January 19, 2011

"Pennsylvania is not a Third World country."

"There were several oversight agencies that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago."

Why, then, was nothing done? Prosecuting Gosnell is not enough.

173 comments:

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coketown said...

So when the mantra was, "safe, legal, and rare," they really just meant, "legal."

Youngblood said...

Sixty Grit,

So what you're saying is that if I remain unconvinced by your assertion that Pennsylvania is the Third World, I should drive over to New Jersey and see for myself?

I think that may be the stupidest thing I have ever read in these comment threads.

edutcher said...

Philadelphia, and I haven't been there in about 5 years, gets a bad rap. It's old neighborhoods are no worse than NY's or Baaston's, but a lot of it, Penn's Landing, Center City (thank you, Frank Rizzo) is quite nice - unless, of course, the Street brothers haven't wrecked it since last I was there.

As to the abortionist, this is the big lie feminism pushed for years. Safe has never been part of abortion since Roe - even health standards required for a small clinic aren't observed - and the feminists have made sure everybody turned a blind eye.

One of The Blonde's buds from work was over a few weeks ago and the conversation turned to this generally. If people really knew what abortions were like, they'd put the feminists and the Lefties who back them in front of a Nuremburg-style tribunal.

Hint: the baby is still alive when it comes out; the saline doesn't quite kill it.

PS Camden is a different world.

cubanbob said...

Balance the scales a bit and give that bastard a retroactive abortion.

Fred4Pres said...

Pennsylvania is not a third world country? Oh yeah, ever spend any time in Altoona?

Fred4Pres said...

I have to agree Camden is third world too.

traditionalguy said...

The Death Panels will soon issue their regulations requiring this Doctor's methods be used in partial birth abortions. It is cheaper than stopping the baby's head in the birth canal and clumsily inserting the scissors then. Let the murder victim come on out and be treated as a weak and helpless enemy...like Al Queada's tortured prisoners. Cheaper Deaths our the National goal under Obama's Regime.

jayne_cobb said...

Sixty Grit,

As a Pennsylvanian myself I would like to point out that Pennsyltucky does not include: Philadelphia or Pittsburgh (and in some formulations Erie and Harrisburg).

The key factor is that the 2 cities are Dem. strongholds and are therefore, according to our betters, far more civilized than the rest of the state (statistics be damned)

On a side note: Pennsylssippi and Pennsylbama are also acceptable.

bagoh20 said...

Hey, I'm from PA. Natural born, and I can prove it within seconds. PA is what happens after a nation goes beyond first world. It's called "progressive".

Chip Ahoy said...

That Grand Jury report on this is the most depressing thing I've read in ... since ... probably ever.

bagoh20 said...

This is offensive, agreed, but all the rest of the abortions are a civil right. University will teach you the difference.

sarisari said...

Too sad for words.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Pennsylvania is not a Third World country."

Um, based on the evidence, I beg to differ.

edutcher,

Hint: the baby is still alive when it comes out; the saline doesn't quite kill it.

Oh, what do they care? Priorities, ed. Girls just wanna have fun. They went there to kill it because it ruined *everything*. They've got an important date tonight, tomorrow - whenever. This "doctor"? He's on his own. They had nothing to do with murdering babies. They left, remember?

Jeez. You don't seem to understand anything.

Penny said...

This is the Grand Jury Report.

It's a 280 page pdf file. Instead of deciding you don't have enough time to read it, please decide to take ten minutes to read at least the first 20 pages.

You will be VERY sorry that you did, but at least you will come away feeling human.

Revenant said...

The Tucson shootings didn't prove that supporters of gun rights are wrong, and this event doesn't prove that supporters of abortion rights are wrong.

Some people use their freedom to do horrible things to other people. Be reluctant to suggest curtailing freedom when this happens.

Penny said...

You are preaching to the choir, Rev. I agree wholeheartedly.

Thing is, this story is horrific, and on so many levels, that people will DEMAND "something" be done.

Politicians have an unfortunate pattern of taking that to mean, "There ought to be a law"!...or, "Another law"!!...and another, and another, until that gosh darned law is followed... FOR SURE!

When people STILL do bad things, as they surely will, then it's high time to... up the penalty! And, up the penalty!!

So we got the penalty up to death, but hell, that costs taxpayers even more money than keeping the bad guys in jail for life.

Now... we need a law to outlaw the death penalty!

cubanbob said...

Revenant said...
The Tucson shootings didn't prove that supporters of gun rights are wrong, and this event doesn't prove that supporters of abortion rights are wrong.

Some people use their freedom to do horrible things to other people. Be reluctant to suggest curtailing freedom when this happens.

1/20/11 12:20 AM"

The right to own a gun does not confer the blanket right to kill someone because they are inconvenient.
Bad analogy.

Bender said...

Why, then, was nothing done?

You must be joking, of course.

Why was nothing done?

Because killing the unborn -- which the pro-abortion fanatics have extended into killing the newly born -- is pushed as being the greatest good ever in the history of the world.

Because EVERY attempt at even the most miniscule health regulation of the abortion industry is treated as right wing extremists wanting women to die!

Because, frankly, no one in the pro-abortion crowd, as well as the "pro-choice" crowd, gives a sh*t about women or their babies.

Bender said...

Safe has never been part of abortion since Roe

All Roe did is to take those back-alley abortionists and give them respectability and an office to keep doing what they had been doing, only with a different style of coat-hanger.

Bender said...

Why was nothing done?

Because people like Barack Obama fought tooth and nail against laws such as the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires that babies who are born alive in a failed abortion be given medical care, even though the "doctor" had intended to kill them.

Because of cases like Anders v. Floyd, 440 F. Supp. 535 (1977), where a premature infant was held to be merely a nonviable "fetus," despite living for 20 days after being born alive as a result of prostaglandin abortion, and further held to be "not a person whose life state law could legally protect," such that a federal injunction was issued against the state prosecution of the abortionist for murder.

Because we live in a bloodthirsty culture of death. Because when some people spoke out against such things, other people fought them and all to many others simply turned away and did not want to get involved.

Penny said...

""Pennsylvania isn't a third world country.""

But West Philadelphia is. Camden is, too. Feel free to add other cities, or enclaves within cities. Detroit? Newark? South side Chicago?

Please! Add your state's "third world country".

It's that place you won't go, but your tax dollars do.

Revenant said...

The right to own a gun does not confer the blanket right to kill someone because they are inconvenient.

Neither do abortion rights, obviously; the guy's under arrest, is he not?

Bad analogy.

Nah, it was pretty much perfect. The problem is that you don't think there is such a thing as abortion rights, just like many lefties don't think there's such a thing as a right to keep and bear arms.

Methadras said...

Of course Pennsylvania is a 3rd world country. Anyone been to shitburg lately? The land of the jutting jawed mongoloids?

Methadras said...

Oh but hey, it's a fetus, not a real human being, so it doesn't count. am i rite?

Revenant said...

Oh but hey, it's a fetus, not a real human being, so it doesn't count. am i rite?

"Fetus" covers a wide range. At week nine you're talking about a vaguely human-shaped lump of cells with a non-functioning brain and no ability to survive apart from its host. At week 40 you're talking about something functionally identical to a newborn baby.

The latter is a human being. Calling the former "a human being" kind of misses the point of the whole "being" part.

edutcher said...

Revenant thinks splitting hairs gives the Lefties an out. Viability is a scam to get past the idea that life begins at conception (I know, above the Lefties' pay grade). Alive is alive, dead is dead. It's easier to commit murder when the victim isn't viewed as human.

Penny said...

""Pennsylvania isn't a third world country.""

But West Philadelphia is. Camden is, too. Feel free to add other cities, or enclaves within cities. Detroit? Newark? South side Chicago?


How about most of Gotham and LA?

tim maguire said...

Revenant, abortion isn't wrong because of this event, this event is an example of why abortion is wrong.

Just like the Tucson spree was an example of why mass murder is wrong.

If the doctor had delivered everything except the head, it would have been ok, but the head slipped out before he mangled it so it's murder. In what twisted mind does that make sense?

mesquito said...

"We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.
The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.
Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …"

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/19/abortionist-faces-eight-counts-of-murder-in-philadelphia/

Pogo said...

Dr. Gosnell's just 'keepin' it real'.

Abortion is only illegal when it's icky. When it's clean and no one can tell what's happening, it's jes' fine.

It ain't the murder part that's bothersome to those favoring abortion. It's the blood-n-guts. All you gotta do is clean up better, Doc, then it's all good.

Pogo said...

"The problem is that you don't think there is such a thing as abortion rights, just like many lefties don't think there's such a thing as a right to keep and bear arms."

I see a second amendment covering the latter.

Shanna said...

Gross negligence on the part of pretty much everyone involved at the health agencies...they should all be fired. I have real problems with abortion, particularly late term, but this story isn't really about abortion, except that people used bs pc reasons to avoid shutting down an obviously awful doctor. Every health care review process in PA should be reviewed, and a ton of people fired. A ton.

On a side note: Pennsylssippi and Pennsylbama are also acceptable.

Yeah, I always heard the middle refered to as Mississippi, but as someone who has been to both, Pennsylvania is GORGEOUS compared to Mississsippi. Just saying. Gorgeous.

Shanna said...

this story isn't really about abortion

Actually, I take that back because some of it is...the stuff about babies in the employee fridge. The whole story is awful. Just awful.

Clyde said...

Prosecuting Gosnell is the first step. Investigating those who should have been overseeing him is the next one.

And that was one horrific story to read. Truly, truly evil.

AJ Lynch said...

This is the 2nd big state agency screwup to be announced in the last two days since Fat Eddie Rendell left office as governor of Pennsylvania. Coincidence? I think not- he likely pulled some strings to delay the announcements until he was out of the state capitol IMO.

MadisonMan said...

We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws

You mean bureaucrats aren't doing their job? How often does THAT happen!

I have never heard the term Pennsylsippi or Pennsylbama, and I'm a Centre County Native. It's always been Pennsyltucky. Draw lines from Bradford to Waynesburg, and from Carbondale to CUmberland MD and youi've encompassed most of it.

Pogo said...

Imagine those Pennsylvania agencies policing health care in toto.

But ain't nobody gon' be fired over this. They gots a scapegoat. Clearly what these agencies need is more money.

AllenS said...

I guess it's up to me to inform everyone that the doctor is black. The doctor was aborting fetuses which were also black and murdering black babies that didn't die on his first attempt. That's why it went on so long.

Leo Ladenson said...

Some people use their freedom to do horrible things to other people. Be reluctant to suggest curtailing freedom when this happens.


Exactly. Some masters abused their slaves, but slavery wasn't all bad--certainly not worth curtailing the slave owners' freedom of contract and property rights.

Freeman Hunt said...

Abortion is only illegal when it's icky. When it's clean and no one can tell what's happening, it's jes' fine.

I agree with Pogo.

If you support abortion rights over the full term of pregnancy, you should own up to the fact that you support the right to do this sort of thing as long as it's done in the uterus where you can't see it.

Pogo said...

Things That Must Not be Mentioned, number 17.

Scott M said...

Exactly. Some masters abused their slaves, but slavery wasn't all bad--certainly not worth curtailing the slave owners' freedom of contract and property rights.

I consider myself to be somewhat of a bright guy, Leo, but I confess I have no idea what you're talking about given the context of this discussion.

The Crack Emcee said...

edutcher,

Revenant thinks splitting hairs gives the Lefties an out. Viability is a scam to get past the idea that life begins at conception (I know, above the Lefties' pay grade). Alive is alive, dead is dead. It's easier to commit murder when the victim isn't viewed as human.

[sing song voice, dancing, and pointing]

Revenant's a Nazi! Revenant's a Nazi! La-la-la-la-LA-la!

The Drill SGT said...

Shanna said...
. Every health care review process in PA should be reviewed, and a ton of people fired. A ton.


Fired and lose any health related licenses.

Penny,

I got through 14 pages... I didnt need to read the charges, the first 14 pages documented the crimes well enough.

Mengele wasn't more evil than this guy, just more efficent.

Leo Ladenson said...

I consider myself to be somewhat of a bright guy, Leo, but I confess I have no idea what you're talking about given the context of this discussion.


Rev made the "abusus non tollit usum" argument. I added an ironic affirmation that in reality demonstrated that some "usus"--abortion and slavery, for example--is not defensible.

Like a joke, it's not as good if you have to explain it.

knox said...

Gross negligence on the part of pretty much everyone involved at the health agencies...they should all be fired.

Not only that, they should be prosecuted to some extent themselves.

But we have to pretty much assume that the punishment will be minimal, don't we? "Government Employees" are the new aristocracy. They can get away with stuff and enjoy perks that the rest of us can't.

You mean bureaucrats aren't doing their job? How often does THAT happen!

Well, that's a pretty breezy dismissal of the whole thing. This case is hardly routine. I would hope.

The Drill SGT said...

This shouldn't be a fight about abortion explicitly, regardless about how one feels about it, your abortion beliefs are just a "kicker".

The GJ had it right when they said:

Let us say right up front that we realize this case will be used by those on both sides of the abortion debate. We ourselves cover a spectrum of personal beliefs about the morality of abortion. For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of
mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.


These were crimes against humanity, writ small...

Pogo said...

From the Grand Jury: "Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere – because they were too pregnant."

In PA, apparently, you can be jes' a little pregnant.

Pogo said...

Any of those late-term women gonna be prosecuted?

Leo Ladenson said...

"For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants."


But what if the law disdains the lives and health of mothers and infants--as legal abortion does? This issue will never be resolved if that contradiction is not addressed.

Scott M said...

Like a joke, it's not as good if you have to explain it.

Ah. I didn't see Rev's comment and my battles with irony, pre-coffee, are legendary.

Freeman Hunt said...

Any of those late-term women gonna be prosecuted?

We women can't be expected to take responsibility for our actions. It's all the evil men in the world, trying to trick us.

Pogo said...

Of course it's about abortion.

Here's the crime that will go unpunished, from the grand Jury:

"Instead, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion
clinics at all.
The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of
administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
"

But they got a scapegoat, so all is well.

Freeman Hunt said...

Here's the crime that will go unpunished, from the grand Jury:

Unreal.

MadisonMan said...

Pennsylvania
Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion
clinics at all

Well then they should have fired the inspectors. Why employ inspectors who don't inspect?

The Drill SGT said...

Pogo,

21 years since the last annual inspection. sure it was political.

from the b'crat side, you are correct, but from the GJ side, whether or not you believe that abortion is wrong or right, it is the law, but what went on there clearly broke that law and was a crime. many crimes.

If I were in charge, I'd take all the evidence out of the police lockers, but it back in place and send EVERY PA Dept of Health official in there to clean the place with tooth brushes

then I'd stand them up against the wall and shoot them to encourage the others...

Pogo said...

Forget it, MadisonMan, it's Chinatown.

Maguro said...

Seems to me this type of "deliver and perform the abortion outside the womb" procedure must occur pretty regularly with late-term abortions. Think of how hard it would be to chop up a 5 or 6 pound fetus inside the womb. The physics are daunting.

Hard for me to believe this is much worse than what goes on in any abortion mill.

Saint Croix said...

"Why then was nothing done?"

This is what people said about Hitler. How could it happen?

Authority speaks. People listen.

It's all about rhetoric and how you use it.

Hitler did the Holocaust in secret. What is "final solution" if not a euphemism? He did it in secret because he knew it was evil and he had to hide it.

But Hitler spoke well. He was a magnificent speaker. People listened and they followed.

On some level they knew. They had to know. But they ignored it. They refused to believe it.

Our leader wouldn't do that!

I mean, you've been teaching Carhart to your classes for, what, a decade now?

You tell us, Ann.

How did you not know?

Phil 3:14 said...

from the article:
In a typical late-term abortion, the fetus is dismembered in the uterus and then removed in pieces. That is more common than the procedure opponents call "partial-birth abortion," in which the fetus is partially extracted before being destroyed. Prosecutors said Gosnell instead delivered many of the babies alive.

He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," District Attorney Seth Williams said.


How many people read that paragraph, thought
one is legal; one is not!?

and then thought

On my G*d!

The tyranny of the womb

Phil 3:14 said...

I'm a big believer that there are two ongoing abortions discussions, one regards the woman, her rights, her emotions etc. That's a discussion that generally excludes men. The other is one that centers around the fetus/child and regards such questions a when life begins and when it should have legal protection. That discussion includes men and women.

This article appears to the latter. I would really like someone to interview some of those women who sought the late term abortions. What were they thinking and what are they thinking/feeling now?

Freeman Hunt said...

This guy is Tiller with the veneer of medical stripped off.

The Crack Emcee said...

Freeman Hunt - Damn, my timing couldn't have been better:

We women can't be expected to take responsibility for our actions. It's all the evil men in the world, trying to trick us.

Then they need to take the TMR Reorientation Course: Section 1 - "Doctor"

It'll be good for Revenant, too. Nazis are just confused girls, anyway.

Saint Croix said...

I would really like someone to interview some of those women who sought the late term abortions. What were they thinking and what are they thinking/feeling now?

Hey Phil,

I think most of them are still upset about it.

http://afterabortion.com/

Saint Croix said...

The Supreme Court has put themselves in a really difficult place. You know they are reading this article this morning.

"Oh shit, we just lost the Washington Post."

I wonder who's going to play Breyer in the movie?

Saint Croix said...

This doctor, by the way, has a very strong ex post facto claim.

This wasn't a crime yesterday. Why is it a crime now?

The real criminals are higher up.

lemondog said...

Pennsylvania is not a Third World country.

You mean the town where Michael Vick is a hero?

Gross negligence on the part of pretty much everyone involved at the health agencies...they should all be fired.

No. If they are not all prosecuted as accessories to murder, then at the very least should be fired, fined and lose their, I'm sure, very generous public employee benefits.

Sanctions

It took over a decade for someone to check him out?!

Glosnell, who is not trained as an obstetrician-gynecologist, opened his abortion clinic on Lancaster Avenue in 1979, following an on-site review by inspectors from the Pennsylvania Department of Health.

**
"Starting in 1999, Penn Medicine provided reports to the authorities regarding patients of Dr. Gosnell who sought additional care at our hospitals," spokeswoman Susan E. Phillips e-mailed Wednesday. "We have cooperated fully with the District Attorney's Office."

Saint Croix said...

"For us as a criminal grand jury, however, the case is not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law"

The Supreme Court disregarded the law when they classified human beings as sub-human.

The grand jury is wrestling with the real world consequences of that appalling action.

Moose said...

Man, don't you people get it? All women want is to have their babies killed humanely! That's not too much to ask!

Saint Croix said...

Here's the Carhart opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html

Here's Carhart II:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html

TosaGuy said...

I think this guy should be #1 in worst people list.

Roger J. said...

I would certainly volunteer to have 5 minutes alone with Gosnell as long as I got bring my chainsaw to the session

bagoh20 said...

The second Amendment is there to protect the innocent. Abortion kills the innocent, and every single victim IS as innocent as a human can ever be. The procedure is designed to kill only the innocent.


I support a limited right to abortion, and I appreciate the concern for using crisis to step on rights, but the analogy is retarded.

Delayna said...

Leo, when I saw your first comment I remembered a bumper sticker: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

I wish I could change it to: "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!"

Class factotum said...

What was disturbing about the first several comments in Salon's story about this doctor is that nobody seemed bothered by the idea of six-month old babies being stabbed to death.

bagoh20 said...

"Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to print, buy or stick that on their car.

I still see Obama/hope stickers. I can forgive having one 2 years ago, but now? Does anyone still carry around Mao's little red book?

Scott M said...

What was disturbing about the first several comments in Salon's story about this doctor is that nobody seemed bothered by the idea of six-month old babies being stabbed to death

The pro-abortion "moderates" seem to have reluctantly admitted that the question revolves around when a person becomes a person. For the die-hards, there's simply no arguing, much like any zealot. With the six-month old comment, though, I know staunch pro-abortion people that maintain a child isn't morally a person until 8 or 9 and said they could make convincing arguments to back that up. I'm still waiting, mind you, but they said they could back it up.

bagoh20 said...

"I know staunch pro-abortion people that maintain a child isn't morally a person until 8 or 9 and said they could make convincing arguments to back that up. "

Well that itself is a pretty convincing argument that THEY are not yet morally a person, so maybe they are on to something.

Scott M said...

"I know staunch pro-abortion people that maintain a child isn't morally a person until 8 or 9 and said they could make convincing arguments to back that up."

Well that itself is a pretty convincing argument that THEY are not yet morally a person, so maybe they are on to something.


Well, these are the same sort of people that claim they are spiritual, but not religious; admitting that there is such a thing as a soul. When I ask when that soul/essence/energy/whatever leaves the body, we both agree it's when the corporal self dies. When I ask them when it enters the body...crickets...then a rapid change of subject.

Saint Croix said...

From the Salon article:

The utter horror that unfolded in Gosnell's clinic, Harding explained, illustrates the importance of "legal, high-quality abortion care."

I think it's the cat urine that upsets them.

pduggie said...

I used to live three blocks from that clinic, for a number of years. It looks pretty spiffy on the outside.

It was protested semi-frequently, as I recall.

The congressman from the district is Chaka Fattah, one of only 15 to vote against the Born Alive Infant protection act. Wonder if Gosnell will cry to him for help.

Gotta commend the Dem DA for doing something about this.

Leo Ladenson said...

Leo, when I saw your first comment I remembered a bumper sticker: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

I wish I could change it to: "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!"



I'd buy one--and put it right next to my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Palin" sticker.

lemondog said...

Does anyone still carry around Mao's little red book?

Anita Dunn?

Saint Croix said...

From the Salon article:

For no apparent reason, bags of dead fetuses littered his clinic...

Liberals kill me. They use euphemisms like "choice" or "privacy" or "right" or "liberty." They have a thousand Orwellian terms to hide what they are doing.

And then they wonder why the guy who does the dirty work has "bags of dead fetuses" in his clinic.

Why are you shocked?

He gives you a little gas, you wake up, you're not pregnant any more. Problem solved!

http://openjurist.org/469/us/1303/catholic-league-southern-california-chapter-v-feminist-womens-health-center-inc-a-238

edutcher said...

The Crack Emcee said...
edutcher,

Revenant thinks splitting hairs gives the Lefties an out. Viability is a scam to get past the idea that life begins at conception (I know, above the Lefties' pay grade). Alive is alive, dead is dead. It's easier to commit murder when the victim isn't viewed as human.

[sing song voice, dancing, and pointing]

Revenant's a Nazi! Revenant's a Nazi! La-la-la-la-LA-la!


Hey, Crack, ever hear of "The only good Indian is a dead one"? There's also the sacking of Jerusalem and the Rape of Nanking.

I went out of my way to avoid invoking Godwin.

If I wanted to go that route, I would have taken the Heinrich Himmler-Margaret Sanger trail

Saint Croix said...

Kermit the Monster.

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/115194/arrest_of_abortion_doctor_kermit

Pro-choices have decided to throw him under the bus.

"We know what he did. And it wasn't abortions."

prairie wind said...

Mengele wasn't more evil than this guy, just more efficent.

And this guy wasn't more evil than any other abortionist, just less sterile.

Saint Croix said...

life begins at conception

I disagree with this.

An IUD keeps a zygote from attaching to the uterus. But it's absurd to say that an IUD is murder.

We have laws on the books in regard to when people die.

It's the same law in all 50 states. And Washington D.C.

Total brain death.

When the baby starts having activity in her brain, then she's alive. When her brain loses all function, then she is dead.

"When does life begin?" is a vague question and unhelpful.

"When do people die?" is a far better question, a specific question that lawyers can answer. Because we have frickin' laws in place.

We don't apply those laws because the Supreme Court classified a baby in the womb as a legal non-person, and specifically said that our laws do not apply to her. She's outside our law, like a slave, or a Jew in Nazi Germany.

To apply our death statutes to the unborn is to give them the equal protection of the laws. The same rules that we apply to us.

But to do that you first have to recognize our common humanity.

Scott M said...

But it's absurd to say that an IUD is murder.

If you hold, strongly, that life begins at conception, this isn't absurd at all. It's only debatable if you hold that there's wiggle room, ie, brain activity.

Regardless, late-term abortions are absolutely barbaric any way you slice it.

mariner said...

Pennsylvania is not a Third World country.

No, but Philadelphia apparently is.

Scott M said...

Pennsylvania is not a Third World country.

No, but Philadelphia apparently is.


Parts of Philly, surely. But that could certainly be said for East St Louis, just a stone's throw from here. A very long, well-armed, and armored stone's throw.

mariner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mariner said...

Pogo,

Any of those late-term women gonna be prosecuted?

Prosecute a WOMAN!?!

Surely you jest.

Bender said...

I'm a big believer that there are two ongoing abortions discussions, one regards the woman, her rights, her emotions etc. That's a discussion that generally excludes men.

Quite to the contrary. That discussion is usually led and promoted by men.

Have you noticed how, in the last 38 years since Roe, nearly every abortion case is brought, not by any woman seeking an abortion, but by doctors -- male doctors -- who presume to speak for women, whether they want to be spoken for or not.

Moreover, in individual cases, you will note how, all too often, it is the man who demands that the woman abort, who drives her to the "clinic," and then promptly dumps her after doing so.

mariner said...

Delayna,

Leo, when I saw your first comment I remembered a bumper sticker: "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"

I wish I could change it to: "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!"

Yes.

Abortion is the 21st Century moral equivalent of slavery.

Every decent human being understands it's grotesquely wrong, but many people trip over themselves to deny it and look the other way.

Scott M said...

If you REALLY don't understand, you're either not as bright or not as honest as you think you are.

Possibly on both counts. Who's to know for sure? If you will follow the posts, though, you'll see that I missed a key response in the back-and-forth that made it crystal clear. Leo's response cleared it right up.

What's it say about you that you went out of your way to make hay about it?

Saint Croix said...

numerous patients were hospitalized with fetal remains still inside; with perforated uteruses, cervixes, and bowels.

Ah yes, the notorious "free floating fetal head" problem.

If you're wondering why this abortion doctor is inducing labor and murdering infants, it is because he was having problems with the D & E procedure.

This notorious method (used after the 13th week of the pregnancy) requires the doctor to grab the baby in the uterus and rip her apart piece by piece.

When you are in the third trimester--which is where the big money is--the medical problem is that the baby is so big, that it is unsafe for the woman to undergo the procedure.

So doctors came up with partial-birth abortion.

And the problem, of course, is that this is a p.r. nightmare for the abortion industry. Partial-birth abortion is half constitutional right, half murder.

Or, as Kermit found out, 100% murder, depending on how pissed off the D.A. is.

This "house of horrors" is a direct result of the Carhart opinion, which debated whether infanticide--by which I mean an abortion that takes place outside of the womb--was a constitutional right or not. 5 Justices said it was. And then, in Carhart II, 5 Justices said it was not.

But they didn't bother reversing their legal opinion that a baby in the womb is a legal object and our laws do not protect her.

So imagine Kermit's surprise when he is arrested for murder. He is charged with doing what Supreme Court Justices openly talk about.

"Our discussion may seem clinically cold or callous to some, perhaps horrifying to others..."

mariner said...

ScottM,

Possibly on both counts. Who's to know for sure? If you will follow the posts, though, you'll see that I missed a key response in the back-and-forth that made it crystal clear. Leo's response cleared it right up.

What's it say about you that you went out of your way to make hay about it?

After I saw your admission that you missed a key response, I went back and removed my comment -- it wouldn't have been honest of me to leave it there.

Your turn.

Saint Croix said...

They have dehumanized the baby in their minds.

Once you do that, it doesn't really matter where she is, inside the womb or out.

prairie wind said...

This is facinating only to you, mariner.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



I missed both the genesis of the Mariner/Scott M exchanges….I will delete this posting when all of you remove all your postings from this thread…..

Scott M said...

I missed both the genesis of the Mariner/Scott M exchanges….I will delete this posting when all of you remove all your postings from this thread…..

...the hell you say...

It was more of a misunderstanding. Not really an "exchange" of any note.

Saint Croix said...

Here is Barack Obama, arguing that the "born alive" rule is unconstitutional.

Scroll to page 85.

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

Maybe he will pardon Kermit.

Saint Croix said...

Or have a beer summit with those stupid policemen.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

It was more of a misunderstanding. Not really an "exchange" of any note.

Nice try Zombie-Boi…but from what I can see it was an “exchange.” The balls in your court now…..

Saint Croix said...

The outrage will pass. People will forget. The Supreme Court will use some legal rhetoric four years from now. If they bother to hear the case at all.

To 10 searches at Yahoo right now:

1. Healthy food
2. Michelle Obama
3. Eddie Aikau
4. Davis Love III
5. Mary Tyler Moore
6. Iggy Pop drummer
7. Anne Hathaway
8. Mafia arrests
9. Daniel Pearl case
10. Hezbollah

And Ann is on to an orgasm discussion.

Outrage vs ADD

no contest

Saint Croix said...

Googling "Kermit" is an odd experience now.

Scott M said...

Nice try Zombie-Boi…but from what I can see it was an “exchange.” The balls in your court now…...

That's about as accurate as your knowledge of EMP's. I accept your apology.

lol

By the by, I just finished a short-story anthology of zombie fiction. Utterly awful stuff. Even the intro's to each story written by the editor were awful. All of them were basically cannibalism porn. No redeeming value and nothing to say about anything other than trying very hard to be as graphic as possible.

There were only three exceptions. A story from Max Brooks about the Great Wall Of China that didn't make it into World War Z. One set in feudal Japan. Finally one that pretty much sucked as a story, but was set in Granite City, IL, right across the river here.

Thank God I didn't pay full price for the book. It was in the sales stack at Borders.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

All of them were basically cannibalism porn.

I …words fail me…that these words could be, somehow, strung together to create a coherent image appalled(s) me…I think I will need therapy to put that thought to rest…words fail me.

Scott M said...

They were pretty bad. I'll not be delving into the genre again save for Brooks' work, if he does any more.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



Honestly, I think I’d rather read Internet Star Trek FanFic. You are braver than I thought ScottM…

traditionalguy said...

The State should rename itself Transylvania.

Michael said...

'I have never heard the term Pennsylsippi or Pennsylbama"

Nor have I. I do not think you would find this kind of barbarism in the modern states of Mississippi and Alabama. I do not believe it reflects well on a Pennsylvanian to mock the residents of their own state while slandering those of another particularly in the instant circumstance.

Pogo said...

You can be certain this issue revolves entirely around abortion rather than some laws or other being broken.

Why?

Imagine if this doctor been operating a messy colonoscopy mill, and he stored jars with colon polyps all over.

Would it even hit the local news?

No.

Scott M said...

Would it even hit the local news?

No.


Well...maybe the local news...

Paul Brinkley said...

Skimmed the comments and didn't see this, so I thought I'd add it. Blank lines for emphasis.





If you decide to read the grand jury report linked above, be advised: starting on page 46, there are photographs.





...I don't think I'm going to be in a good mood for a while. And that was around page 9.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

All of them were basically cannibalism porn.

I don't know much about cannibalism porn, but I know what I like.

Paul Brinkley said...

Okay, slightly more upbeat note.

@Scott M.:
By the by, I just finished a short-story anthology of zombie fiction. Utterly awful stuff. Even the intro's to each story written by the editor were awful. All of them were basically cannibalism porn.

...well, how literate did you expect zombie writers to be? You should be thankful it wasn't 200 pages of "gnaaaaaahhh"...

But seriously, if you're liking Brooks' zombie fiction, you might like Day by Day Armageddon. Books 1 and 2 are out, and #3 is in the can, awaiting printing. Good story, good writing.

Saint Croix said...

If you decide to read the grand jury report linked above, be advised: starting on page 46, there are photographs.

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because of popular revulsion to partial-birth abortion.

And google.

Scott M said...

I've read and reread WWZ a couple of times and loved it. I read a first-time novelist try and blend superhero and zombie genres, with decent, if not out-of-the-ballpark success, but that's about it.

But for the couple of standouts I mentioned, these were awful and fully without any purpose save to gross someone out. The editor's preface to each story was the typical, self-aware, spooge-all-over-ourselves aggrandizement. In one such preface, for a story about a small down dealing with a general outbreak, he literally drew the line between us and them, meaning people that live in small towns. I don't live nor have I ever lived in a small town, but I don't like the implied elitism of the type of people that coined "outsider art".

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I don't know much about cannibalism pRon, but I know what I like.

Leg, thigh, or breast-person?

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

I guess it's up to me to inform everyone that the doctor is black. The doctor was aborting fetuses which were also black and murdering black babies that didn't die on his first attempt. That's why it went on so long.

The D.A. is black, too. And a Democrat.

That's why the media hasn't crucified him.

http://www.phillytrib.com/tribune/newsheadlines/17018-seth-williams-oversight-failure-enabled-abortion-mill-.html

Denzel will play him in the movie.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Not sure what you mean by that - did you omit an apostrophe? Punctuation is important.

*ROFL* Yes it is…I prefer the ambiguity….

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Rev made the "abusus non tollit usum" argument. I added an ironic affirmation that in reality demonstrated that some "usus"--abortion and slavery, for example--is not defensible.

The word you're searching for is "claimed", not "demonstrated". You did not demonstrate that abortion is indefensible; you claimed it, using the association fallacy to draw a parallel to slavery.

Anti-abortionists know that this doctor's disgusting and illegal behavior is abhorrent to approximately everyone in America. So they're cynically using it as an opportunity to push for restrictions on abortion in general, just like the gun grabbers are using a mass murderer's legal purchase of a handgun from a legal vendor to push for restrictions on handgun purchase in general.

Which was the behavior I was criticizing. If you think abortion is wrong, demonstrate why it is wrong. Don't just seize on the horrified reaction to an extreme event and use it to push your agenda.

Revenant said...

When Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be because of popular revulsion to partial-birth abortion.

Why would revulsion to partial-birth abortion lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade when Roe v. Wade doesn't prevent the government from outlawing partial-birth abortion?

holdfast said...

"He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," District Attorney Seth Williams said."

Maybe one of the MDs on here can comment, but I'll bet it is safer for the woman to do it this way. Since apparently this abortion "doctor" was a bit fumble-fingered, he may have decided to avoid further "perforated uteruses, cervixes, and bowels" by not attempting the equivalent of dismembering a small chicken using small pliers, while reaching through a flexible fire hose into a easily torn plastic bag. I mean really, once you're in the baby-killin' bidness, why NOT just ignore a silly legal fiction and minimize the risk to "mom" by extracting the baby the old fashioned way and then doing the necessary? Who was going to complain? His poor (in every sense) patients, desperate to be rid of the curse of motherhood? The government "inspectors" who had granted him de facto immunity from, um, everything?

holdfast said...

From p. 5:

"Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant – seven and a half months – when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the
body in a plastic shoebox for disposal. The doctor joked that this baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.”"


My son was born considerably earlier, at less than 3 pounds, and breathed without a ventilator.

Hanging is far too good for this monster, but I will personally volunteer to "snip" his spinal cord with a pair of rust hedge-trimming shears.

Freeman Hunt said...

Don't just seize on the horrified reaction to an extreme event and use it to push your agenda.

If someone is horrified that a doctor would do this to a baby at six months gestation outside the womb, maybe they should be horrified that a doctor would do this to a baby at six months gestation inside the womb.

E.M. Davis said...

Hanging is far too good for this monster, but I will personally volunteer to "snip" his spinal cord with a pair of rust hedge-trimming shears.

Nah. This bastard needs to suffer as much as possible.

Another problem with the abortion debate ... where were the fathers? Oh, that's right, 'reproductive rights' are only for women.

holdfast said...

page 30:

"Very often, the patient delivered without Gosnell being present. Lewis testified that one or two babies fell out of patients each night. They dropped out on lounge chairs, on the floor, and often in the toilet. If the doctor was not there, it was not unusual for no one to tend to the mother or the baby. In fact, several of the clinic’s workers refused to deal with the expelled babies or the placenta. So, after delivering babies, women and girls would have to just sit and wait – sometimes on a toilet for hours – for Gosnell to arrive."
. . . . .
James Johnson, who supposedly cleaned the clinic and bagged its infectious waste, confirmed Lewis’s account. He testified that sometimes patients “miscarried or whatever it was” into the toilet and clogged it. He described how he had to lift the toilet so that someone else – he said it was too disgusting for him – could get the fetuses out of
the pipes.

Revenant said...

If someone is horrified that a doctor would do this to a baby at six months gestation outside the womb, maybe they should be horrified that a doctor would do this to a baby at six months gestation inside the womb.

It was already illegal to abort a six month old fetus in Pennsylvania, whether inside the womb or outside of it.

So let's not pretend this is about convincing people that abortion a 6-month old fetus is wrong. The people of Pennsylvania were convinced of that a long time ago. This is about convincing people that abortion is always wrong at any stage of pregnancy -- and exploiting Gosnell's crimes to push that view is intellectually dishonest.

holdfast said...

Rev - maybe the "people" of Pennsylvania were convinced, but apparently the bureaucrats who actually run the state disagreed - so they granted functional immunity. Someone above used the phrase "gross negligence", but that is incorrect - we are talking willful misconduct, at the very least.

holdfast said...

p. 95

"Based on her observations, the [National Abortion Federation] evaluator determined that there were far too many deficiencies at the clinic and in how it operated to even consider admitting Gosnell to
NAF membership. On January 4, 2010, she wrote to Gosnell informing him of NAF’s decision and outlining the areas in which his clinic was not in compliance. The evaluator told the Grand Jury that this was the first time in her experience that NAF had outright rejected a provider for membership. Usually, if a clinic is able to fix deficiencies and
come into compliance with the standards, NAF will admit them. Gosnell’s clinic, however, was deemed beyond redemption.
We understand that NAF’s goal is to assist clinics to comply with its standards, not to sanction them for deficiencies. Nevertheless, we have to question why an evaluator
from NAF, whose stated mission is to ensure safe, legal, and acceptable abortion care, and to promote health and justice for women, did not report Gosnell to authorities.


Ooh, ooh let me answer!

Because, as distasteful and low rent as they found Gosnell to be, he is part of their dirty little fraternity and an attack on one is an attack on all.

Saint Croix said...

Why would revulsion to partial-birth abortion lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade when Roe v. Wade doesn't prevent the government from outlawing partial-birth abortion?

You're like Kevin Bacon in Animal House. "All is well! All is well!"

I think that any graphic discussion of "free-floating fetal heads" is pretty much a downer to the whole liberty/privacy/freedom/we are the world class of hippie fuckups.

It's called reality and it's a bitch.

I think there are too many dead bodies in too many closets. I think even Anthony Kennedy, who's head is so far up his ass he is gnawing on his sphincter, has to realize that all is not well, that Casty did not resolve anything, and that Scalia was right all along.

He might not say it, but he knows it.

But turn the page, close the door, keep us in the dark, repress, suppress and oppress, and maybe we can keep that august opinion going for another decade or two.

What's a few million baby corpses, anyway? Just invest in a crematorium and keep the cats outside. That's the lesson here.

holdfast said...

Does the 3rd World State of Pennsylvania possess a bar association, perchance?

"Staloski blamed the decision to abandon supposedly annual inspections of abortion clinics on DOH lawyers, who, she said, changed their legal opinions and advice
to suit the policy preferences of different governors. Under Governor Robert Casey, she said, the department inspected abortion facilities annually. Yet, when Governor Tom Ridge came in, the attorneys interpreted the same regulations that had permitted annual
inspections for years to no longer authorize those inspections. Then, only complaintdriven
inspections supposedly were authorized. Staloski said that DOH’s policy during Governor Ridge’s administration was motivated by a desire not to be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions."

Saint Croix said...

Rev,

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade? Did you know, for instance, that the Supreme Court held that there could be no health regulations of abortion in the first trimester, even for the mother's health?

None.

So if you're wondering why state and federal authorities decided to stop inspecting this abortion clinic, well, stop wondering.

Roe v. Wade is the shrine, and they all worship it.

Even if women get hurt, or die.

Synova said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

Rev - maybe the "people" of Pennsylvania were convinced, but apparently the bureaucrats who actually run the state disagreed - so they granted functional immunity.

What's more likely:

(1): They looked the other way because they don't see a problem with delivering babies and then stabbing them to death.

(2): They looked the other way to avoid the hassle of cracking down on a minority-run clinic in a minority neighborhood

(3): They looked the other way because they took bribes or other payoffs to look the other way, like so many government inspectors do.

I can believe 2, or 3, or both. But if you're trying to tell me that 1's the explanation all I can say is "... seriously? That's the explanation you're going with?"

Revenant said...

But turn the page, close the door, keep us in the dark, repress, suppress and oppress, and maybe we can keep that august opinion going for another decade or two.

So, to sum up your opinion... even though this was already illegal, and even though the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is fine for it to be illegal... people will be so outraged that they'll demand that something else entirely be banned. Then partial birth abortion won't just be illegal -- it'll be EXTRA illegal. Illegal with chocolate frosting and sprinkles!

I guess I can't rule that out. After all, people are proposing that ban "assault weapons" in response to a shooting that didn't involve an assault weapon. There are a lot of idiots in the world.

Synova said...

"It was already illegal to abort a six month old fetus in Pennsylvania, whether inside the womb or outside of it.

So let's not pretend this is about convincing people that abortion a 6-month old fetus is wrong. The people of Pennsylvania were convinced of that a long time ago. This is about convincing people that abortion is always wrong at any stage of pregnancy -- and exploiting Gosnell's crimes to push that view is intellectually dishonest.
"

Althouse asked, why was nothing done.

I think it is about convincing people that abortion of a 6 month old fetus is wrong.

Yes, it was against the law... but why was nothing done? Could it be that nothing was done because those who inhabit the agencies who are supposed to provide oversight believe two things? First, that it's most particularly better for poor minorities to abort than bring a child into their world... basically eugenic beliefs, and second, that the legal limits on abortion are wrong. It's not as though the belief that abortion should be available up to the day before a child is born normally is particularly rare. Not even Obama could bring himself to offend his constituents by coming out against late-term partial-birth abortions, and Teller is a heroic martyr.

I don't think that the claim that this can't be about late term abortions on account of them being illegal in Pennsylvania is supportable.

If horror of late term abortions equaled the fact they were illegal... why *didn't* anyone stop this?

holdfast said...

Rev:

They looked the other way because they see the right to abortion as sacrosanct, and don't want to do ANYTHING that could jeopardize it. They feared that Christianist Governor Ridge might force them to actually enforce the law in a way that could make abortions more difficult to obtain or more expensive.

They probably believed that nobody could be quite as despicable as Gosnell turned out to be, but let's not forget that it is perfectly legal in Penn. to dismember (in the womb, of course) an otherwise healthy and quite possibly viable 23 week old fetus. Once you are morally cool with that, what does a little extra time and 24 inches of location change really matter? I am sure many of those "people" don't agree with the laws prohibiting abortions after 24 weeks or banning PBA, and this was their silent protest - and so what if it cost the lives of some disposable babies and disposable women?

2 and 3 are also viable, so to speak - I'm an "all of the above" kind of guy.

The lesson here for conservatives is that we can pass laws all the live-long day, but it does not mean sh*t if the people running the "permanent government" choose not to enforce them. How many of these snivel servants are going to lose jobs or pensions over this - I'm betting on none. At most some early retirements with pension.

Synova said...

Rev... unless your #1 is true... how could #2 and #3 be true without the people involved being utter monsters?

The belief that abortions should be available late-term isn't rare.

Even before he was murdered, Teller was an example of tremendous bravery because he cared about women *so* *much*.

Revenant said...

Have you actually read Roe v. Wade?

Not in a while, but yes.

Did you know, for instance, that the Supreme Court held that there could be no health regulations of abortion in the first trimester, even for the mother's health?

That's incorrect, unless you're using "regulation" as code for "restriction". Roe allowed regulations related to protecting the health of the mother, e.g. checking to make sure the doctor isn't an unqualified hack with an untrained staff. In any event, the original trimester system from Roe was modified by subsequent Supreme Court rulings.

Pennsylvania, like every other state, has regulations in place governing how abortions may be performed. Those restrictions are constitutionally valid, and are enforced except in situations where the inspecting authority is corrupt or incompetent.

So if you're wondering why state and federal authorities decided to stop inspecting this abortion clinic, well, stop wondering.

Bans on non-lifesaving third-trimester abortions are constitutional under Roe and all subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and are illegal in Pennsylvania and most other states. There has never been a point in American history in which what this guy was doing was even a teeny little bit legal.

Your theory is cute and all, but it makes no sense. The explanation's simple -- the bureaucrats were crooked and/or corrupt. :)

Jay said...

The problem is that you don't think there is such a thing as abortion rights, just like many lefties don't think there's such a thing as a right to keep and bear arms.

That is because leftists can't read the text of the constitution.

Saint Croix said...

So, to sum up your opinion... even though this was already illegal, and even though the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is fine for it to be illegal... people will be so outraged that they'll demand that something else entirely be banned.

Have you read Carhart? It blows my mind that you think D & E is "something else entirely" than D & X.

I mean, I know that's Anthony Kennedy's position. But he's the only one saying that. Everybody else is appalled, appalled, appalled or right, right, right.

But you actually think it matters if a baby of the same gestational age is in the womb, out of the womb, or partially in and partially out?

That's why Carhart will be the death of Roe, because the born/unborn distinction in regard to homicide is just an ugly, stupid prejudice. And people are waking up to that.

"Let's keep her foot in the birth canal so I can kill her."

You can overrule Carhart (which they did) and you can throw Kermit under the bus (which they are) but it is glaringly obvious to more and more citizens that Roe v. Wade has killed a baby or two.

If I understand your position correctly, it is that all errors have been corrected and from this point forward all the baby-killing will be completely illegal? Glad to hear it.

"All is well!"

Some of us who are a little more cynical might look at the massive, homicidal fuck-up that are the Carhart opinions and decide that our legal authorities have zero fucking credibility in this area.

Your mileage may vary.

From Carhart II:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…

The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp…

Revenant said...

Rev... unless your #1 is true... how could #2 and #3 be true without the people involved being utter monsters?

Most people are capable of being utter monsters if they don't have to actually see the people being hurt.

My guess is that they figured "it's a clinic for poor black women, who cares". They may or may not have had their palms greased. In either case they don't appear to have ever bothered conducting an inspection -- they probably figured the guy was providing substandard care, but I doubt they realized he was killing not just fetuses, but grown women too.

Revenant said...

That is because leftists can't read the text of the constitution.

No, they just misread the bit about militias. Besides, anyone who supports Congressional regulation of abortion apparently can't read the Constitution either. There's nothing in there giving Congress authority over abortion.

So far as the abortion issue is concerned, the only people standing on firm Constitutional ground are the ones who think the individual states should be allowed to decided for themselves.

Revenant said...

It blows my mind that you think D & E is "something else entirely" than D & X

I don't. I think D&E and D&X are both "something else entirely" from the first-trimester abortions that constitute 90% of all abortions performed, that you think Americans will rise up to ban, and that you mysteriously blame for this particular crime spree.

Now, if you want to modify your original claim to say that eventually Americans will be so outraged by things like this that they will pressure the Supreme Court to allow bans on post-viability abortions... sure, I'll buy that. Could happen. It'll cut the abortion rate by 5%.

If I understand your position correctly

Little risk of that happening.

Saint Croix said...

Roe allowed regulations related to protecting the health of the mother,

In the second trimester. Not in the first.

1st trimster: no regulations
2nd trimester: regulations for mom
viability: regulations for baby

unless doctor decides abortion is okay (i.e. the "health" exception)

The Supreme Court spends as much time overturning laws designed to protect the woman's health as it does overturning laws designed to protect the baby.

For instance, we still can't require that an abortion take place in a hospital.

In fact, Roe is such a badly written opinion that states could not tell if they could require that an abortionist have a medical degree. That question was up in the air for two years.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/423/9/case.html

Saint Croix said...

There has never been a point in American history in which what this guy was doing was even a teeny little bit legal.

You have not read Carhart.

Barack Obama, who is President of these United States, voted against the born alive rule when he was a state senator. No, sorry, he voted present. But he argued against it.

These babies have been dehumanized. The mother takes them into the clinic to terminate them. The doctor terminates them. Why are you objecting to it? What's different about this guy?

It's the cat urine, right?

Freeman Hunt said...

It was already illegal to abort a six month old fetus in Pennsylvania, whether inside the womb or outside of it.

You're forgetting the health exception. Tiller, for example, made a lot of money using that loophole. His website even said that if your pregnancy was too far along to have a legal abortion, you should call his office to see what they could do (i.e. have them explain to you how to game the health exception).

Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Revenant, tell me that human dna produces anything other than human beings and I'll publicly apologize on here for my glaring ignorance on the subject. Otherwise, your definition of what constitutes a human being is nothing more than the meager rationalization of your inherent callousness towards humanity in situ of the womb. Human conception is the beginnings of humanity. Your partitioning of the stages of the human growth cycle in the womb doesn't negate that a human being is under construction and will become nothing but. Why you choose to deny this, I do not understand. So help me understand. I'm quite fluent in biology, so if you can, please spare me the effects of your snark.

Revenant said...

1st trimster: no regulations
2nd trimester: regulations for mom
viability: regulations for baby


You're reading the decision too simplistically. Note the Roe text for the first trimester: "the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician".

Like I pointed out above, under Roe the states could and did require that the person performing the procedure be a qualified physician, and of course states have a wide range of powers related to the licensing and testing of such and the conditions under which they may operate. What they could not do was place restrictions on the medical procedure itself.

Here's what Roe had to say about third-trimester abortions:

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother

Pennsylvania did this decades ago. So, like I pointed out before, the "abortions" Gosnell was performing would have been illegal even if he hadn't induced labor first.

unless doctor decides abortion is okay (i.e. the "health" exception)

Terribly offensive, I know. We can't have doctors and patients making decisions about what's best for a patient's health. That's what lawyers and politicians are for.

For instance, we still can't require that an abortion take place in a hospital.

There is no legitimate reason to have that requirement in place. The only reason pro-lifers push for it is that they know it makes abortions more expensive and difficult to obtain. If your concern was actually for the health of the mother, you would demand that midwives be outlawed and all births take place in hospitals. Birth is, after all, three times more likely to kill a woman than a second-trimest abortion is, and a hundred times more likely to kill her than an abortion performed in the eight weeks.

In fact, Roe is such a badly written opinion that states could not tell if they could require that an abortionist have a medical degree. That question was up in the air for two years.

Wrong. Read the case you cited. Connecticut correctly read the Roe decision as allowing them to require that the abortionist be a licensed physician. A private citizen claimed otherwise, took them to court, and lost. The states weren't confused; Patrick Menillo and the Supreme Court of Connecticut were.

Also note that this was decided 35 years ago, years before Gosnell's clinic opened for business. Which makes your "the state thought it couldn't regulate him" theory even more bizarre -- particularly since it apparently DID regulate him up until the mid-90s.

Revenant said...

You have not read Carhart.

Carhart covered D&X procedures performed on non-viable fetuses during the second trimester. The murder charges against Gosnell stem from his inducing labor in women who were well in their third trimester, waiting until they gave birth to viable infants, then killing the babies with scissors.

That has never, at any point, been legal, nor does it qualify under any of the Roe exceptions or any of the exceptions identified in the rulings since.

Bender said...

It must be nice to have such a greater understanding of all of the restrictions permitted by Roe than the justices of the Supreme Court did. To be sure, a great many state legislators thought that Roe left room for regulation as well.

The states passed laws well within Roe's rules, and the Supreme Court struck them all down, with rare -- very rare -- exceptions. Indeed, even Justice O'Connor noted that --
"no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion. The permissible scope of abortion regulation is not the only constitutional issue on which this Court is divided, but -- except when it comes to abortion -- the Court has generally refused to let such disagreements, however longstanding or deeply felt, prevent it from evenhandedly applying uncontroversial legal doctrines to cases that come before it."
-- Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U. S. 747, 814 (1986)

In short, the Court routinely moved the goalposts and changed the rules to strike down almost any attempt to enact laws in this area.

Now, of course, Roe is NOT the law. Rather, the "undue burden" test of Casey is the law. And what the hell is an "undue burden"? Who knows? But it certainly is much more a slippery "standard" that permits courts to overturn any other laws that they wish on wholly arbitrary grounds.

Bender said...

Oh, please save us from the ignorant maroons who think they know it all, but prove time and again that they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Revenant said...

You're forgetting the health exception.

I'm not forgetting the health exception,it just doesn't apply here. You can't plead "health exception" when you're performing the "abortion" by inducing labor and then killing the infant after it is completely separated from its mother's body. Not even D&X went that far, and D&X has been illegal for years.

As for people gaming the health exception, what's your suggested alternative? Eliminating it has 15% support among Americans, which means that two-thirds of pro-lifers think it is a retarded idea.

That means either leaving it up to doctors and patients, or having government bureaucrats second-guess doctors and patients. I guess which one of those you favor depends on how awesome you think ObamaCare will be. :)

Bender said...

You can't plead "health exception" when you're performing the "abortion" by inducing labor and then killing the infant after it is completely separated from its mother's body.

By the way, that "maroon" comment was directed at you.

Of course the exception can be pleaded then. Of course it HAS BEEN. And courts have bought it.

Example -- the woman will experience depression if the "procedure" results in a living baby. And since the woman's health is thus at risk, and since she also has a fundamental right to decide whether or not to beget children, i.e. have a living baby, and it is only a "baby" if she chooses to have a baby, rather than chooses to abort, then the state may not restrict her from doing so.

It is by this fraudulent (mental) health exception that there are ZERO restrictions on abortion for all practical purposes and effects.

Revenant said...

Revenant, tell me that human dna produces anything other than human beings and I'll publicly apologize on here for my glaring ignorance on the subject.

It also produces blood, skin cells, lungs, kidneys, pancreases, et al. Indeed, if your definition of "human being" is "has human DNA and is alive", chemotherapy is genocide.

Human conception is the beginnings of humanity.

Why? The sperm and the egg had human DNA, too. Plus, they were alive. Which makes me wonder: where'd the extra human being go when the sperm and the egg combined to produce the zygote?

Your partitioning of the stages of the human growth cycle in the womb doesn't negate that a human being is under construction and will become nothing but.

The more accurate statement would be "an organism is growing and usually ends up as a bloody discharge but becomes a human being about one time in four". Between implantation failures and miscarriages, a fertilized egg's odds are not good.

I think human rights should be reserved for human beings, not things that might eventually be human beings.

Revenant said...

Of course the exception can be pleaded then. Of course it HAS BEEN. And courts have bought it.

Then you should have no problem citing a court case in which a doctor "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies", then successfully pleaded for a health exception.

I'm open to learning new things. Please share.

Example -- the woman will experience depression if the "procedure" results in a living baby.

We're talking about a procedure that DOES result in a living baby, little brain. That's why pleading the health exception makes no sense.

Saint Croix said...

There is no legitimate reason to have a hospital requirement in place.

Who the fuck are you to overturn a health regulation?

A hospital regulation would keep a lot of this evil shit from happening.

And if you're worried about costs, put a fucking condom on.

Like I want to get a lecture from drunk people who don't use birth control. "But it costs money to go to the hospital." Yeah, well, it's an invasive medical procedure. People die from invasive medical procedures. Every day.

Have you read the Carhart list of all the bad shit that can happen in a D & E? What's wrong with doing that procedure in a hospital? You know, where the equipment is.

Also, and I know you don't give a shit, you can put the baby in an incubator and try to keep her alive in a hospital.

"I have a constitutional right to avoid hospitals and take my chances with the laissez-faire guy with the scalpel."

And the bakers have a constitutional right to suffer hot fingers.

It's Lochner all over again. The Supreme Court deregulated the abortion industry. And for what?
So you can save a few bucks?

Just to be clear on your fucking logic, we can only start worrying about women dying in abortions when they start outnumbering women dying in childbirth?

So when your sister or your daughter bleeds to death on a operating table because there is no equipment in the room that can save her, please be sure to write one hundred times, "She's a statistical anomaly and it's okay."

While I'm on this rant, let me point out that the Supreme Court has said that partial-birth abortion is a constitutional right for health reasons, but you can't require a hospital stay because that's too fucking healthy. It's irrationally healthy.

Saint Croix said...

Carhart covered D&X procedures performed on non-viable fetuses during the second trimester.

Let me translate that into English for you.

Carhart covered killing the baby halfway outside the womb in the fourth month, fifth month, or sixth month of the pregnancy, but not in the seventh month, eighth month or ninth month, or when the baby could survive outside the womb.

You do know that no premature baby can survive outside the womb unless you put her in an incubator, right? Which your wonderful abortion clinic does not have.

Of course "viability" is just a theory, it's not actually something that you want to test by, say, trying to keep the baby alive. No no, that would require a hospital and that costs money. So let's just assume non-viability and rip her into pieces.

Tiller killed in the third trimester. Carhart still does. And Ginsburg writes chillingly about killing babies with "anomalies."

She means the retards, Rev. Down's syndrome is diagnosed in the third trimester. And she insists on the constitutional right to terminate them. But I'm sure you can explain why that's okay.

Saint Croix said...

Then you should have no problem citing a court case in which a doctor "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies", then successfully pleaded for a health exception.

Yeah, it's cslled Carhart

I re-read it.

Pre-viable abortions, post-viable abortions, they tossed the whole law because there was no "health" exception.

Health as defined by Kermit and his ilk.

Revenant said...

Who the fuck are you to overturn a health regulation?

So you're an ObamaCare supporter, I take it? Or is this one of those scenarios where it is ok to overturn health regulations provided you're politically opposed to them?

A hospital regulation would keep a lot of this evil shit from happening.

Ah, I see. We need the hospital law in order to prevent "evil shit". I can't imagine why that one didn't pass the rational basis test.

Yeah, well, it's an invasive medical procedure. People die from invasive medical procedures. Every day.

The death rate for abortion ranges from 0.00001% (for the first few months, when most abortions are performed) to a whopping 0.003% if you wait until the last minute. The overall death rate is 0.0007%, according to the CDC. The chances of a hospital procedure killing you via secondary infection are approximately one in a thousand.

What's wrong with doing that procedure in a hospital?

Doctors and patients are free to perform the procedure in a hospital if they want to. There's no law against it, after all.

Also, and I know you don't give a shit, you can put the baby in an incubator and try to keep her alive in a hospital.

States are permitted to ban abortion of viable fetuses, and putting a pre-viable fetus in an incubator just lets it die warm. So the only reason to legally require that an incubator be handy would be... because you want to allow doctors to *try* killing a viable fetus, but then try to save its life if they fail? That's not very rational.

Revenant said...

Yeah, it's cslled Carhart. I re-read it. Pre-viable abortions, post-viable abortions, they tossed the whole law because there was no "health" exception.

I didn't ask if laws were required to have the health exception -- they are.

I asked for an example of a doctor successfully arguing the health exception in court after delivering a live, third-trimester baby, then killing it, then pleading the health exception. Neither of the Carhart cases that went to the Supreme Court fit that description. Try again.

Saint Croix said...

States are permitted to ban abortion of viable fetuses, and putting a pre-viable fetus in an incubator just lets it die warm.

I love your moral certainty that none of these babies could possibly survive, so why try? What a swell doctor you'd make.

The record is 21 weeks, 6 days.

http://preemies.about.com/b/2010/01/20/preemie-spotlight-amillia-taylor.htm

I tell liberals you have to be absolutely sure on abortion. I keep forgetting how absolutely sure you people are. No doubts, no worries, no qualms.

And then you're shocked, shocked! Dead babies in an abortion clinic. Shocking!

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm not forgetting the health exception,it just doesn't apply here.

It applies directly to my comment which was that if you don't like what Gosnell did to babies six months along outside the womb, you should have a problem with the same thing being done to babies six months along inside the womb.

And your alternatives to the health exception are false choices. You could simply get rid of the mental health exception. Additionally, I think it absurd to say that killing another person is between a woman and her doctor. That has nothing to do with loving state run health care and everything to do with thinking abortion is murder. That would be like arguing that it's Statist to support the police taking domestic violence calls because the argument is between husband and wife and therefore not the State's business.

Saint Croix said...

I asked for an example of a doctor successfully arguing the health exception in court after delivering a live, third-trimester baby, then killing it, then pleading the health exception.

I think Kermit's babies were still attached to Mommy, via umbilical cord, so that clearly falls within the penumbra.

Since you're already argued that we can't require incubators, or hospitals, what is your objection to what Kermit did?

How viable do you think a preemie is without an incubator?

What should he have done? Called an ambulance? Wrapped the baby in a blanket and let her dehydrate?

Or--this really blows my mind--not abort the pregnancy?

It's a simple question. Desperate woman, wants a third trimester abortion, she has a right to choose, it's her body.

I'll tell you what most abortion doctors do. They say, "I can't do it. But I know a guy who can. Dr. Kermit."

So are you going to indict these doctors as co-conspirators?

holdfast said...

What about indicting some of the women as co-conspirators?

Oh right, they have all the rights and "agency" but no responsibility.

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.