"Give up the Bad Boyfriend"-- abortion supporters need to wise up

Another abortionist has been "outed." Former staffers of a Texas clinic are sharing shocking tales of a doctor who allegedly killed many babies after they survived abortions.  Texas' lieutenant governor is calling for an investigation; you can read about it by clicking here. 

I wonder how many of these gruesome stories need to break before pro-choice folks wise up?  What more proof do they need that something is wrong?  It's obvious that allowing the abortion industry to regulate itself is not working.

Sadly, though, it's like dealing with a friend who's dating someone with serious faults, and they just don't want to face the truth.   "He didn't mean it."   "Maybe he'll change..."   "But he said he's sorry this time..."

It's time to ditch the "bad boyfriend" and move forward.  A person can still be pro-choice, and be pro-regulation.  Pro-choice folks need to move toward the center, toward reason, toward safety for the women at least.  The truth is so obvious!

Yet the level of denial is high.  You see this especially among the biggest abortion pushers.

For example, just hours after Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell was sentenced this week to life in prison, Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) released statements that were embarrassingly stupid, in terms what they either said, or didn't say:

• Planned Parenthood posted soberly that no woman would ever be victimized by Gosnell again. This was referring to the manslaughter charge for which he received 2-1/2 years.  But no mention was made of the three murder convictions, each carrying a life sentence, supposedly since they were just babies intended for slaughter anyway.  
• The National Abortion Rights Action League tried to blame pro-life advocates for the gruesome Kermit Gosnell abortion factory and its victims, in one of the most dizzyingly silly spins in history.  How about focusing on the fact that the clinic--and probably many others like it --were purposefully NOT inspected for 15 years because pro-abortion folks (like NARAL) didn't want to bring any attention to dirty little secrets that might harm their cause?

No medical procedure is so sacred that it should escape scrutiny.  This is especially true for a procedure that takes a life, and has the potential to permanently maim another.  Reasonable inspections and regulations seem to be the least we could do.

Evidence increases: We need to regulate abortion clinics more carefully

Pro-abortion folks have long promoted the notion that the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 paved the way for "safe" and "legal" abortions.   But fast forward 40 years, and though abortion is widely available, the unwillingness of lawmakers and pro-abortion activists to concede the need for regulation has put women in danger of the very things they once said they wanted to avoid.  In their zeal to oppose any and all abortion industry regulations, they focus only on the "legal" aspect, and not so much on the "safe" aspect.

This is a time when abortion rights fans and pro-life people can come together with common causes: First, that Planned Parenthood is not perfect, and should not be in charge of regulating its own industry; and second, that abortion clinics need regulation in order to safeguard women and any children accidentally born alive during an abortion attempt.

We can thank the Gosnell abortion mill trial, with its gruesome details and tragic accounts of babies and women murdered for profit and through carelessness, for bringing this need to light in a way that may be awakening even hard-line pro-choice people.  Members of Congress are looking in to whether abortion clinics are regulated sufficiently.  The U.S. House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to every health department in every state to find out how abortion clinics are regulated; the questions the letter poses are very thorough (you can read the letter by clicking here).  There is a May 22 deadline for replies; it will be interesting to read the results, which will alert us all to the needs for safeguards and gaps in regulations in our own states.

And the Gosnell trial is not an isolated case.  Just this past week a National Review Online reporter wrote an investigative piece about the shady operations of several Florida abortion clinics operated by the same team of abortion providers.  It was another gruesome tale of a poorly qualified medical staff with bad habits providing substandard care in an industry that doesn't get challenged much.  In the Florida situation, a 17-year-old girl was "thoroughly mangled;" at least one baby was allegedly delivered alive, then murdered; and first responders said baby corpses were stored in bags or boxes behind chairs in the recovery room, flies buzzing around a few of them.  State regulators admitted they did not do inspections of Florida clinics.

Here are other stories, some recent, some from last year -- and this is not an exhaustive search:

• Two Planned Parenthood clinic nurses cited "ridiculously unsafe" conditions as the reason they quit working for a Delaware clinic, according to an ABC News affiliate last month.

• Viriginia abortionists are fussing about new state regulations and the alleged threat they pose, though the rules seem very reasonable. For example, clinics are required to have an agreement with hospitals so they'll treat women suffering from botched abortion procedures; and clinics have to meet cleanliness and safety standards.  Abortionists say the regulations aren't necessary.  However, inspections resulting from these supposedly unnecessary regulations turned up some major problems this year.

• Two Chicago abortion clinics were closed after the state performed its first clinic inspections in 15 years, the Huff Post reported last year.  One clinic owner called the inspections "unfair," and said she felt victimized by the surprise inspection.

• In Maryland, a young woman lost her baby, and her life, at a clinic which had been licensed without ever receiving an inspection, according to a report last year.

The common thread in all these clinic stories, besides medical abuse and dead babies, is that state officials either ignored regulations for many years, or they didn't want to regulate clinics at all.  Of the Delaware case, the ABC affiliate reported: 

"In Delaware, abortion clinics are not subject to routine inspections. The state only steps in when they have a patient complaint. Planned Parenthood is essentially in charge of inspecting itself."

That is our situation in Washington State.  It should make us all feel uneasy.  In Washington State, abortion clinics are not inspected by the Department of Health, unless a complaint is filed.  Regulation is supposed to be done by Planned Parenthood.  Doesn't this seem a lot like asking the publisher of a "skin magazine" to chair a committee regulating pornography?  It just doesn't make sense, unless your aim is to leave things alone and not cause any trouble for the industry.

It's funny that the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) tries to say that all these mutilations, and infant deaths, and unsanitary clinics are precisely the reason NOT to regulate clinics.  Really!  We're to believe that their way is better, and we're to ignore the growing evidence showing that they've failed to police themselves.  They try to scare us into acceptance, breathlessly proclaiming that any regulation will take us back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days, the "back alley" abortion days, when they say women were denied safe and clean abortions.

Strange.  If the goal is to make sure abortions are "safe and clean," as their spokesperson said, having a neutral agency regulating and inspecting abortion clinics seems like a no-brainer.  Sadly, NARAL and others like them are more about protecting abortion than protecting women; and of course, the babies are not to be considered at all.

In 2011, more than 20,000 abortions were reported in Washington; there are probably 1.2 million in the United States in a given year, according to Planned Parenthood's own research agency, the Guttmacher Institute.   This is a serious women's health issue, far too serious to be left in the hands of those with a vested interest in covering up any problems.   So bring on the congressional committee investigation; and then bring on the inspections.  It's about time.

State Legislature benefits Planned Parenthood... again

Some of you may have seen a letter to the editor of The Bellingham Herald blasting State Rep. Jason Overstreet for speaking out against increasing funds for poor women's health services.  As usual with that particular letter writer, the facts were missing or obscured.  Instead of being "shocked" by Overstreet's speech before the Legislature, we ought to be thanking him.

Sadly, the bill expanding this program was passed by the House and Senate late last month.  All we can do now is make sure the record is straight on why it was a bad idea, and who saw through the "gee, let's help the poor" smoke screen put out by Planned Parenthood in its bid to keep its revenue stream high... yes in other words, set ourselves up for an "I told you so" moment.
Here is a letter I submitted to the Herald today:

When a state-subsidized program is supposed to save us money by spending money... well, let's just say I'm doubtful, and very skeptical, especially when Planned Parenthood is involved.

Planned Parenthood's latest money-making scheme: Convincing the legislature to expand the "Take Charge" program. At first, it sounds like a good idea: Give free birth control to more poor women, reducing pregnancies covered by State Medicaid.

But it's a foolish time to expand any program, especially based on a dubious notion that it "could" save money; and it's really a revenue booster for Planned Parenthood. Rep. Jason Overstreet saw through this legislation and spoke out boldly. Rep. Vincent Buys and Sen. Doug Ericksen also voted against it.

But now, more people getting this new "free" benefit won't want to let it go. When dreamed-of State savings don't occur, we'll be stuck with it. Pills are cheaper than pregnancies, but the program also covers emergency contraception and sterilization. And there's the abortion factor.

The legislation doesn't fund abortions; but even the National Abortion Federation says half of all women getting abortions report they used contraceptives when they got pregnant.

Sounds like Planned Parenthood did alright for itself. Too bad it's at our expense.

Here are links to my sources.  Maybe you'll find some inspiration for writing your own letter about this issue:

Info on the bill from the Legislature's website


Info on the bill from Washington Votes


National Abortion Federation report

Link to State Senate's fiscal report on the bill

The letter making shocked noises about Overstreet's actions:  http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/02/2042659/opposes-overstreet-on-state-family.html

Here's information from other bloggers and sources about this bill, including statements that the program being expanded was actually losing numbers of people -- in other words, we're increasing a program that wasn't even meeting its capacity in the first place:

DSHS report (undated) saying they had not yet seen the expected decrease in Medicaid expense that they'd hoped for from the "Take Charge" program.

Blog shows Medicaid expenses have increased since "Take Charge" was implemented in 2001.

Bellingham Herald article on April 27, 2011, which stated: "the total amount the state spends on Medicaid-eligible deliveries every year has gone up by about $128 million since the program (referring to "Take Charge") began."

Abortion in Washington says this bill just increases interference in women's lives.

Planned Parenthood: More Funding, More Abortion (by Human Life of Washington)

The most unsafe place for pregnant women?

A pregnant woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic is not likely to carry her baby to term.  That sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it?

Yet it's based on these numbers from Planned Parenthood Federation's own 2009 statistics released in February 2011:

• total number of abortions performed nationally, added to total prenatal patients, and total adoption referral patients combined: 340,276

• 97.6 percent of that number were abortion procedures (332,278)

• about two percent of the total were listed as prenatal patients (7,021)

• and a tiny fraction (way less than one percent) received adoption referrals (977).

Does this make anyone a little uncomfortable?

This doesn't look like what you'd expect from an organization that makes a lot of noise about being pro-choice.  Looks like the choices are pretty one-sided.

How about when you recall that Planned Parenthood and its advocates are trumpeting the "need" to regulate non-profit pro-life pregnancy centers and the message they are delivering?   It's sounding less and less like their motives have anything to do with protecting women, isn't it?

Sounds to me like they could be trying to limit the information women can access.

Sounds to me like they may want to funnel as many women into their doors as possible.

Sounds to me like they could want full control over a woman's choices.

Sounds like women might be safer choosing to go somewhere else when they're pregnant.