Abortion doctor charged with 7 counts of murder in Philly

[Sheilbh]

Christ. I hope this doesn't become just a self-indulgent media argument, but about the failure of the State government and others.

[Sheilbh]

I do know that no abortion clinic in some wealthy community in Fairfax County would have been open for 20 years with stuff like this going on. It sounds like a lot of the regulatory agencies involved were choosing to ignore this problem because it was an abortion clinic serving poor minorities in a low income community.

That was my thought. From that article it's an absolute disgrace.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To some degree the women in wealthier communities would protect against this. Upper income women tend to understand a clinic where nothing has been cleaned, where surgical equipment is covered in dust, and where the doctor is asking 15 year olds to administer sedation is a place you need to get the hell out of right away. Sadly this is a prime example of government not protecting those least informed and able to do the job themselves.

[Kleves]

Some related stories (well, the first one is an opinion column):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-defending-infanticide/2013/04/08/36e44294-a061-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

When Rep. Todd Akin made his outrageous comments about "legitimate rape" it was front page news — and rightly so. But when a representative of Planned Parenthood is caught on camera defending infanticide, it merits barely a mention in the mainstream media.

Testifying against a Florida bill that would require abortionists to provide emergency medical care to an infant who survives an abortion, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow was asked point blank: "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?" She replied: "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."

Jaws in the committee room dropped. Asked again, she repeated her answer.

Only after a firestorm erupted in the conservative media did Planned Parenthood issued a statement that in the "extremely unlikely and highly unusual" event that a baby were born alive it would "provide appropriate care to both the woman and the infant." That is debatable, since a Planned Parenthood counselor has been caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive after an abortion to die. But if Planned Parenthood really does provide such care, why was it lobbying against a bill requiring such care in the first place?

The fact is, it is not as unusual for children to be left to die after a failed abortion as some might think. Right now in Philadelphia, abortionist Kermit Gosnell is on trial for the murder of seven infants who were born alive. According to District Attorney Seth Williams, Gosnell "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord." Prosecutors said that Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies in this way. "These killings became so routine that no one could put an exact number on them. They were considered 'standard procedure.' "

Across the border in Canada, the government reports that between 2000 and 2009, 491 babies were left to die after they were born alive during abortions. There are no similar statistics here in the United States, but according to the Abortion Survivors Network there are an estimated 44,000 abortion survivors living in the country today. How many more did not survive for lack of medical care?

Recently a major motion picture, October Baby, told the true story of one abortion survivor in search of her birth mother and of her struggle to forgive her. The woman depicted in the movie, Gianna Jessen, testified before Congress about why she lived after her mother underwent a saline abortion: "Fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive... I was early.... I am sure I would not be here today if the abortionist would have been in the clinic, as his job is to take life, not sustain it."

Amazingly, some argue that killing babies like Gianna is morally permissible. Recently two bioethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, published a paper in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" They wrote: "[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. ... [W]e propose to call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide,' to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus ... rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

This is Orwellian. The term "after-birth abortion" is an oxymoron. You can't kill an unborn child after it has been born.

The fact that Planned Parenthood aggressively lobbies against legislation requiring medical care for such children is appalling. The fact that a Planned Parenthood official testified that killing such children is permissible is shocking. And the fact that most major media outlets — including The Post — all but ignored her comments is distressing.

Our country is deeply divided over the question of abortion. But can we not all at least agree that killing a born child is murder — not a question that "should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-board-adopts-strict-abortion-clinic-rules/2013/04/12/fb60d3ca-a35f-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story_1.html

RICHMOND — The Virginia Board of Health voted Friday to require abortion clinics to meet strict, hospital-style building codes that operators say could put many of them out of business.

The 11 to 2 vote represented the board's final say on the matter, which has taken unexpected twists and turns since the General Assembly voted in 2011 to regulate abortion clinics like outpatient surgical centers. The regulations will now go to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, both Republicans, for their review.

The board's move comes at a time when measures restricting abortion seem to be gaining traction in state houses across the country.

In the past six weeks, four states — Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas and North Dakota — have adopted some of the most stringent restrictions on abortion in the nation. Virginia joined that list Friday with the Board of Health's vote to require abortion clinics to meet hospital standards on a permanent basis.

Two years ago, the Virginia legislature voted to impose more stringent building codes on the clinics. It then fell to the health board to implement the new rules, which call for costly physical renovations, such as widening hallways and doorways.

In a surprise move in June, the board voted to exempt existing clinics from the new standard. But the board reversed itself in September, voting to adopt the regulations without grandfathering in the established clinics. The reversal came after Cuccinelli wrote to board members suggesting that if they did not follow his advice against grandfathering, his office would not defend them in any resulting litigation and that they could be personally on the hook for legal bills.

The board's September vote sent the regulations back to McDonnell for his review, and he quietly signed off on them in December. The state then solicited public comment on the measure.

Now that the board has approved them for a second time, the regulations will return to Cuccinelli and McDonnell for final review. Cuccinelli's office said it had no timetable for its decision.

Cuccinelli spokeswoman Caroline Gibson said the attorney general would "certify whether the regulations adopted by the Board of Health comply with state and federal law," including the 2011 state law establishing the new standards.

Cianti Stewart-Reid, executive director for Planned Parenthood Advocates for Virginia, said the "onerous and unnecessary architectural requirements" could cause some of the state's 20 abortion providers to close their doors.

The Board of Health's vote angered abortion-rights activists, who shouted "Shame! Shame!" and "Blood on your hands!" once the board had acted. About 150 activists on both sides of the abortion issue had crowded into the meeting room and an overflow area to watch the proceedings and testify during an hour-long public comment period that preceded the vote.

Within five minutes of the vote, partisans on both sides of this year's governor's race blasted e-mails variously linking the issue to Cuccinelli, the presumptive Republican nominee, or his Democratic opponent, Terry McAuliffe.

"Board of Health puts politics before medicine, approves Cuccinelli's outrageous women's health restrictions," read a release from ProgressVA, a liberal group.

The Susan B. Anthony List, an antiabortion group that supports Cuccinelli and works to elect politicians opposed to abortion nationwide, countered with its own statement, headlined: "McAuliffe Puts Big Abortion Ahead of Safety of Virginia Women."

The flurry of activity on the state level has provided abortion opponents with fresh energy and optimism while their foes vow to challenge the laws in court. Even as Americans have moved left on some social issues, such as same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization, conservatives have gained significant ground in the states when it comes to abortion.

"The grass-roots momentum is really playing out electorally," said Susan B. Anthony List spokeswoman Mallory Quigley.

The trend marks a contrast with last fall, when GOP Senate candidates Todd Akin (Mo.) and Richard Mourdock (Ind.) made controversial remarks about pregnancies stemming from rape, mobilizing support for Democrats.

But in the states, Republicans had another banner election year, making it easier for abortion opponents to enact restrictions. There are 23 states where Republicans now control the governorship and the state legislature, compared with 14 where Democrats hold such an advantage.

"The states have become very polarized," said Glen Bolger, a GOP pollster and partner in Public Opinion Strategies. "They're either the reddest of red or the bluest of blue, so whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, you can advance your social agenda."

Unlike attitudes on same-sex marriage, which have shifted rapidly in recent years, Americans' views on abortion have remained largely unchanged since the 1990s. Fifty-five percent of respondents said abortion should be legal in all or most cases in an August 2012 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll, with just over four in 10 saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

While states adopted a high number of abortion restrictions in both 2011 and 2012, the nature of the laws enacted this year is different, activists say. In Arkansas, the state legislature overrode the governor's veto last month to ban abortions starting at 12 weeks. On Tuesday, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed legislation to prohibit abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks. That same day, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed a law requiring doctors providing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The Kansas legislature passed a measure last week that says life begins at fertilization, bars tax breaks for abortion providers and prohibits abortions based on sex selection. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) has pledged to sign the measure.

Jennifer Dalven, who directs the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said "these laws are much more extreme. To make it increasingly impossible for women to gain access to safe abortion, they've jumped to their endgame."

Abortion opponents, by contrast, said they've experienced a groundswell of support in light of recent controversies over abortion clinic conditions. Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell is now on trial, charged with killing seven newborns and one adult female patient. Two former nurses who quit working at Planned Parenthood of Delaware told WPVI-TV ABC News in Philadelphia on Wednesday that the clinic was unsanitary and unsafe.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said the recent victories by abortion opponents could produce a backlash. "As Republicans continue to go down this path, they do it at their peril," she said.

But Tom McClusky, senior vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Center, said conservatives have found it much easier to target abortion than gay marriage.

"If you're going to speak out on the marriage issue, the vitriol is a lot bigger," he said.

[derspiess]

Until Thursday, I wasn't aware of this story.

That's because the entire case has been under a court-ordered gag order for over 2 years, and the trial only started last month.

Wow, so no hilarious jokes from you in this thread about dead babies?

[crazy canuck]

BB, I wish you had posted a bit more of a warning before I read that.  Just three or four lines in I am physically ill.  Couldnt read the rest.

How much more plain could I make it?

This may be the most disturbing news article I've read in years.

Who knows what you might find disturbing.  You could have said this is what we would all find disturbing.

[Josephus]

Yeah, I stopped reading it a few paragraphs in....but it was still worth posting, so thanks BB.

[crazy canuck]

Some states have increased regulation of abortion clinics in recent years by treating them like medical facilities

It is surprising to me that abortion clinics which by definition perform medical procedures are not regulated as a medical facility.  There must be something to this that I am missing.  What is the magic in being regulated?

[OttoVonBismarck]

One of the big complaints Planned Parenthood had against the new regulations in Virginia were architectural requirements. They claimed mandatory widened hallways and etc were impossible for clinics to comply with. The Atlantic article shows why outpatient surgical centers might need such features, as one of the women who died in Gosnell's House of Horrors took twenty minutes to be removed from the clinic by EMS because of the crowded hallways.

I had a scalp cyst removed last year, most likely my dermatologist could have cut it out in his office no problem. However, I was sent to an outpatient surgical center owned by a hospital. It was close to an ER and had many facilities in common with hospitals. While the risk of complications of a cyst removal are virtually none, some outpatient surgery can actually lead to emergencies--and when it does you'll be very glad you're in that outpatient surgical center with wide hallways and a quick trip to the ER across the street. If that's where I need to be to get a cyst removed I'm shocked anyone thinks women having an abortion should receive less attention and protection.

[Valmy]

Yeah I am rather shocked abortion clinics are not being regulated the same as any other medical facility, especially given the stakes involved.  Professionals performing abortions especially need to be operating at a high professional level.  Pregnancy, even with the goal of termination, is not something to mess around with.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I stopped reading it a few paragraphs in....but it was still worth posting, so thanks BB.

Yeah, it was worth reading.  I just wish I was a bit more prepared for the horror of what I was about to read.

[crazy canuck]

If that's where I need to be to get a cyst removed I'm shocked anyone thinks women having an abortion should receive less attention and protection.

Agreed.  I was wondering though if the reason the regulation is being opposed is because local health boards or something similar could then effectively prevent abortion clinics from operating simply because  they are abortion clinics.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Some states have increased regulation of abortion clinics in recent years by treating them like medical facilities

It is surprising to me that abortion clinics which by definition perform medical procedures are not regulated as a medical facility.  There must be something to this that I am missing.  What is the magic in being regulated?

Abortion is seen as more of an "office procedure" in many places. That means it's treated akin to how a filling is at a dentist's office or a minor procedure in a dermatologist's office. My wife could give me the correct terminology, but an "office procedure" is not very regulated. Like if you need to have a wart frozen off by your dermatologist or a filling done at the dentist, that's not really regulated like most surgeries are at all. Primarily because typically no serious anesthesia is being used, risk of complications are minimal and etc. (The reason my dermatologist referred me to a plastic surgeon is basically because the scalp is very vascular and if somehow they nicked something and I bled a lot they wanted me in a surgical center, even though in reality it could have probably been safely done in an office environment.)

Other procedures, like the outpatient surgery I had, are considered more surgical in nature. The outpatient surgical centers are very similar to an operating room in a real hospital, they have all the best surgical tools and equipment. Unlike doctor's offices, which are not usually staffed by RNs but just assistants and maybe a dental hygienist in a dental office, these outpatient surgical centers are staffed with teams of nurses that work for the surgical center, not the doctor doing the surgery. Doctors book time at the surgical center for their patients, and it is done with a team of professional medical support staff. If there is a complication, all of the outpatient surgical centers I've seen in Virginia have either been very close to or physically connected to a real hospital with an emergency room.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If that's where I need to be to get a cyst removed I'm shocked anyone thinks women having an abortion should receive less attention and protection.

Agreed.  I was wondering though if the reason the regulation is being opposed is because local health boards or something similar could then effectively prevent abortion clinics from operating simply because  they are abortion clinics.

Part of the fear is certainly that "prohibition through regulation" deal. But part of it too is a lot of the organizations that sponsor abortion clinics try to make them as cheap and affordable as possible, Planned Parenthood for example wants abortion to be very available to anyone who wants one. (Part of their mission is supposed to be making them safe, too, though.) Abortions are frequently used by lower income patients, so basically there is a strong incentive to keep out of pocket abortion costs very very low. This is difficult to do if you require them to be in a surgical center. I'm morally opposed to abortion but not legally opposed (I don't necessarily think law must reflect personal morality), and think like all medical procedures safety should be of paramount importance.

[CountDeMoney]

Wow, so no hilarious jokes from you in this thread about dead babies?

Nah, I took a nap and decided to wait for you and and your copilot in hyperpole, derOtto, to weigh in first.