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. 

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)

Updated Info on State Employee Pay Cuts

Several people have written to me (publicly on the blog comment section and elsewhere) about my article calling for Washington State employees to face cuts in benefits and pay.  


The comments were from people whose spouses work for the State.  They were a little concerned that I would paint such an unsympathetic picture of the pay and benefits they receive.  Their families are facing tough economic times, too.


They're right to point out that the numbers I used in my post last week were averages, and that there are many employees who make a lot less than those figures represent.  Two of the comments were from home-schoolers, and I understand full well that finances are especially tight in families making the sacrifice of time and money to educate their children at home.  


That's the risk you take when you talk about average pay and benefits.  You risk under-emphasizing the outrageous examples at the top tiers.  You risk lumping in even those who are lower-paid (and who have lower benefit levels).  


In the future, I'll address some of the outrageous examples at the top.  But for now, please read this article from today's Washington State Wire.   It shows how non-union State workers would have faced higher cuts than union employees in a budget bill enacted this week by the State Legislature, but vetoed by the governor. 


I don't want to cause an uprising against public employees.  I do want everyone--even those employees-- to start dealing with the real issue facing Washington State:  Our government has made promises it can't afford to keep.  Cuts must be made, and everyone will take a hit in some form or another.  Shared cuts, meaning trimming benefits or wages for all state employees, are better than outright removal of jobs.  


Also on the subject of public-sector (government) unions, read this article by Bob Williams: "Why Private Sector Unions are Much Different than Government Unions."  It will explain why unions in government employment are not a good idea, and never will be.  The article is on the State Budget Solutions website, which I highly recommend to you.


Keep your comments coming.  I appreciate hearing your viewpoints.

Pregnancy Center Bill: Committee Votes to Push it Forward

According to the Washington State Wire, the State House Health Care & Wellness Committee passed the bill attacking pregnancy centers (HB 1366).  The article does not give a tally of votes, but it's expected that the Democratic majority was in full support of the bill.  More details should be available tomorrow.

In the meantime, read the Washington State Wire report, posted February 10, for details.

According to the article, the bill now goes before the House Rules Committee, and then perhaps to a vote of the full House.

House Bill 1366 was introduced at the same time as Senate Bill 5274, a similar bill.  No word yet on what is happening to the Senate's version.

Both bills seek to place nit-picky requirements on pro-life pregnancy centers and stiff fines for any violations.  The bill also sets out to force these agencies to disclose to women that the centers do not provide abortions, even though most of them already advertise in the yellow pages under "Abortion Alternatives."  Basically, they are aimed at shutting down the centers by restricting their free speech, and causing them to operate under fear of fines and legal fees.

For more details, read my Pregnancy Center Bills information page.