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.

Are women & babies safe in Washington?

The Dr. Kermit Gosnell abortion clinic trial has me absolutely infuriated with the media, and worried about women's safety--not to mention the lives of babies--here in Washington State.  The media spotlight is finally pointing in the direction of Pennsylvania, thanks to pressure from pro-life groups and the embarrassed outrage of some liberals who also noticed the problem.

But it all causes me to wonder:   Can we assume anyone is watching over what is happening in Washington State's abortion clinics?

Here's some background, in case you missed the story, thanks to the media's silence on the issue:

Pennsylvania abortionist Kermit Gosnell is on trial for murdering a woman during an abortion, and for murdering babies born alive during abortions.  Add to that, his clinic was a bloody, filthy, contaminated place where poor women were sometimes coerced into having their babies torn from their bodies.  Unqualified staff assisted in procedures. And Dr. Gosnell also kept baby body parts in jars as mementos.

The state of Pennsylvania skipped any inspections of Gosnell's clinic until a woman died there in 2009.  Officials obviously dropped the ball.

But the national media took the state's dropped ball and quietly kicked it under the couch.  A small splash of coverage accompanied Gosnell's 2011 arrest; but most major news agencies have given NO coverage to the trial, underway since early this year.  See Kirsten Powers' USA Today column calling attention to the "media blackout" on the case.

Given these facts, we need to ask some questions:

• Why doesn't the media want to cover this story?  
• Why wasn't Dr. Gosnell's clinic inspected by the state department of health for 17 years, and why were complaints from patients ignored during those years?
• Could similar atrocities be happening here, in Washington State, right now? 

Here are the answers:

The media doesn't want to hurt the abortion industry. 
The media loves a gruesome and horrific story, as long as it doesn't tread on sacred ground.

Consider the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings and the Newtown elementary school shooting.  Nobody loves terrorists, and their evil acts are played up for all to see.  But the pro-choice media fears that any negative publicity will put "the cause" of abortion-on-demand at risk.  Some even sort of come close to admitting that's their reasoning. One reporter wrote:

"... surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this [the Gosnell trial story] will restrict access to abortion:  that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion."

The government wanted to protect the abortion industry. 
Pennsylvania officials failed to inspect Dr. Gosnell's clinic for 17 years, in spite of several complaints about women's health complications and the clinic's unsanitary conditions.  You see, in 1999, Pennsylvania's pro-abortion governor and his administration ended routine inspections of abortion clinics, according to the Gosnell trial grand jury report.  On page 150, an official testified:

“there was a concern that if they did routine inspections, that they may find a lot of these facilities didn’t meet [the standards for getting patients out by stretcher or wheelchair in an emergency], and then there would be less abortion facilities, less access to women to have an abortion.” 

This could happen in Washington State. 
A couple of years ago I asked the Department of Health about Washington State abortion clinic regulations.  They are not regulated.  The practitioners who do abortions are subject to regulation, but not the clinics.  You can read about that here.

Washington State's governors--and many of our Democratic and some Republican legislators--have been unashamedly protective of Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion agenda for years.

Right now our State Senate is considering a "sweetheart deal" for the abortion industry, requiring insurance companies and employers to cover the gruesome practice even if they have a strong moral objection to it.  So you have to wonder:

• How safe are women who seek abortions in Washington State?
• How carefully and frequently does Washington State inspect abortion clinics?
• What happens if a baby is born alive during an abortion in Washington State?
• Is there a "Dr. Gosnell" butchering women and babies in Washington State right now, with officials looking the other way because they're afraid of harming the industry?

Is anyone else bothered by this?  Before you dismiss this as conspiracy theory nonsense, do your homework.  Watch this documentary on Gosnell's clinic and two women's testimonies, and skim the grand jury report.  Read whatever media coverage you can find.  Then start asking our State government to answer some questions. 

An abortion tax: Does it make sense?

A tax on abortions?  Why not?  In a time when we are strapped for revenue, why not levy a tax on a procedure that is infinitely more harmful than soda pop, candy bars, gasoline, or cigarettes?  It's something to think about.

Read more at the TaxProf Blog.

Alan Guttmacher institute (Planned Parenthood's research arm) reports this about Washington State's abortion numbers:

In 2008, 24,320 women obtained abortions in Washington, producing a rate of 18.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. Some of these women were from other states, and some Washington residents had abortions in other states, so this rate may not reflect the abortion rate of state residents. The rate increased 5% since 2005, when it was 17.5 abortions per 1,000 women 15-44. Abortions in Washington represent 2% of all abortions in the United States.

How much does an abortion cost?  I checked with the Feminist Women's Health Care Center (Tacoma and Renton areas), where I learned that a first trimester abortion costs $500-$1,000, and a second trimester abortion costs $600 to $10,000.  Would the tax revenue be worth it?  Should the tax be based on the potential loss of revenue, since a potential tax-payer is lost in the procedure?

It's something to think about.

Have you ever used the "except in the case of rape" argument? Then read this!

Back in the day, when I was a liberal-feminist type, I remember thinking that I was open-minded and compassionate when I would claim "pro-choice" as my label.  


I was quick to say that I would of course never choose abortion for myself, but it needed to be safe and legal, especially for cases of rape or incest.


I was so wrong, on so many levels.


Instead of going into this issue myself, though, I'd like you to read the compelling story of a woman who was conceived in rape, and almost aborted: 

Rebecca Kiessling: Conceived in Rape, Targeted for Abortion

This article is not only inspiring, it is philosophical.  It is thought-provoking.  She has made careful, reasoned arguments beyond the obvious one of "I wouldn't be here if I'd been aborted."


If you've ever used the "except in the case of rape" statement, this article will challenge your viewpoint and I hope open your mind to a new way of looking at the issues.  Do you have the courage to take another look?

YourOptions.com ads coming to Seattle area

Here's a great website to help women make informed choices about their pregnancies, and the options available to them:

YourOptions.com

Starting this week, the national nonprofit Vitae Foundation is sponsoring two, four-week advertising campaigns in Seattle to promote YourOptions.com.    Ads are going to appear on billboards, buses, and light rail.  

"Women need to know they have several positive options when experiencing an unplanned pregnancy," said Carl Landwehr, Vitae's President.  

He said the website will also promote local pro-life pregnancy centers, such as those under attack in the Washington State Legislature.  "We're thrilled we can play a role in letting women know that pregnancy centers are credible, safe environments where they can get the information they need."

This is empowering information.  Check out the website and see for yourself.

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.

Pro-Abortion terrorist nabbed by FBI

You don't hear a lot about pro-abortion terrorism.  Sounds naive, I know, but I've just assumed that the pro-abortionists do most of their attacking in the courtroom, in legislative offices, and in the sympathetic press.  They leave the terrorism stuff to misguided pro-lifers who take the law into their own hands.

Turns out there are acts of pro-abortion terrorism, and folks who promote and carry out violence against pro-lifers.  Some of those receiving threats are here, in Washington State.

I read this story at the Abortion in Washington site, based on a report posted February 26 (2 days ago) on AOL's Politics Daily:

Pro-Choice Extremist Reportedly Arrested by FBI for Threats to Pro-Life Activists

The story is about Theodore Shulman, 49, who has been making threats against pro-life people for years.  I visited a blog operated by a Theodore Shulman, and it does spout a lot of hate speech, and advocates violence against pro-lifers. 

Apparently Shulman trolls the internet looking for pro-life bloggers, and then posts threatening comments or makes threatening phone calls.  For example, check out what he's done to Abortion in Washington bloggers, as reported on their site: Abortion In Washington: Pro-Abortion Terrorist Who Threatened AIW (Abortion in Washington) Nabbed by FBI.  Google and you'll find other examples.

Creepy stuff.  But I wondered if the arrest was a true story; after all, this was the first I'd heard about it, and the story is two days old.   

So I searched the web to see what other mainstream media outlets are carrying this (even Fox News).  I didn't find any mention of it, except for the AOL story, and a lot of pro-life newsies and bloggers repeating it.

So I checked the Federal Bureau of Prisons website and found that there is an inmate named Theodore Shulman, 49 (federal inmate register number 64781-054) in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. The facility houses pre-trial and holdover inmates.  No other details were available.

This matters because I'm still concerned that free speech isn't so free when you're talking about pro-life issues.  I'm concerned that the media seems to be ignoring a story that is interesting, alarming, and definitely newsworthy.

Let's keep an eye on this one.