Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

uppityperson

(115,677 posts)
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:43 PM Apr 2013

Why We Need to Talk About the Horrifying Gosnell Abortion Trial (interesting article)

http://jezebel.com/why-we-need-to-talk-about-the-horrifying-gosnell-aborti-472647762?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB

Philadelphia abortion provider Dr. Kermit Gosnell is accused of running a clinic straight out of the Saw horror franchise: standard practices allegedly included snipping the spines of live newborns with rusty equipment, storing feces in cat-food containers and fetus feet in jars, and overdosing patients, particularly those who were poor women of color. Make no mistake: if these charges are correct, Gosnell is a monster. But his business was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.

(clip)

Anti-abortion advocates, naturally, are thrilled that Gosnell is on trial. Horrified along with the rest of us, but thrilled at a chance to argue that this case illustrates how unspeakably disgusting abortion is using the most visceral evidence imaginable. "This is not about being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life,'" Kristen Powers argues in a USA Today op-ed that seems to have drawn significant national attention to the case for the first time since Gosnell's "Women's Medical Society" was raided in early 2010. "It's about basic human rights."

But this case is all about the difference between supporting and blocking reproductive choice.

First, it's important to remember no one (besides his lawyer) is on Gosnell's side. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states, and Pennsylvania law prohibits abortions after 24 weeks; Gosnell told the authorities that at least 10 to 20 percent of the fetuses found in his clinic were probably older than 24 weeks in gestation. Prosecutors believe Gosnell killed live babies because he wasn't giving women the correct drugs that would have terminated them in the womb. His assistants were often unlicensed and untrained. He was was not a certified obstetrician or gynecologist. No one thinks the Women's Medical Society was a shining bastion of women's health care. We all want him behind bars....More
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
1. Trolling the Freepers on this
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:59 PM
Apr 2013

There was one thread which talked a 18-24 inch fetus which had not only no eyes but no face. Excuse me? At that size the fetus was just about full term. No FACE????? Something, besides what else, was very, very wrong with that. One Freeper also commented on that, but was shut down by others.

These people on that site are Probirth, and presumably have children, yet don't know that a normal full term fetus HAS eyes and a FACE??????

ChazII

(6,202 posts)
2. This story is not in the
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:25 PM
Apr 2013

news here in the Phoenix area. Perhaps because we have the Jodi Arias trial. Thanks for the link.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
5. Thanks for posting this, uppity!
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:30 PM
Apr 2013

It's dead on and we need to keep making these points to the anti-choicers. It's shameful that there are no options for so many, especially the poor. Stories like this should ignite us all as a society to offer more access to safe medical care. Jezebel did a great job of making the case.

Keep up the fight, folks. The right-wing fundies are working VERY hard to make it harder. I predict a 'personhood' amendment will be on the table here in WI in short order. They are flooding the airwaves with "who does abortion hurt" ads complete with a talking fetus.

nessa

(317 posts)
6. The problem with this statement
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:10 PM
Apr 2013

"But his business was able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself."

The grand jury found that he was able to thrive because two pro-choice governors chose not to do annual inspections out of fear of limiting women's access to abortions.

"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.

Brody confirmed some of what Staloski told the Grand Jury. He described a meeting of high-level government officials in 1999 at which a decision was made not to accept a recommendation to reinstitute regular inspections of abortion clinics. The reasoning, as Brody recalled, was: “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.”
Brody testified that he did not consider the “access issue” a legal one. The Abortion Control Act, he told the Grand Jurors, charges DOH with protecting the health and safety of women having abortions and premature infants aborted alive. To carry out this responsibility, he said, DOH should regularly inspect the facilities.

Nevertheless, the position of DOH remained the same after Edward Rendell
became governor. Using the legally faulty excuse that the department lacked the authority
to inspect abortion clinics, Staloski left them unmonitored, presumably with the
knowledge and blessing of her bosses, Deputy Secretary Stacy Mitchell and a succession
of Secretaries of Health. The department continued its do-nothing policy until 2010,..."

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
7. Bullllll shit!! Pro-choice groups blew the whistle on the conditions at this clinic.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:41 AM
Apr 2013

The Grand Jury Report does a good job of pointing out all along the way who played a part. But the bottom line remains: the atrocities that occurred there were able to thrive because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
8. Also, please clarify why you would come to a PRO-CHOICE group on a DEMOCRATIC website and argue that
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

the pro-choice position is responsible for this horror.

Especially when that is clearly NOT the case.

Adding this link and text:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB

After all, the question is not just why the state failed to respond to the complaints of women and advocates who visited the clinic, although that matters hugely. It’s why women kept going there anyway: because they felt they had no alternative. Read this account from Jeff Deeney, a social worker from Philadelphia, who points out that the lack of public funding for abortion is a big factor leading desperate women to Gosnell: “It’s worth noting for outsiders that Health Center #4 which serves the same neighborhood is the best in town, providing quality care for the uninsured poor. But Health Centers don’t do abortions, and Medicaid, where a TANF mom’s insurance coverage would come from, if she had any at all, doesn’t pay for them. And for these women the cost of paying for an abortion out of pocket breaks the budget, leaving mom scrambling to make next month’s rent or possibly wind up on the street.” Cost is also how women often get past the legal gestational limit, as they struggle to save up enough money — and Gosnell’s willingness to break the law was what made him their last chance. To everyone who thinks his case was a reason for more abortion restrictions: What he did was already illegal.

nessa

(317 posts)
9. I'm not arguing anything. I'm pointing out what was in the Grand Jury Report...
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:26 PM
Apr 2013

I haven't stated my opinion any where.

The report also states that
"So too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion
providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell,
bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar’s death. Despite his
various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not
properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that
equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion
clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just
never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen
."

This not a news or editorial article with someone's opinion. This is the grand jury report. These people heard all the evidence. This clinic got caught not because any one turned him in. He got caught because he became the subject of an illegal prescription writing investigation. You should read the report. http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
10. I have. There were failures in many places. But the root cause remains that this was able to happen
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:37 PM
Apr 2013

AT ALL because of limited access to reproductive choice, not because of reproductive choice itself.

And if you don't think or believe that, and if you want to try to convince anyone otherwise, please stay out of this group in DU and all threads in it.

UTUSN

(70,649 posts)
13. he stopped being a doctor by going outside medical ethics. wingnuts trying to
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:51 PM
Apr 2013

Smear pro.choice. not about unavailability of choice. I won.t be adding here.

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
14. Yes, it is absolutely about availability of access to safe, legal and affordable abortions.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:56 PM
Apr 2013

The women who went to him had no options. Based on the reports, how on earth could you think otherwise?

"Evidence suggests that a number of factors influenced a woman's decision to seek care at Gosnell's clinic: Medicaid's refusal to provide insurance coverage for most abortions; the scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania (and across the nation); the fear of violence perpetrated by protestors at clinics, and the right-wing culture that has so stigmatized abortion that many think it is still illegal 40 years after Roe v. Wade."

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Pro-Choice»Why We Need to Talk About...