Monday, June 30, 2014

Meet the Wisconsin abortionists who can't imagine why they've been denied hospital privileges

[Today's guest post by Rebecca Downs is part of our paid blogging program.]

Abortionist Dennis Dean Christensen, formerly of Illinois, now practices in Milwaukee. But the days of his business may be numbered: three area hospitals have denied him admitting privileges due to his extensive history of unsafe practices and bizarre behavior. Christensen has responded by challenging Wisconsin's admitting privileges requirement (SB 206) in court. He is joined by fellow abortionist Bernard Smith, who has a history of his own.

SB 206 was signed by Gov. Scott Walker last summer; among other things, it requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the procedure is performed. Federal District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary injunction, allowing Christensen and Smith to remain in business while the case is ongoing and Christensen continues trying to obtain privileges. Conley's final decision is expected in the next month.

Let's get to know the plaintiffs, starting with Christensen:
Christensen’s Rockford, Illinois, abortion business that was located in a former church building, was inspected on September 15, 2011, when inspectors found that all three of the abortion rooms “failed to ensure a sanitary environment.” Surgical instruments were not sanitized, and “brown substances” were found on surgical equipment and gloves. Inspectors also discovered that Christensen had no hospital privileges and failed to have a registered nurse present during invasive procedures as required in that state. The Illinois Department of Public Health issued a closure order five days later.
Unsurprisingly, Christensen's profile on gives him the lowest possible rating. Pro-lifers may also remember that Rockford, Illinois center for its... unusual response sidewalk counselors: "crucified" and "lynched" rubber chickens displayed in the windows. (Apparently at least one potential customer took that as a red flag—well, duh—and wound up choosing life.)

And then there's Bernard Smith:
He was involved in two medical emergencies on the same day in April, 2011. A previous complaint lodged in 2007 concerning other medical emergencies at AMS involving Smith went unheeded. 
It is no wonder that "doctors" with such records would be denied admitting privileges at a hospital! The agenda of the plaintiffs in this case is abundantly clear. The heck with their records, they want to stay in business killing unborn children, and possibly hurting women as well. When you look at the facts of the situation, one can objectively see the need for hospital privileges in order to truly protect women. Admitting privileges are just common sense.

Sadly, I'm not surprised that abortion advocates would look the other way when it comes to abortionists like Christensen and Smith. Both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are supporting their challenge to SB 206.


Rebecca Rose Downs said...

While we don't want it to be any kind of substance, my thought was blood that had been there for a while. And though this may sound kind of graphic (warning for you not to read if you don't wish to after this parenthesis then), I also thought of how sometimes period blood can be more darker/brown

JDC said...

Yes, that actually makes a lot more sense in a medical context than what I was thinking. Still horrifying, though.

SusieQ said...

People don't realize that physicians can't be denied privileges at a hospital for no reason. A hospital has to have a valid reason for denying privileges and they have to report the denial to the national physician database. It has no bearing whether the hospital administrator is pro-life or pro-choice. There are legalities involved and if the hospital denies privileges without reason they can easily be sued. I don't think these hospitals will have any issues defeating any legal actions by these physicians.