Cassandra points out to us that Elise's blog is up and running again. Moseying over there, I found links to two articles from a year ago, addressing the Kermit Gosnell case. I won't attempt to re-open that wound specifically, though I found myself freshly shocked by details I hadn't yet managed to hear. What I will do is urge you to listen to the videotaped exchange (contained in the second article) between lawmakers and a Planned Parenthood representative. They are trying to ask her what objection Planned Parenthood has to a law requiring an abortion doctor to transport a breathing post-abortion baby to a hospital. After a fruitless exchange that lasts several minutes, she finally responds that there might be logistical issues if the clinic were a rural one that was as much as 45 minutes from the nearest hospital.
I have the strongest impression that she can raise this issue only because she's entertaining some essential confusion. Suppose a doctor were facing the excruciating choice whether to transport a patient to a distant hospital, knowing that attempting to treat the patient onsite might be too dangerous in light of his limited facilities, but also knowing that the difficulty and delay of transport might itself prove fatal. A good argument can be made that we should hesitate to pass a law mandating him to entrust his patient to an ambulance in every case. But the doctor this witness is testifying about isn't facing any such choice. He will not be "treating" the patient if it remains on his table. Asked whether the live baby has become the doctor's "patient," the witness is confused, mumbling that she's never really thought it through.
I see an allegiance to a system that's preventing a lot of people from confronting a concrete reality. What's more, this witness's answer is peculiarly troubling in view of the firestorm raised by Texas's recent legislation requiring abortion clinics to maintain ties to a full-service hospital no more than 30 minutes away. I frankly attributed that legislation to a desire to regulate a number of abortion clinics out of existence, but this testimony makes me wonder if I didn't judge the pro-life forces too harshly on that limited point.
Very good piece. I agree without reservation.
ReplyDelete(No, really. It can happen!)
I actually know where that building is, and the whole sordid story is just an awful example of what lack of oversight and regulation produces, which, I will add, occurred under Republican governors, pretty much because they didn't want to put up with the screeching of the usual suspects. And this is what comes of that.
ReplyDeleteYou think Gosnell's clinic is what comes of Republican governors not wanting to put up with the screeching of--whom? Abortion enthusiasts who see health and safety inspections as a Republican plot to shut them down?
ReplyDeleteI see a clinic operated in much the way we might expect by people whose consciences are thoroughly coarsened by the process necessary to steel them to delivering live babies and then snipping their spinal cords with scissors, then dumping them into empty orange juice containers or whatever was handy. Not killing them, mind you, but "ensuring fetal demise."
Eric, unless it's your contention that Gosnell started his abortion clinic sometime between 1941-1952, then I would suggest you revisit your thought process on the whole "occurred under Republican governors" statement. Because Philly has been under Democrat control since 1952.
ReplyDelete0>;~]
The Left has to get their war funding from somewhere .Might as well get it from get rich quick abortion doctors.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think the left will treat their domestic political enemies any different, if they can ensure those enemies are as helpless as a baby?
ReplyDeleteDL: you obviously don't know how things work in the state of Pennsylvania. Those clinics would have been inspected by the state, not the city.
ReplyDeleteTex:You think Gosnell's clinic is what comes of Republican governors not wanting to put up with the screeching of--whom? Abortion enthusiasts who see health and safety inspections as a Republican plot to shut them down? That is exactly what I am saying.
Then I guess I lost the thread of your argument.
ReplyDeleteEric, Pennsylvania was under a Democratic governor from 1987 to 2011 with the exception of a term and a half stint by Republican Tom Ridge in the mid-90's and his interim replacement until, viola!, another Democrat was elected. Please tell me how decades of Democratic control in the state now falls upon the singular instance of Republican governance when it comes to ensuring compliance with state health and safety regs?
ReplyDeleteWell, basically because Ridge's administration ceased the annual inspections of abortion clinics, for one, and while I didn't expect Rendell to start them again, Corbett didn't do anything either.
ReplyDeleteSo what's important here is not a whole swath of American politics devoted to preserving the right of abortion no matter what the cost, but the fact that weak-kneed Republicans in squishy northeastern states failed to deal harshly enough with their political opponents on an issue where the Republicans were in the right?
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am obtuse, But it seems to me , in this case, discussing the health and safety regulations is akin to arguing about the cleanliness of the bathrooms at Treblinka.
ReplyDeleteBut it's a little similar, if the nearest German town inspector knew what was going on at Treblinka and decided not to do his usual septic tank inspection because he didn't want to deal with what else he'd see there, or with his duty to trumpet it to the world, or with the danger that he'd be shot for publicizing it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously trying to tell me that a clinic that hadn't been inspected in decades, during which time there was a Republican governor for only 8 yrs, is a result of Republican malfeasance? You expect me to believe that the hundreds of fetus parts in Gosnell's *collections* were all accumulated only during the Republican's only eight yr stint at governance because, according to you, those are the only years when inspections didn't occur? Seriously?
He could be right about that, Sly, if the inspectors in Democratic regimes were prone to turn the other cheek. The people who might have done the right thing are the ones who decided not to do it.
ReplyDeleteTex's point, I think.
It's a lot to expect a temporary Rep administration to have the power to overhaul an entrenched bureaucracy. There's no doubt in my mind where the impetus for this kind of appalling clinic comes from, and it ain't Republicans. Do I wish Republicans would stand up to Democrats more effectively, sometimes? Sure, but they're fighting battles on a lot of fronts, and they probably could hardly bring themselves to believe that even hardened abortionists could behave this badly. Gosnell pretty much checked off all the boxes for revolting behavior, while relying on enthusiastic champions to shield him from discovery or interference.
ReplyDelete