomery County, Md., coroner confirmed Wednesday.
Jennifer Morbelli, 29, a schoolteacher in White Plains, bled to death after amniotic fluid in her womb spilled into her bloodstream, said Bruce Goldfarb, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Medical Examiner’s Office.
That newspaper also has a feature about how the doctor who performed the abortion was profiled in a documentary film praising late-term abortionists .
Now, Newsday‘s piece is headlined, lengthily, “Jennifer Morbelli, New Rochelle teacher, died of complications after abortion, medical examiner says .”
The Washington Post piece, which took surprisingly long to go online (I had previously been writing about how there was no story there even many hours after it was appearing at other sites) went up late last night.
See, it takes time — and, I guess, many phone calls with abortion rights groups to get it just right — to write the story this way. Headline, of course, is “Md. medical examiner cites rare complication in death of woman after abortion .” Then we get many, many words about how this was just a freak accident and that legalized abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy had absolutely nothing meaningful to do with the death of this young woman (never mind the dead child, of course):
A 29-year-old woman died of natural causes after visiting an abortion clinic in Montgomery County and suffering a rare complication related to childbirth, according to an initial finding by the Maryland medical examiner’s office.
Are you freaking kidding me, Washington Post? Are you freaking kidding me? CHILDBIRTH? CHILDBIRTH?
(Read more here.)

Will Legalizing Gay Marriage in Britain Result in Coercive Attacks on Freedom of Conscience?


Great Britain’s government will vote soon on gay marriage. Christians have expressed concern that such a change in the law might result in attacks on freedom of conscience.

Supporters of the measure have rushed to assure the public that such fears are groundless.

Now, where have we heard things like this before?

Oh yes. It was President Obama, promising that Obamacare would not infringe on religious freedom and individual rights of conscience.

That was only a few months before a hand-picked committee of the Health and Human Services Department “passed” the HHS Mandate, which the same president who had made these promises signed and then misrepresented to the American people as being about “women’s health care.”

Good luck, British Christians. Judging by what has happened elsewhere, you’re going to need it.

A Christian Post article concerning the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage and freedom of conscience in Great Britain says in part:

UK Government Source: Teachers May Face Firing for Refusing to Teach Gay Marriage
Katherine Weber (“The Christian Post,” January 25, 2013)

As Great Britain’s government prepares to vote on a bill legalizing same-sex marriage, an official from the Secretary of State for Education’s office reportedly has expressed trepidation toward the bill, arguing that primary school teachers in the country could possibly lose their jobs if they do not teach about gay marriage in the classroom.

One unnamed senior source from the office of Michael Gove, who serves as the country’s current Secretary of State for Education, has recently said that ultimately the U.K. government is not in control, should a teacher lose their job for refusing to teach same-sex marriage, and the case would ultimately go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, where the European Parliament is located.

“We have had legal advice, the problem is that there is this inherent uncertainty about such matters,” the source told The Telegraph in a Jan. 25 report.

“These are all under the control of nine guys in Strasbourg, it is just fundamentally uncertain because Britain isn’t in control of this,” the source added.

Additionally, those critical of the upcoming same-sex marriage bill argue that hospital chaplains and other people in authority may be faced with difficult decisions when their conscience conflicts with their work protocol.

These statements come after human rights specialist Aidan O’Neill of the Queen’s Counsel argued on behalf of the Coalition For Marriage, a group that opposes same-sex marriage legalization, that he believes teachers, hospital or prison chaplains would be negatively affected by the legalization of the bill.

However, in response to these worries, Maria Miller, Secretary of Culture and Great Britain’s equalities minister, recently stated that teachers and the Church of England will not be put in a compromising position due to the same-sex marriage bill.(Read more here.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X