Thursday, May 2, 2013

In the womb at a shiny, clean clinic.

In response to the Gosnell trial, some pro-choicers are claiming this is what happens when we restrict access to abortion. They say Gosnell exemplifies exactly why we must fight to protect abortion rights. For example, here's NARAL's statement on the subject:
Kermit Gosnell’s actions were reprehensible, illegal and reminiscent of back-alley abortions from the days before Roe v. Wade. The conditions in Gosnell's clinic were horrific, demonstrating what can happen to women when abortion isn't available through safe and legal providers. This is why we work every day to protect the constitutional rights of women to access legal and safe abortion care regardless of income and geography.

Gosnell was a rogue operator taking advantage of an environment created by the careless oversight of local and state regulators. He preyed on women who were financially unable to choose a better option, thanks in part to Pennsylvania's repeated efforts to limit access to abortion. When states go to extreme lengths to restrict abortion, unscrupulous providers like Gosnell are often a woman's last resort. 
Gosnell's clinic was far below the standard of care. The conditions there remind us of what women were forced to go through before Roe v. Wade. We can never go back to those days of back-alley abortion. The best way – the only true way – and to ensure we don't is by protecting and strengthening access for all women to safe and legal abortion care.
Like so many pro-choice defenses of abortion rights, I can't help but notice NARAL's statements focus solely on the women, completely ignoring the infants Gosnell and his staff murdered. (I can say "murder" this time because these babies were outside their mothers' wombs when they were killed; there are no inane semantic arguments here about how "murder" and "abortion" are different because murder is illegal.)

That's okay, though. Over at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kyle Wingfield covers the infanticide angle [warning: graphic descriptions]:
    But pro-choice people are kidding themselves if they believe details of the way the mothers were treated are the only details from the Gosnell trial that matter in this debate. Consider these bits of testimony:
  • “I can’t describe it. It sounded like a little alien,” one of Gosnell’s employees, Sherry West, said of the screams coming from a baby she estimated to be 18 to 24 inches (i.e., the size of a child carried to full term) when it was delivered and then killed.
  • “It jumped, the arm,” another employee, Lynda Williams, said of a baby whose neck she “snipped” after it was delivered into a toilet. Williams testified that Gosnell told her not to worry about the “involuntary response” from an “already dead” child. But why would an “already dead” child have to have its neck “snipped”?
  • The post-birth abortion procedure was “literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body,” said Stephen Massof, who previously pleaded guilty to third-degree murder in the deaths of two infants at Gosnell’s clinic.
  • “I see this big baby boy laying there … He had that color of a baby. I didn’t feel as though he had a chance,” testified Adrienne Moton, who both worked for Gosnell and had two abortions at his clinic. Moton estimated she’d “snipped” the necks of some 10 infants.
  • “They looked just like regular babies,” said Ashley Baldwin, who began working at Gosnell’s clinic at the age of 15 and testified she witnessed five or more babies move, breathe or “screech” between their births and deaths. One of them was so large, she said, that Gosnell joked, “this baby is going to walk me home.”
    The point is this: All of those children had the ability to move, breathe, scream, screech and twitch before being removed from the womb. They did not become human in the birth canal, and they were not transformed from some stone-like existence to life via the birth-inducing drugs given to their mothers so that they might be pushed out.

    The notion that these killings would have been OK, if only they had taken place within the womb at a shiny, clean clinic, is barbaric.


Yvonne said...

It is incomprehensible to me that everyone doesn't see this clearly, it is barbaric and not mentioning the born live murdered babies is just disgusting and cowardly.

SynerGenetics said...

60 Oklahoma Dental Patients Test Positive for Hepatitis, HIV

Howland nurse accused of stealing pain pills, faces 48-count indictment

U.S. Inaction Lets Look-Alike Tubes Kill Patients

Even if this Gosnell fellow did 100% safe and legal abortions you would still go bonkers.

its called medical negligence and poor regulations, it happens for abortions and other areas of our health system where its not being properly regulated.

someone said...

The article fails to mention that the poor and desperate women were paying Gosnell hundreds of dollars not only for abortions, but for ridiculous mixtures of 'pain medications’, which they bought a la carte; they could have afforded to go to 'safe and legal' clinics. Some of his clients were also wealthy women from the suburbs who could have afforded a cleaner clinic as well.
Secondly, had Gosnell worked in a regulated, 'safe and legal' clinic, he'd still cut dangerous corners when no one was looking and still make lots of money doing it. Monsters exist and putting them on government payroll in a regulated clinic paid by tax dollars won’t change a thing.
Apparently, the women suffered because the state of Pennsylvania had been too harsh on abortion clinics? The reason Gosnell’s went on for so long was because both the state and health departments repeatedly neglected looking into the clinic and the only reason it was finally shut down was because some cops cracking down on his day-time drug business noticed the bad conditions. Conclusion: if not for that drug raid, had Gosnell been using a chainsaw on clients, his clinic would still be up and running today thanks to the ‘limitations’ Pennsylvania had placed on the abortion industry.

wat said...

It's always illegal to give dental patients HIV. It's always illegal to steal pain pills. But you can kill a baby before she's born, and that's legal. That's the difference.

You can insist abortion is no different from other medical procedures, but only if you believe taking human life is no different than cleaning teeth.

SynerGenetics said...

A abortion is no different than any other medical procedure.

The other problem is you bring up "your killing babies" routine, while ignoring what the woman wants because you don't address her concerns.

Since you don't address her concerns your saying women don't have the same rights as men because the rights of privacy do not apply to women. The very fact women get pregnant is open door for you to march into her life and tell her what she should do with her life.