Every week has it’s own horror story. Two weeks ago, it was the Tucson shootings. This week, it’s the PA abortion clinic that was it’s own little shop of horrors.
A friend raised the excellent point that the story is so awful that it really ought to be front page news instead of oh, let’s say,page A25 of the NYT.
So why isn’t it? Because it’s a story that everyone already knows and expects at some level. If it’s put on the front page, that betrays the “safe, legal, and rare” mantra. All of these abortions were legal. None of them were safe or rare. The conditions of abortion clinics have long been documented. In 1996, Mark Krutcher of Life Dynamics publishedLime 5, a book relating numerous abuses in the abortion business. Krutcher got his information from court documents and news articles, all documented cases.
The story with the PA abortion clinic gets even more appalling. The Grand Jury Investigation uncovered the fact that the National Abortion Federation sent an investigator to Gosnell’s clinic when he applied for membership. She found it “the worst abortion clinic” she’d ever seen. (Jill Stanek has more here.)
Now NAF is supposed to be all about making sure that women get “safe” abortions. (No word yet on making abortion rare.) Upon seeing Gosnell’s clinic, why didn’t the organization report it to public health authorities? After all, aren’t they interested in women’s health? In a recent letter, NAF explains that Gosnell applied for membership and was denied.
The doctor in question, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, was NOT a NAF member. As the Grand Jury Report in this case notes, Gosnell applied for NAF membership in late 2009, but his application was rejected because his facility did not meet NAF’s standards for quality care.
Interestingly, this AP story suggests that it was pro-lifers who forced at least one patient to go to Gosnell’s clinic. No mention of NAF’s failure to report the clinic…
Meanwhile, President Obama, who voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator in Illinois, the state version of the federal act which helped to convict Gosnell of the murders of seven infants, released a statement on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade yeaterday:
Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
Let me just say that I find it particularly amusing that he invokes a conservative principle, namely that government should not intrude on private family matters, while his wife is campaigning to change the way that families eat and exercise. To a degree, I applaud her efforts; but it’s a bit of an overreach to claim this right of non-intrusion in some private matters but not in others. You can’t feed your child sugary cereal or let her play too many video games, but you or she can decide to get an abortion for her, even at your local shop of horrors. You have that right to be “protected” from government intrusion.