Languish.org

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

QuoteWhy Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story
The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It just is insanely newsworthy.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORFAPR 12 2013, 10:14 AM ET
  More
A procedure room at the Women's Medical Society. / Philadelphia District Attorney's Office
The grand jury report in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I've read. "This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that 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," it states. "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."

Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Dr. Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate's coverage includes testimony as grisly as you'd expect. "An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions," the channel reports. "Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, 'literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.' He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, 'it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.'"

One former employee described hearing a baby screaming after it was delivered during an abortion procedure. "I can't describe it. It sounded like a little alien," she testified. Said the Philadelphia Inquirer in its coverage, "Prosecutors have cited the dozens of jars of severed baby feet as an example of Gosnell's idiosyncratic and illegal practice of providing abortions for cash to poor women pregnant longer than the 24-week cutoff for legal abortions in Pennsylvania."

Until Thursday, I wasn't aware of this story. It has generated sparse coverage in the national media, and while it's been mentioned in RSS feeds to which I subscribe, I skip past most news items. I still consume a tremendous amount of journalism. Yet had I been asked at a trivia night about the identity of Kermit Gosnell, I would've been stumped and helplessly guessed a green Muppet. Then I saw Kirsten Power's USA Today column. She makes a powerful, persuasive case that the Gosnell trial ought to be getting a lot more attention in the national press than it is getting.

The media criticism angle interests me. But I agree that the story has been undercovered, and I happen to be a working journalist, so I'll begin by telling the rest of the story for its own sake. Only then will I explain why I think it deserves more coverage than it has gotten, although it ought to be self-evident by the time I'm done distilling the grand jury's allegations. Grand juries aren't infallible. This version of events hasn't been proven in a court of law. But journalists routinely treat accounts given by police, prosecutors and grand juries as at least plausible if not proven. Try to decide, as you hear the state's side of the case, whether you think it is credible, and if so, whether the possibility that some or all this happened demands massive journalistic scrutiny.

* * *

On February 18, 2010, the FBI raided the "Women's Medical Society," entering its offices about 8:30 p.m. Agents expected to find evidence that it was illegally selling prescription drugs. On entering, they quickly realized something else was amiss. In the grand jury report's telling, "There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff." Authorities had also learned about the patient that died at the facility several months prior.

Public health officials inspected the surgery rooms. "Instruments were not sterile," the grand jury states. "Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed. There was no functioning resuscitation or even monitoring equipment, except for a single blood pressure cuff." Upon further inspection, "the search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic - in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers."

And "Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent of the fetuses were probably older than 24 weeks in gestation - even though Pennsylvania law prohibits abortions after 24 weeks. In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls." Gosnell's medical license was quickly suspended. 18 days later, The Department of Health filed papers to start the process of closing the clinic. The district attorney submitted the case to the grand jury on May 4, 2010. Testimony was taken from 58 witnesses. Evidence was examined.

In Pennsylvania, most doctors won't perform abortions after the 20th week, many for health reasons, others for moral reasons. Abortions after 24 weeks are illegal. Until 2009, Gosnell reportedly performed mostly first and second trimester abortions. But his clinic had come to develop a bad reputation, and could attract only women who couldn't get an abortion elsewhere, former employees have said. "Steven Massof estimated that in 40 percent of the second-trimester abortions performed by Gosnell, the fetuses were beyond 24 weeks gestational age," the grand jury states. "Latosha Lewis testified that Gosnell performed procedures over 24 weeks 'too much to count,' and ones up to 26 weeks 'very often.' ...in the last few years, she testified, Gosnell increasingly saw out-of-state referrals, which were all second-trimester, or beyond. By these estimates, Gosnell performed at least four or five illegal abortions every week."

The grand jury report includes an image of a particularly extreme case (the caption is theirs, not mine):

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmt%2Fassets%2Fnational%2Fgrand%2520jury%2520report%2520image.png&hash=fcb1c58a1cc688f8fe2ee6647f1c64a26470d7ac)
   
That photo pertains to an unusual case, in that the mother had to seek help at a hospital after the abortion she sought at Gosnell's office went awry. The grand jury report summarizes a more typical late-term abortion, as conducted at the clinic, concluding with the following passage:

When you perform late-term "abortions" by inducing labor, you get babies. Live, breathing, squirming babies. By 24 weeks, most babies born prematurely will survive if they receive appropriate medical care. But that was not what the Women's Medical Society was about. Gosnell had a simple solution for the unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them. He didn't call it that. He called it "ensuring fetal demise." The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby's neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that "snipping."

Over the years, there were hundreds of "snippings." Sometimes, if Gosnell was unavailable, the "snipping" was done by one of his fake doctors, or even by one of the administrative staff.

But all the employees of the Women's Medical Society knew. Everyone there acted as if it wasn't murder at all. Most of these acts cannot be prosecuted, because Gosnell destroyed the files. Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant - seven and a half months - when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could "walk me to the bus stop." Another, Baby Boy B, whose body was found at the clinic frozen in a one-gallon spring-water bottle, was at least 28 weeks of gestational age when he was killed. Baby C was moving and breathing for 20 minutes before an assistant came in and cut the spinal cord, just the way she had seen Gosnell do it so many times. And these were not even the worst cases.

Abuse of Women Patients

What little media coverage there's been in the case has understandably focused on the murder allegations. The grand jury report also makes clear how horrific Women's Medical Society was for the patients.

The unsanitary conditions were just the beginning.

One woman "was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus," the report states. Another patient, 19, "was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy." A third patient "went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table, and hit her head on the floor. Gosnell wouldn't call an ambulance, and wouldn't let the woman's companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance."

Often times, women given drugs to induce labor delivered before the doctor even arrived at work.

Said one former employee:

If... a baby was about to come out, I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet and I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes.

She would not move.   
One patient died:

She was a 41-year-old, refugee who had recently come to the United States from a resettlement camp in Nepal. When she arrived at the clinic, Gosnell, as usual, was not there. Office workers had her sign various forms that she could not read, and then began doping her up. She received repeated unmonitored, unrecorded intravenous injections of Demerol, a sedative seldom used in recent years because of its dangers. Gosnell liked it because it was cheap. After several hours, Mrs. Mongar simply stopped breathing. When employees finally noticed, Gosnell was called in and briefl y attempted to give CPR. He couldn't use the defibrillator (it was broken); nor did he administer emergency medications that might have restarted her heart. After further crucial delay, paramedics finally arrived, but Mrs.Mongar was probably brain dead before they were even called. In the meantime, the clinic staff hooked up machinery and rearranged her body to make it look like they had been in the midst of a routine, safe abortion procedure.

Even then, there might have been some slim hope of reviving Mrs. Mongar. The paramedics were able to generate a weak pulse. But, because of the cluttered hallways and the padlocked emergency door, it took them over twenty minutes just to find a way to get her out of the building. Doctors at the hospital managed to keep her heart beating, but they never knew what they were trying to treat, because Gosnell and his staff lied about how much anesthesia they had given, and who had given it. By that point, there was no way to restore any neurological activity. Life support was removed the next day. Karnamaya Mongar was pronounced dead.
Another provocative detail: A former employee testified "that white patients often did not have to wait in the same dirty rooms as black and Asian clients. Instead, Gosnell would escort them up the back steps to the only clean office - Dr. O'Neill's - and he would turn on the TV for them. Mrs. Mongar, she said, would have been treated 'no different from the rest of the Africans and Asians.'"

Said the employee:

Like if a girl - the black population was - African population was big here. So he didn't mind you medicating your African American girls, your Indian girl, but if you had a white girl from the suburbs, oh, you better not medicate her. You better wait until he go in and talk to her first. And one day I said something to him and he was like, that's the way of the world. Huh?

And he brushed it off and that was it.
Anesthesia was frequently dispensed by employees who were neither legally permitted nor trained to do it, including a 15-year-old high school student who worked at the clinic, the report states.

Most employees did as they were told, but one objected:

Marcella Stanley Choung, who told us that her "training" for anesthesia consisted of a 15-minute description by Gosnell and reading a chart he had posted in a cabinet. She was so uncomfortable medicating patients, she said, that she "didn't sleep at night." She knew that if she made even a small error, "I can kill this lady, and I'm not jail material." One night in 2002, when she found herself alone with 15 patients, she refused Gosnell's directives to medicate them. She made an excuse, went to her car, and drove away, never to return. Choung immediately filed a complaint with the Department of State, but the department never acted on it.
The Failure to Stop It

That brings us to a subject you've perhaps been wondering about: How on earth did this go on for so long without anyone stopping it? The grand jury delved into that very question in their report. I'm going to excerpt it at length, because it bears directly on the question that will concern us afterward: has this story gotten an appropriate amount of attention from the news media?

Here is the grand jury on oversight failures:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/



I just don't know what to say.  That's just horrific.

continued

QuotePennsylvania is not a third-world country. There were several oversight agencies
that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago. But none of them did...

The first line of defense was the Pennsylvania Department of Health. The department's job is to audit hospitals and outpatient medical facilities, like Gosnell's, to make sure that they follow the rules and provide safe care. The department had contact with the Women's Medical Society dating back to 1979, when it first issued approval to open an abortion clinic. It did not conduct another site review until 1989, ten years later. Numerous violations were already apparent, but Gosnell got a pass when he promised to fix them. Site reviews in 1992 and 1993 also noted various violations, but again failed to ensure they were corrected.

But at least the department had been doing something up to that point, however ineffectual. After 1993, even that pro form a effort came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all... The only exception to this live-and-let-die policy was supposed to be for complaints dumped directly on the department's doorstep. Those, at least, would be investigated. Except that there were complaints about Gosnell, repeatedly. Several different attorneys, representing women injured by Gosnell, contacted the department. A doctor from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia hand-delivered a complaint, advising the department that numerous patients he had referred for abortions came back from Gosnell with the same venereal disease. The medical examiner of Delaware County informed the department that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old girl carrying a 30-week-old baby. And the department received official notice that a woman named Karnamaya Mongar had died at Gosnell's hands.

Yet not one of these alarm bells - not even Mrs. Mongar's death - prompted the department to look at Gosnell or the Women's Medical Society... But even this total abdication by the Department of Health might not have been fatal. Another agency with authority in the health field, the Pennsylvania Department of State, could have stopped Gosnell single-handedly.

The Department of State, through its Board of Medicine, licenses and oversees individual physicians... Almost a decade ago, a former employee of Gosnell presented the Board of Medicine with a complaint that laid out the whole scope of his operation: the unclean, unsterile conditions; the unlicensed workers; the unsupervised sedation; the underage abortion patients; even the over-prescribing of pain pills with high resale value on the street. The department assigned an investigator, whose investigation consisted primarily of an offsite interview with Gosnell. The investigator never inspected the facility, questioned other employees, or reviewed any records. Department attorneys chose to accept this incomplete investigation, and dismissed the complaint as unconfirmed.

Shortly thereafter the department received an even more disturbing report - about a woman, years before Karnamaya Mongar, who died of sepsis after Gosnell perforated her uterus. The woman was 22 years old. A civil suit against Gosnell was settled for almost a million dollars, and the insurance company forwarded the information to the department. That report should have been all the confirmation needed for the complaint from the former employee that was already in the department's possession. Instead, the department attorneys dismissed this complaint too... The same thing happened at least twice more: the department received complaints about lawsuits against Gosnell, but dismissed them as meaningless...

Philadelphia health department employees regularly visited the Women's Medical Society to retrieve blood samples for testing purposes, but never noticed, or more likely never bothered to report, that anything was amiss. Another employee inspected the clinic in response to a complaint that dead fetuses were being stored in paper bags in the employees' lunch refrigerator. The inspection confirmed numerous violations... But no follow-up was ever done... A health department representative also came to the clinic as part of a citywide vaccination program. She promptly discovered that Gosnell was scamming the program; she was the only employee, city or state, who actually tried to do something about the appalling things she saw there. By asking questions and poking around, she was able to file detailed reports identifying many of the most egregious elements of Gosnell's practice. It should have been enough to stop him. But instead her reports went into a black hole, weeks before Karnamaya Mongar walked into the Woman's Medical Society.

...And it wasn't just government agencies that did nothing. The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and its subsidiary, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, are in the same neighborhood as Gosnell's office. State law requires hospitals to report complications from abortions. A decade ago, a Gosnell patient died at HUP after a botched abortion, and the hospital apparently filed the necessary report. But the victims kept coming in. At least three other Gosnell patients were brought to Penn facilities for emergency surgery; emergency room personnel said they have treated many others as well. And at least one additional woman was hospitalized there after Gosnell had begun a flagrantly illegal abortion of a 29-week-old fetus. Yet, other than the one initial report, Penn could find not a single case in which it complied with its legal duty to alert authorities to the danger. Not even when a second woman turned up virtually dead...

So too with the National Abortion Federation.

NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strict est health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar's death. Despite his various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell's application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen.
The conclusion drawn at the end of the section is provocative. "Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that," it states. "But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion."

A Front-Page Story

Says Kirsten Powers in her USA Today op-ed, "Let me state the obvious. This should be front page news. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Sandra Fluke, there was non-stop media hysteria. The venerable NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams intoned, 'A firestorm of outrage from women after a crude tirade from Rush Limbaugh,' as he teased a segment on the brouhaha. Yet, accusations of babies having their heads severed -- a major human rights story if there ever was one -- doesn't make the cut."

Inducing live births and subsequently severing the heads of the babies is indeed a horrific story that merits significant attention. Strange as it seems to say it, however, that understates the case.

For this isn't solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn't make national headlines?

But it isn't even solely a story of a rogue clinic that's awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn't have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting. 

There is, finally, the fact that abortion, one of the most hotly contested, polarizing debates in the country, is at the center of this case. It arguably informs the abortion debate in any number of ways, and has numerous plausible implications for abortion policy, including the oversight and regulation of clinics, the appropriateness of late-term abortions, the penalties for failing to report abuses, the statute of limitations for killings like those with which Gosnell is charged, whether staff should be legally culpable for the bad behavior of doctors under whom they work...

There's just no end to it.

To sum up, this story has numerous elements any one of which would normally make it a major story. And setting aside conventions, which are flawed, this ought to be a big story on the merits.

The news value is undeniable.

Why isn't it being covered more? I've got my theories. But rather than offer them at the end of an already lengthy item, I'd like to survey some of the editors and writers making coverage decisions.

This is indeed horrible.

That's just . . . wow.

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.

Yeah wtf BB, I assumed he murdered hookers.

QuoteUntil 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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 02:02:53 PM

QuoteUntil 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.

So why hasn't it been in the news since a month ago?

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 01:58:26 PM
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?

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

The press is very liberal and would never question abortion rights. Some states have increased regulation of abortion clinics in recent years by treating them like medical facilities (Virginia has done this) and the liberal pro-choice crowd has gotten up in arms over it. I strongly suspect at least a part of why it has not been reported on is the mostly liberal press doesn't want to cover a topic that might in any way make abortion clinics look like anything other than the "Temples of Freedom" (instead of murder factories) that the left would have you believe they are.

As for why the likes of Fox News haven't picked up on it much, I don't know. Cynically it could be because it's in Philly so most of the victims are poor blacks.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 02:06:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 01:58:26 PM
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?

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

That doesn't quite convey the level of disturbing-ness. My reaction was much like CCs

I saw the visual aid and decided not to read. :smarty:

It does seem like the kind of story that Limbaugh / Fox News might be all over (and not the fairly liberal Atlantic)...

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 02:13:58 PM
It does seem like the kind of story that Limbaugh / Fox News might be all over (and not the fairly liberal Atlantic)...

The level of outrage over Virginia's regulation of abortion clinics has been massive in the liberal press. It's died down since the law went into effect a few years ago now, but I imagine to some degree it'd be hard for them to report on a story that completely undermines their outrage over actually imposing strict medical regulations on abortion clinics.

In many states abortion clinics are literally less monitored than veterinary clinics, and that's a major negative for women no matter where you stand on the abortion issue.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:17:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 02:13:58 PM
It does seem like the kind of story that Limbaugh / Fox News might be all over (and not the fairly liberal Atlantic)...

The level of outrage over Virginia's regulation of abortion clinics has been massive in the liberal press. It's died down since the law went into effect a few years ago now, but I imagine to some degree it'd be hard for them to report on a story that completely undermines their outrage over actually imposing strict medical regulations on abortion clinics.

In many states abortion clinics are literally less monitored than veterinary clinics, and that's a major negative for women no matter where you stand on the abortion issue.

I assume the concern was that they would "regulate" them out of existence. Remove evidence of that agenda, by for example having clinics operating under regulation for some time, and you remove the concern.

I doubt an example like this does much either way - it clearly does not resemble the average clinic. Perhaps some inbred hicks would be unable to tell the difference ...  ;)

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

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 02:02:53 PM

QuoteUntil 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?

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 02:06:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 01:58:26 PM
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?

QuoteThis 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. :P

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

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
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?

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.

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.

Quote from: Josephus on April 12, 2013, 02:48:29 PM
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.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:50:01 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 02:48:40 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 02:53:14 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:50:01 PM
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.

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 02:43:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 02:02:53 PM

QuoteUntil 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.

So why hasn't it been in the news since a month ago?

It's been covered in the Baltimore Sun, I suppose due to our proximity to Philly.  Like most regional murder cases.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 02:48:40 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
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. 

Like how dental offices that perform medical procedures are not regulated?

I didn't read the article because I've seen a couple of news reports of how gruesome it is. Pretty disgusting.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:06:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 02:48:40 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:09:26 PM
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. 

Like how dental offices that perform medical procedures are not regulated?

The dental offices that use rusty pliers and a shit-encrusted hammer to conduct dentistry of course demonstrate the horrors that the liberal press doesn't want you to know, as it implicates all dentists.  :hmm:

Generally for major dental work you're going to various types of specialist dentist like endodontists who often have more sophisticated surgical setups than regular dentists.

But arguing for more procedures to be like dental work is a bad argument. A surprisingly large number of people die from dental surgery, not like you should be in a panic about it, but more than most people realize. I for one would never allow a dentist to put me under for surgery (I actually have never had a cavity, and even had all my wisdom teeth come in without need of removal, so I've never had dental surgery of any kind) , I've read about the extra training on top of regular dental school that dentists have to go through in order to be certified to put you under. It's surprisingly not a lot, and it's not surprising that sometimes dentists make mistakes with it and kill people.

Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 04:14:50 PM
The dental offices that use rusty pliers and a shit-encrusted hammer to conduct dentistry of course demonstrate the horrors that the liberal press doesn't want you to know, as it implicates all dentists.  :hmm:

And rightfully so.  Those inhumane torturers.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 04:27:55 PM
But arguing for more procedures to be like dental work is a bad argument. A surprisingly large number of people die from dental surgery, not like you should be in a panic about it, but more than most people realize. I for one would never allow a dentist to put me under for surgery (I actually have never had a cavity, and even had all my wisdom teeth come in without need of removal, so I've never had dental surgery of any kind) , I've read about the extra training on top of regular dental school that dentists have to go through in order to be certified to put you under. It's surprisingly not a lot, and it's not surprising that sometimes dentists make mistakes with it and kill people.

They pass a hell of a lot more gas than your Temples of Freedom, but that doesn't stop their industry cock blocking regulatory action and ensuring that dental offices to merely adhere to nothing more than OSHA.

Dentists are not anesthesiologists, and shouldn't be allowed to act as such.

America never ceases to amaze me how it manages to reach both extremes of any issue at once.

Quote from: The Brain on April 12, 2013, 02:12:13 PM
I saw the visual aid and decided not to read. :smarty:

Smart man. I did the same and now I am going to argue this out of context, without understanding the issue. It's the Languish way.  :bowler:

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
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.

Yeah this is surprising. By the way, am I guessing right that this story is about late term abortions that sorta spill into birth?

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
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.

Yeah this is surprising. By the way, am I guessing right that this story is about late term abortions that sorta spill into birth?

There was no sorta - he'd snip their spinal cords with scissors.

But it was also the general conditions.  One of the murder counts was one of his female patients.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:33:29 PM
America never ceases to amaze me how it manages to reach both extremes of any issue at once.

We are super, super awesome. :showoff:

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 04:43:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
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.

Yeah this is surprising. By the way, am I guessing right that this story is about late term abortions that sorta spill into birth?

There was no sorta - he'd snip their spinal cords with scissors.

But it was also the general conditions.  One of the murder counts was one of his female patients.

Gotcha. I never understood how that works in the US. For all the bible thumping and "in God we trust", they have some of the most liberal (for lack of a better word) abortion laws on the planet. I may be wrong but I don't think there is any country in pinko-commie-godless Europe that allows abortion past second trimester.

Anyone who is fine with a third trimester abortion but is not fine with killing a newborn baby is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

Edit: Also, cheers for the mental image with the scissors. Just what I needed before going to bed, fucker.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:46:25 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 04:43:42 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:41:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
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.

Yeah this is surprising. By the way, am I guessing right that this story is about late term abortions that sorta spill into birth?

There was no sorta - he'd snip their spinal cords with scissors.

But it was also the general conditions.  One of the murder counts was one of his female patients.

Gotcha. I never understood how that works in the US. For all the bible thumping and "in God we trust", they have some of the most liberal (for lack of a better word) abortion laws on the planet. I may be wrong but I don't think there is any country in pinko-commie-godless Europe that allows abortion past second trimester.

Anyone who is fine with a third trimester abortion but is not fine with killing a newborn baby is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

Edit: Also, cheers for the mental image with the scissors. Just what I needed before going to bed, fucker.

It's not like I made this stuff up dude.

And in PA at least these abortions were also not allowed.  The guy's entire practice seemed to be doing illegal 3rd trimester abortions.

Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

One would have thought that a respectable crown prosecutor would not stoop to posting stories that have no other purpose than to titillate the public.

The pic was a bit much, yeah. :(

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

One would have thought that a respectable crown prosecutor would not stoop to posting stories that have no other purpose than to titillate the public.

You're right - it is about a person killing for profit.  That's what makes it murder and not, you know, abortion.

And - Meowtf?

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 04:51:31 PM

It's not like I made this stuff up dude.

There's a reason we asked you to put a warning on it. At least the first time it was behind a link. Oh wait, no it wasn't.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:57:00 PM
It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

:sleep:

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 04:55:30 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

One would have thought that a respectable crown prosecutor would not stoop to posting stories that have no other purpose than to titillate the public.

You're right - it is about a person killing for profit.  That's what makes it murder and not, you know, abortion.

And - Meowtf?

Yeah, exactly, so what's the point of posting this story in such a graphic detail WITH pictures? It's not like, when there is a "normal" murder people go out of their way to describe the act in detail and post pictures of the deceased post-mortem.

So yeah I suspect an agenda.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:57:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

It may sound callous, but while both are murder, murdering an unwanted newly born baby with no personality or memories seems less heinous than murdering a loved adult who is a fully developed person.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 05:01:30 PM
It may sound callous, but while both are murder, murdering an unwanted newly born baby with no personality or memories seems less heinous than murdering a loved adult who is a fully developed person.

You're right:  it does sound callous.  Doofus.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 04:55:30 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

One would have thought that a respectable crown prosecutor would not stoop to posting stories that have no other purpose than to titillate the public.

You're right - it is about a person killing for profit.  That's what makes it murder and not, you know, abortion.

And - Meowtf?

Yeah, exactly, so what's the point of posting this story in such a graphic detail WITH pictures? It's not like, when there is a "normal" murder people go out of their way to describe the act in detail and post pictures of the deceased post-mortem.

So yeah I suspect an agenda.

If I wanted to show you graphic pictures I'd show you the pictures contained in the grand jury report (which is linked to in the first paragraph of the article).

You think that picture was bad?

[spoiler]you should see the pic of the baby in the shoebox, or the close up of the incision on the back of the neck where the scissors went:cry:[/spoiler]

Can't murder just be extremely heinous in all cases without further qualifications? :)

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
If I wanted to show you graphic pictures I'd show you the pictures contained in the grand jury report (which is linked to in the first paragraph of the article).

You think that picture was bad?

[spoiler]you should see the pic of the baby in the shoebox, or the close up of the incision on the back of the neck where the scissors went:cry:[/spoiler]

Beeb, I'm not pissed at you or anything, but why do you feel the need to show any pics of dead babies, 'bad' or not?  For example, I posted a thread a few weeks ago about the Jodi Arias case on trial here in the US and while I posted pics of Arias so the peanut gallery could deem her HOTT or not, I didn't post any pics of her murder victim post-murder even though these are easily found on the interwebs.

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 05:07:11 PMYou think that picture was bad?

Yes.

Personally, I'd appreciate you not posting pictures of dead babies.

Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2013, 05:09:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 05:07:11 PM
If I wanted to show you graphic pictures I'd show you the pictures contained in the grand jury report (which is linked to in the first paragraph of the article).

You think that picture was bad?

[spoiler]you should see the pic of the baby in the shoebox, or the close up of the incision on the back of the neck where the scissors went:cry:[/spoiler]

Beeb, I'm not pissed at you or anything, but why do you feel the need to show any pics of dead babies, 'bad' or not?  For example, I posted a thread a few weeks ago about the Jodi Arias case on trial here in the US and while I posted pics of Arias so the peanut gallery could deem her HOTT or not, I didn't post any pics of her murder victim post-murder even though these are easily found on the interwebs.

:huh:

The only pic I posted was one from the original article.  My spoiler doesn't contain any actual pics, merely a description.

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 05:13:41 PMThe only pic I posted was one from the original article.  My spoiler doesn't contain any actual pics, merely a description.

Whether it was in an article or not doesn't change the fact that you posted it on languish.

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 05:01:30 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:57:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

It may sound callous, but while both are murder, murdering an unwanted newly born baby with no personality or memories seems less heinous than murdering a loved adult who is a fully developed person.

What about some like you who is not loved?

And yeah, the pic was a bit much.  Lets avoid posting pictures of mutilated human corpses if we can.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:57:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

Ahh, there's my Johnny.

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 05:20:07 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 12, 2013, 04:57:00 PM

Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2013, 04:52:39 PM
Oh ok. So this is about a criminal killing people for profit. So where's the catch?  :huh:

It'd be a different story to some people if he aborted them in the 21st trimester with an assault rifle in a classroom, as opposed to the 3rd trimester in an alleged abortion clinic.  Then it would be no biggie.

Ahh, there's my Johnny.

Scissors don't kill people, people kill people.

I don't really get how the picture is that graphic. If you go to the article itself, which is a mainstream U.S. news website, that same picture is right there for the world to see with no spoilers or warnings. I'd think if it's appropriate for the news website for a major American city, on the front page and with no "graphic images" warning, it should be fine for Languish.

I guess I forget not everyone has seen lots of fucked up bodies in their life. But this picture wasn't that crazy, no worse than pictures I've seen pro-lifers walking around town with.

Had to joke that I was looking at porn so the wife wouldn't see the dead baby.  :sleep:

Man, that's some fucked up shit.

Meh pictures not that bad. Sad story. Didn't read it all since Im at work. Might read it over the weekend.

Quote from: Legbiter on April 12, 2013, 06:00:19 PM
Had to joke that I was looking at porn so the wife wouldn't see the dead baby.  :sleep:

Great. Now your wife thinks that dead babies turn you on.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on April 12, 2013, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on April 12, 2013, 06:00:19 PM
Had to joke that I was looking at porn so the wife wouldn't see the dead baby.  :sleep:

Great. Now your wife thinks that dead babies turn you on.  :P

:lol:

She's 3 months pregnant. I'd sooner go "nothing honey, go back to sleep, just sexting up a chick I'm fucking" than let her see this.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 02:40:07 PM
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.

I imagine a lot of them knew they were doing something unlawful and understood this is where you can get help to do it.

I'm not sure how I feel about the abortions--it's definitely awful work, and bright line rules about personhood are probably necessary, but I neither know nor particularly wish to discuss (I'll leave talking about shit that clearly really upsets other people to Martinus) where they should lie--but the state of the facility and the lack of concern for the adult patients is, to me, the far more shocking part.  I think at the point that a high school student is about to give me anesthesia or I see dust all over the equipment, maybe "adoption" or "raising a child" starts to sound like the lesser of evils, but some people get very desperate and cannot think clearly, if they could think clearly in the first place.

Well, we're talking about babies that are fully born and then killed. I don't really know anywhere that isn't just considered straight infanticide. Historically there were times and places, in much harsher societies, where we can argue about the necessity for specific cases of infanticide. In the ancient world a clearly deformed/disabled baby just wasn't something people of the time could take care of nor could it ever have any real life or even much hope of survival. In those contexts infanticide is a necessary tragedy. But this is the United States we're talking about here and someone who is theoretically a medical doctor having fully delivered babies spinal cord's severed. That's murder pretty much everywhere in the OECD and even most of the third world.

It's actually not that far removed from partial-birth abortion, which is one point Marti made correctly. There is really no defense for partial birth abortion from a moral or even legal standpoint. I will say, a late term pregnancy if the doctors find a complication and have to choose a method of ending the pregnancy that kills the baby I'm okay with the mother making that decision from a legal standpoint, but the doctors should be required to do anything within their power to preserve the fetal life in those scenarios where it doesn't interfere with the medical treatment the mother needs to receive.

Quote from: OvBWell, we're talking about babies that are fully born and then killed. I don't really know anywhere that isn't just considered straight infanticide. Historically there were times and places, in much harsher societies, where we can argue about the necessity for specific cases of infanticide. In the ancient world a clearly deformed/disabled baby just wasn't something people of the time could take care of nor could it ever have any real life or even much hope of survival. In those contexts infanticide is a necessary tragedy. But this is the United States we're talking about here and someone who is theoretically a medical doctor having fully delivered babies spinal cord's severed. That's murder pretty much everywhere in the OECD and even most of the third world.

It's actually not that far removed from partial-birth abortion, which is one point Marti made correctly. There is really no defense for partial birth abortion from a moral or even legal standpoint. I will say, a late term pregnancy if the doctors find a complication and have to choose a method of ending the pregnancy that kills the baby I'm okay with the mother making that decision from a legal standpoint, but the doctors should be required to do anything within their power to preserve the fetal life in those scenarios where it doesn't interfere with the medical treatment the mother needs to receive.

Well, recognizing that this is in the context of what is clearly a tragedy and a most egregious breach of medical ethics and common morality, I guess I have to address it since I did bring it up.

I'll start with the position that I don't think infanticide is a good thing.  However, if you accept the pro-choice arguments about personhood, I think logically you have to accept that it is very unclear whether late-term fetuses or even babies are people in the full sense of the word.  Since obviously most people feel that killing a nine month old fetus at delivery is really terrible, and I'm not exactly cool with it myself, I'm fine with that being criminalized, since in most cases the mother has had all the chances in the world to abort at an earlier, less contestible time.  My point is solely that bright line rules like 24 weeks, or birth, or a month after birth, are administratively and legally convenient, but violations thereof are unlikely to be malum in se in every case, and never to the same same degree that, say, killing a thinking, speaking, remembering--clearly fully human--two year old is.

Thus the state's interest in that life (as it is always a life), could be argued to be outweighed by other factors prior to the time (whenever that is) that a full human emerges from the sentient but not-yet-sapient brain of a fetus, at which point the law must protect them, or you veer off a slippery slope where it protects no one.

Since that slope is very slippery, birth plus one day is pretty much the absolute latest I could accept (and then probably with some caveats, like horrific disability like Harlequinism, where it would clearly be a mercy, or surprise birth--which I guess maybe happens--or complete lack of access to medical care preventing a lawful abortion, etc.), and 24 weeks doesn't hurt my feelings a bit, even though both are not extremely meaningful in terms of personhood, etc, on an intellectual level (though on an emotional level, which is not trivial, such boundaries may mean a great deal).

Also, and this is important, I have always been more concerned about the infliction of or indifference to pain and suffering, than I am the actual destruction of any given life.  This is for various philosophical reasons that I won't bore you with, but that's also part of why I'm probably more upset about the adults who got seriously hurt and no doubt traumatized, than the fetuses/infants, who at least went relatively quickly--not to say entirely painlessly, but I'm not a doctor.

I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but with an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

My wife's cousin's wife had a baby at 24 weeks and she lived, but she has some sort of eye problem and so wears these goofy looking glasses.  Everyone says they look so cute but I think she looks like a nerd and want to give her diaper wedgies. :mad:

Quote from: Caliga on April 12, 2013, 08:34:15 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but with an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

My wife's cousin's wife had a baby at 24 weeks and she lived, but she has some sort of eye problem and so wears these goofy looking glasses.  Everyone says they look so cute but I think she looks like a nerd and want to give her diaper wedgies. :mad:

I'm glad she's alive and relatively healthy, but the general public doesn't see the vastly majority who are fucked up. They tend to die early or end up as wards of the state in ventilator farms. If you've ever been to a ventilator farm (essentially a building with 30+ teenagers attached to ventilators, feeding tubes, and the mental functioning of infant) then you'd reconsider the ethics of intervention.

This same couple had a baby earlier who was also born at 24 weeks but died about 3-4 days after birth.  For some reason her womb refuses to carry a baby fully to term. :hmm:

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 05:47:56 PM
I don't really get how the picture is that graphic. If you go to the article itself, which is a mainstream U.S. news website, that same picture is right there for the world to see with no spoilers or warnings. I'd think if it's appropriate for the news website for a major American city, on the front page and with no "graphic images" warning, it should be fine for Languish.

I guess I forget not everyone has seen lots of fucked up bodies in their life. But this picture wasn't that crazy, no worse than pictures I've seen pro-lifers walking around town with.

It's the context.  I would have preferred that Beeb linked to it rather than hotlinking.  Or at least posted a picture of Martinus getting hit in the head or groin with a brick to lighten the blow.

If I saw a pro-lifer with those damn pictures, I'd have them lynched, after reading a Lettow essay about heroic Klansmen to figure out the best way to do it.

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 04:27:55 PM
Generally for major dental work you're going to various types of specialist dentist like endodontists who often have more sophisticated surgical setups than regular dentists.

But arguing for more procedures to be like dental work is a bad argument. A surprisingly large number of people die from dental surgery, not like you should be in a panic about it, but more than most people realize. I for one would never allow a dentist to put me under for surgery (I actually have never had a cavity, and even had all my wisdom teeth come in without need of removal, so I've never had dental surgery of any kind) , I've read about the extra training on top of regular dental school that dentists have to go through in order to be certified to put you under. It's surprisingly not a lot, and it's not surprising that sometimes dentists make mistakes with it and kill people.

I'm not sure if NJ's just stricter about it or what, since I don't know the pertinent regulations offhand, but the last time I had dental surgery, the dentist had a separated licensed anesthesiologist on staff.  Which came in handy, actually (I've got a super-severe phobia of needles that triggers my fight-or-flight reflex *bad* with shots of pure adrenaline to boot, so they can't really just jam a needle in my gum for local anesthesia- I'm about as special a snowflake as a surgeon could ever hope to get :P ).

@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc. Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Seconded.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 10:34:18 PM
@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc. Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

Is that what it was about?  I thought it was the about the right to walk waist-deep into the water and collect fish eggs.  Roe vs. Wade.

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

Dr. Gesnell was performing abortions well past 24 weeks.  Hell many of the ultrasounds were falsified to incorrectly label the baby as being 24.5 weeks. 

What was creepiest of all was a brief discussion in the grand jury report that Dr. Gesnell would do "the big ones" on Sundays, when no staff was present and he was only assisted by his wife.  Those Sunday "big ones" do not form a part of any of the charges since no records were kept of those abortions...

Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2013, 11:25:22 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

Dr. Gesnell was performing abortions well past 24 weeks.  Hell many of the ultrasounds were falsified to incorrectly label the baby as being 24.5 weeks. 

What was creepiest of all was a brief discussion in the grand jury report that Dr. Gesnell would do "the big ones" on Sundays, when no staff was present and he was only assisted by his wife.  Those Sunday "big ones" do not form a part of any of the charges since no records were kept of those abortions...

Based on what else was done during normal business hours it doesn't seem crazy to suppose maybe he was straight up killing children up to 6 months of age if brought in on Sunday.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 10:34:18 PM
@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc.  Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

1)You may not have read Roe in a while--Blackmun's opinion mentions it a fair amount, and the money quote there is something along the lines that fetuses aren't people in the full sense, something like that.  But you are correct about Casey--it is not discussed in Casey because that's not what Casey is about.  I doubt it was mentioned in Ayotte.  It's kind of alluded to in the pointless sections of Carhart that sit uneasily aside the legal analysis.  There are other USSC cases where maybe it's mentioned, maybe it's not, and zillions of lower court cases where I suspect it has been discussed, but I am not writing a law review article...

2)...nor was I discussing the legal precedents which have established the privacy rights and balance of interests that determine when it is constitutionally impermissible to prohibit an abortion.  I was, as you say, discussing the ethics of ending a life from a physical point of view.  Outside of a wacky moral system like Jainism or similar, the level of personhood (for lack of a better term) is the test by which killing crosses from a neutral to bad act.  That said, the legal basis for abortion is informed by such ethics: if a fetus could talk in the womb, I find it highly unlikely we would permit its destruction, regardless of the coverage of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the woman carrying it.

Viability is an inane way to test personhood, from that point of view, since it largely tests ability to breathe and keep a heart beating, none of which are sufficient indicators of personhood, as there are many viable organisms which we do not attribute personhood to.  But it is administratively convenient and serves as a stark legal boundary, and the potentialist argument holds significantly greater weight with a viable fetus, and these are not unimportant things.

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 12:29:17 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM
You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

derspiess sponsors GORK wheelchair racing teams with quarter panel ads.

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 12:29:17 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Anyone else you want to off?

For the record, just to be clear, my opposition to late term abortions is limited to "abortions-on-demand". I do not oppose them when the fetus is badly damaged or mother's life/health are at risk.

For the record, just to be clear, oh wait I've run out of clarifying phrases that I recall. :blush:

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 12:29:17 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.

25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Quite a bit of difference between aborting a healthy fetus at 24 weeks and making a decision not to expend extraordinary resources keeping preemies alive.

Quote from: dps on April 13, 2013, 05:28:03 AM

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 12:29:17 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 09:54:36 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM
I think it's absurd to consider aborting a 24-25 weeker to be murder. Babies delivered at that age are usually very fucked up and end up being a huge burden on parents, medical resources, and the social safety net. You'll find many neonatologists who think it's unethical that we're intervening so early to keep babies alive... but just alive. They generally have an absolutely horrible long term quality of life.

You disgust me.

Your disgust pleases me.
25 week babies who end up costing multiple millions of dollars with no quality of life disgust me. You aren't pro-life. You're pro-vegetable-on-a-ventillator-and-PEG tube feedings.

Quite a bit of difference between aborting a healthy fetus at 24 weeks and making a decision not to expend extraordinary resources keeping preemies alive.

Yeah, but isn't the qualification 'viability'?  Should viability take into account those extraordinary resources?

Elaborate.

I was under the impression that the rules for abortion were that you couldn't abort something that could survive outside the womb.  But do they take into account heroic medical efforts in that calculation?  And should they?

My position is that we should provide parents with the option of heroic measures, but only when the fetus has reached a point where those measures will give the patient a good quality of life. When you're in the 25 week range we can keep the collection of cells alive. We can't stop it from bleeding into it's brain and developing cerebral palsy / mental retardation, bowel problems, severe respiratory problems, sepsis, etc. Which the vast majority of fetuses at that point end up doing.

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
My position is that we should provide parents with the option of heroic measures, but only when the fetus has reached a point where those measures will give the patient a good quality of life. When you're in the 25 week range we can keep the collection of cells alive. We can't stop it from bleeding into it's brain and developing cerebral palsy / mental retardation, bowel problems, severe respiratory problems, sepsis, etc. Which the vast majority of fetuses at that point end up doing.

"good quality of life" is an incredibly slippery slope.

Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2013, 09:31:16 AM

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
My position is that we should provide parents with the option of heroic measures, but only when the fetus has reached a point where those measures will give the patient a good quality of life. When you're in the 25 week range we can keep the collection of cells alive. We can't stop it from bleeding into it's brain and developing cerebral palsy / mental retardation, bowel problems, severe respiratory problems, sepsis, etc. Which the vast majority of fetuses at that point end up doing.

"good quality of life" is an incredibly slippery slope.

We're on the bleeding edge of science's capacity. Everything's going to be a slippery slope. I don't see how you avoid that. Right now the situation in the US is that of course these parents seek treatment because it's offered by the neonatologist. There are many in those circles who think the extraordinary care should be withheld until the pregnancy reaches a point where an intervention to keep it alive does more good than harm. It's unethical to offer help to those parents when the price of that help is so immense. But most parents will never turn it down.

Quote from: Barrister on April 13, 2013, 09:31:16 AM

Quote from: Fate on April 13, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
My position is that we should provide parents with the option of heroic measures, but only when the fetus has reached a point where those measures will give the patient a good quality of life. When you're in the 25 week range we can keep the collection of cells alive. We can't stop it from bleeding into it's brain and developing cerebral palsy / mental retardation, bowel problems, severe respiratory problems, sepsis, etc. Which the vast majority of fetuses at that point end up doing.

"good quality of life" is an incredibly slippery slope.

Which is why doctors should be held to the highest ethical standards.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 13, 2013, 12:06:47 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on April 12, 2013, 10:34:18 PM
@Ide, what law school did you go to again? Pro-choice arguments, at least legally, aren't based on personhood versus not personhood. That might be the ethical argument, but the legal argument has always been that prior to fetal viability the State cannot violate the woman's right to privacy in acquiring medical treatment. At viability the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus to regulate abortion in various ways.

In Roe v. Wade viability was considered synonymous with third trimester, but in Casey the court clarified that viability was viability, whatever it might happen to be.

Further, I don't know of any jurisprudence that would apply to the United States where an diminished privileges of a person would result in them not being protected from various harms. Yes, one minute old babies cannot vote, live on their own, sign contracts, own property etc--but it's pretty much always been murder to kill them, assault to attack them etc.  Murder isn't a crime based on how valuable the life of the victim is.

1)You may not have read Roe in a while--Blackmun's opinion mentions it a fair amount, and the money quote there is something along the lines that fetuses aren't people in the full sense, something like that.  But you are correct about Casey--it is not discussed in Casey because that's not what Casey is about.  I doubt it was mentioned in Ayotte.  It's kind of alluded to in the pointless sections of Carhart that sit uneasily aside the legal analysis.  There are other USSC cases where maybe it's mentioned, maybe it's not, and zillions of lower court cases where I suspect it has been discussed, but I am not writing a law review article...

2)...nor was I discussing the legal precedents which have established the privacy rights and balance of interests that determine when it is constitutionally impermissible to prohibit an abortion.  I was, as you say, discussing the ethics of ending a life from a physical point of view.  Outside of a wacky moral system like Jainism or similar, the level of personhood (for lack of a better term) is the test by which killing crosses from a neutral to bad act.  That said, the legal basis for abortion is informed by such ethics: if a fetus could talk in the womb, I find it highly unlikely we would permit its destruction, regardless of the coverage of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the woman carrying it.

Viability is an inane way to test personhood, from that point of view, since it largely tests ability to breathe and keep a heart beating, none of which are sufficient indicators of personhood, as there are many viable organisms which we do not attribute personhood to.  But it is administratively convenient and serves as a stark legal boundary, and the potentialist argument holds significantly greater weight with a viable fetus, and these are not unimportant things.

Keep on topic white trash. This is what you said:

QuoteI'll start with the position that I don't think infanticide is a good thing.  However, if you accept the pro-choice arguments about personhood, I think logically you have to accept that it is very unclear whether late-term fetuses or even babies are people in the full sense of the word.  Since obviously most people feel that killing a nine month old fetus at delivery is really terrible, and I'm not exactly cool with it myself, I'm fine with that being criminalized, since in most cases the mother has had all the chances in the world to abort at an earlier, less contestible time.  My point is solely that bright line rules like 24 weeks, or birth, or a month after birth, are administratively and legally convenient, but violations thereof are unlikely to be malum in se in every case, and never to the same same degree that, say, killing a thinking, speaking, remembering--clearly fully human--two year old is.

The point is the jurisprudence on abortion never made the argument about personhood, because that's basically an impossible standard to apply realistically. That's why the focus was on right to privacy (it's irrelevant where and when personhood may have been mentioned in the text of Roe, the actual ruling was that the State couldn't violate a woman's right to privacy to protect a non-viable fetus but it could to protect a viable fetus--viable defined as third trimester in Roe but that was modified by Casey.)

A nine month old fetus that has been delivered is a human infant, it is not a fetus. Note that this spiel of yours was in response to me saying, "we're talking about actually delivered babies here." That's not even "killing a fetus at delivery" as basically happens with partial-birth abortions, but actually delivering a fetus--thus making it a human under the law of basically all civilized countries in the world. Our laws have always recognized delivered fetuses as humans for the purposes of homicide laws (murder/manslaughter etc.) Some States punish the killing of a fetus equivalently to murder (in cases where a murderer kills the mother or something and the fetus dies, or where an assault on the mother kills the fetus etc), but that's a separate issue. The core issue is dude had babies actually get delivered and killed them. That's murder, period.

Your dissembling is stupid and ignorant, just like you are. It's never mattered how smart or individual or whatever a living human is, killing them is a crime. I can't go brain a retard just because I feel like it. Your idea that somehow the mother dying should be considered any different in terms of "heinousness" of a delivered baby dying is reprehensible. Both are humans, once the fetus is delivered it is no longer really arguably whether or not we consider it a human for purposes of homicide laws.

 :face:

I wasn't writing a legal brief, but only explaining my view of ethics, which is why I didn't cite case law, only alluded to laws that exist or have existed and told you whether I thought they had a solid ethical foundation, and that foundation is not perfect, which you even agree with.  For some reason you do cite case law.  It's a free country, I guess.

Oh, but since you want to actually make this a legal history argument. :rolleyes:

Personhood is by no means irrelevant in Roe, because the extent of personhood of the fetus determined whether the Court would accept the states' arguments that 1)the Fourteenth Amendment applied to the fetus and 2)the states' interest was sufficiently compelling to substantially impair a fundamental right.  Like I said, pal, read it again--or maybe for the first time--and maybe until you do, shut the fuck up about what it does and doesn't say, OK? :)

Quote from: J. BlackmunThe appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [n55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa.1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.E.2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. at ___, 285 N.E.2d at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [p159] Ohio St.2d 65, 275 N.E.2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.

...

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160]

...

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. [n63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [p162] courts have squarely so held. [n64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. [n65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. [n66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Otto sez: Lol Wade was the baby right?

Just a few more edits plz.

QuoteJudge drops 3 murder charges against doctor Kermit Gosnell

It took the prosecution five weeks to present their case against West Philly abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell and it took defense attorney Jack McMahon a couple of hours to knock a big hole through a critical part of their argument.

Three first-degree murder charges were dropped against Gosnell after McMahon argued that "there is not one piece...of objective, scientific evidence that anyone was born alive" at Gosnell's clinic.

Prosecutors have argued that the babies were viable and that Gosnell and his staff cut them in the back of the neck to kill them.

Gosnell was originally charged with eight counts of murder. Seven first-degree murder charges are for accusations that he killed seven newborns. The third-degree murder charge is for the 2009 death of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old Bhutanese refugee prosecutors say received lethal doses of sedatives and painkillers at the clinic while awaiting an abortion.

He also is charged with violating Pennsylvania abortion law by performing abortions after 24 weeks, operating a corrupt organization and other crimes. Gosnell was originally charged with seven counts of first degree murder.

Gosnell, 72, still faces five remaining murder charges and the possibility of the death penalty if convicted of any of the first-degree cases.

Judge Jeffery Minehart has not explained the reasoning behind today's rulling.

Former staffer Eileen O'Neill is also on trial. The 56-year-old Phoenixville woman is charged with practicing medicine without a license, and taking part in a corrupt organization. Six of the nine theft by deception charges she faced were dropped today as well because the prosecution didn't present any witnesses to support those charges.

The investigation into Gosnell's clinic began in February 2010 with agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI who were conducting two raids on Gosnell's clinic in search of drug violations. Instead, they stumbled upon "deplorable and unsanitary" conditions, including blood on the floor and parts of aborted fetuses in jars. State regulators followed up with their own investigation, shutting down the Women's Medical Society clinic at 3801 Lancaster Avenue in West Philadelphia and suspended Gosnell'slicense.

The case then went to a grand jury. Their nearly 300-page grand jury report released in January 2011 described Gosnell's clinic as a filthy, foul-smelling "house of horrors" that was overlooked by regulators.

Prosecutors said Gosnell made millions of dollars over three decades performing thousands of dangerous abortions, many of them illegal late-term procedures. The clinic had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, a family physician not certified in obstetrics or gynecology, yet authorities say many administered anesthesia, painkillers and labor-inducing drugs.

The grand jury report stated furniture and blankets in Gosnell's clinic were stained with blood, instruments were not properly sterilized and disposable medical supplies were used repeatedly.

Bags, jars and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building, which reeked of cat urine because of the animals allowed to roam freely.

State regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him and made just five annual inspections since the clinic opened in 1979, investigators said. Several state employees were fired and two agencies overhauled their regulations after the allegations.

Gosnell has always maintained his innocence. He pleaded not guilty and has remained held without bail since his arrest. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty in the infant deaths.

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by inducing labor and cutting the babies' spinal cords and caused scores of women to suffer infections and permanent internal injuries, but they said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.

Eight clinic workers including Gosnell's wife, a beautician accused of helping him perform illegal third-term abortions, have pleaded guilty to a variety of crimes. Three of Gosnell's staffers, including an unlicensed medical school graduate and a woman with a sixth-grade education, pleaded guilty to third-degree murder for their roles in the woman's overdose death or for cutting babies in the back of the neck to ensure their demise.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News after the clinic was raided, Gosnell described himself as someone who wanted to serve the poor and minorities in the neighborhood where he grew up and raised his six children, who include a doctor and a college professor.

McMahon, disputes that any babies were born alive. He has suggested that the woman who died, Karnamaya Mongar, had undisclosed respiratory problems that could have caused fatal complications.

McMahon has accused officials of "a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution" and "a prosecutorial lynching" of his client, who is black, and of applying "Mayo Clinic" standards to Gosnell's inner-city, cash-only clinic. He said Gosnell performed as many as 1,000 abortions per year, and at least 16,000 over his long career, with a lower-than-average complication rate.

After about a week of jury selection, seven woman and five men were chosen along with six alternate jurors. The trial began March 18 and is expected to last about two months.

Gosnell's former employees have testified that they were just doing what their boss trained them to do and described long, chaotic days performing gruesome work for little more than minimum wage paid under the table. An assistant testified she snipped the spines of at least 10 babies at Gosnell's direction, sobbing as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one baby she thought could have survived, given his size and pinkish color.

Mongar's 24-year-old daughter testified about the labor-inducing drugs and painkillers her mother was given as she waited hours for Gosnell to arrive for the procedure. She said her mother was later taken to a hospital, only after firefighters struggled to cut bolts off a side door of the clinic, but she died the next day.

Prosecutors wrapped up their five-week case with a former worker at Gosnell's clinic who testified that she saw more than 10 babies breathing before they were killed. The defense was slated to begin presenting its case Monday but Gosnell's attorney told the judge he was sick and went to a hospital for tests.

QuoteMcMahon has accused officials of "a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution" and "a prosecutorial lynching" of his client, who is black, and of applying "Mayo Clinic" standards to Gosnell's inner-city, cash-only clinic.

"If black women wanted a standard of care above the nightmarish, they should have been born white, you goddamn racists."

Quote from: Kleves on April 23, 2013, 09:24:16 PM

QuoteMcMahon has accused officials of "a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution" and "a prosecutorial lynching" of his client, who is black, and of applying "Mayo Clinic" standards to Gosnell's inner-city, cash-only clinic.

"If black women wanted a standard of care above the nightmarish, they should have been born white, you goddamn racists."

You want to know what I blame this on the breakdown of?  Society!

Fucking elitist honkey swine. :mad:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2013, 08:23:33 PM
Judge drops 3 murder charges against doctor Kermit Gosnell

It took the prosecution five weeks to present their case against West Philly abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell and it took defense attorney Jack McMahon a couple of hours to knock a big hole through a critical part of their argument.

Three first-degree murder charges were dropped against Gosnell after McMahon argued that "there is not one piece...of objective, scientific evidence that anyone was born alive" at Gosnell's clinic.

Prosecutors have argued that the babies were viable and that Gosnell and his staff cut them in the back of the neck to kill them.

What kingd of scientific evidence are they looking for? How can it be proved without an autopsy that they were in a condition to live? I assume that he disposed of most of the evidence, so aside from witnesses who claimed otherwise, what possible evidence could there be either way?

Guilty.

QuotePHILADELPHIA — Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a West Philadelphia doctor known for performing late-term abortions, was found guilty on Monday of three out of four counts of first-degree murder.

The verdict came after a five-week trial in which the prosecution and the defense battled over whether the fetuses Dr. Gosnell was charged with killing were alive when they were removed from their mothers.

Dr. Gosnell was acquitted of one first-degree murder charge involving an aborted fetus and was also acquitted of third-degree murder in the death of a 41-year-old patient.

Nancy Grace will be: pleased. :)