Saturday, June 26, 2010

Which death outraged the champions of "women's lives"?

Pamela Colson, age 31, was 12 weeks pregnant when friends drive her to Women's Medical Services in Pensacola, Florida, for a safe and legal abortion on June 26, 1994.

Pamela bled heavily during the drive home. According to her friends, Pamela became unresponsive, so they stopped at a motel. Two passers-by did CPR while Pamela's friends called for an ambulance. Pamela was taken to a hospital where she died after an emergency hysterectomy.

Her autopsy showed: bloodstained fluid in chest and peritoneal space, and "extensive hematoma formation in the pelvic area with the peritoneum denuded from the left gutter area caudually." The surgeon who performed an emergency hysterectomy, trying to save Pamela's life, had removed her uterus at the site of the laceration "so that the laceration was a portion of the incision made to remove the uterus." Her uterus showed extensive hemorrhage and blood clots. Her uterine artery was also injured. Several of Pamela's ribs were fractured, apparently during attempts to resuscitate her; this is common in even properly performed CPR.

The cause of death was given as "irreversible shock from blood loss due to a perforated uterus occurring at the time of an elective abortion." William Keene was tentatively identified as having performed the abortion.

Pamela's fatal abortion was performed at the clinic where abortionist David Gunn was shot dead. But unlike Gunn's death, Pamela's death didn't raise so much as an eyebrow among the champions of women's lives. It took the death of a man to do that. Along with the fact that a dead abortionist is a "Man bites dog" story, whereas abortionists killing women is considered just part of the business.

5 comments:

Mary said...

Pamela's death didn't raise an eyebrow but the death of a man did...So true!

They don't care about 100 million missing girls either...

OperationCounterstrike said...

Killing a few patients is part of EVERY medical practicioner's business. Only pathologists are immune, because their patients are already dead.

Nobody's perfect.

That's why simply listing casualties proves nothing. You need numbers, dear, numbers.

OperationCounterstrike said...

You seem to be surprised that a terrorist murder causes more outrage than an accident.

Think about it. Suppose it were your son who died. Would you be more angry if he died by accident, or if he were murdered?

Cecilia said...

So Operation Counterstrike: How many women have YOU killed in an abortion? What are your numbers? You are so quick to implant fear to sell abortions, "Childbirth is so dangerous, all women might die if they don't abort," Planting fear to push abortion on women who aren't otherwise interested. But if someone dies of an abortion:
"oh well, it happens." But how many from you? 90% maybe?

GrannyGrump said...

OC:

1. Why is there such a double standard among abortion supporters? The pre-legalization deaths are never presented as "Well, all surgery has risks, and that includes illegal surgery. You pays your money and you takes your chances", even though the bulk of those deaths were at the hands of doctors just like the ones killing women now. The only real difference was that the DOCTOR went to PRISON. But LEGAL deaths, no matter how heinous the malpractice, gets shrugged off with, "Well, all surgery has risks and that includes abortion." Which is it?

2. In this particular case, it wasn't just "all surgery has risks". Some quack slashed this woman up inside and sent her home to bleed to death. But it gets shrugged off, no big deal. Why is that? Why is there NEVER any prochoice outcry when one of these quacks does something like this?