Rapey Patel Faces Allegations from Former Employees

Abortion doctor
Naresh Patel

Recently I blogged about abortion doctor Naresh Patel after KATV Arkansas reported about his arrest for lying to patients by telling them they're pregnant when they're not then charging them $620 for abortion drugs.

Well, News OK is doing some actual journalism, looking into Patel's past. And what did they find? Employees suing him for sexual harassment.

In one recent lawsuit, former employee Kim Hauser, who had been hired by Patel in November of 2012 as a receptionist for a Holiday Inn he owned, came forward. She said that Patel made her work at his abortion clinic, performing the duties of a surgical technician and of a nurse. She also reported that he had frequently pressed her for sexual favors, and when she refused he made her perform disturbing tasks such as bagging up aborted fetuses.


Ms. Hauser said she needed the job to provide for her children. She finally quit in May of 2013, she told a judge, after Patel tried to rape her.

Another former employee, Tami Amsler, also filed suit against Patel, and accepted a confidential settlement. She, like Ms. Hauser, said that she'd begun working for Patel at one of his hotels, in her case the Staybridge Suites. She began working for him in January of 2013 and quit on March 15, 2013, because, she said, Patel “incessantly and inappropriately propositioned” her for sexual favors and engaged in sexually aggressive behaviors such grabbing her breasts. Her lawyer says that he has text messages from Patel that substantiate her allegations.

Each woman separately alleges that Patel offered her money in exchange for "marrying" a foreigner.

Patel's treatment of his employees, however, seems almost chivalrous in comparison to what his patients have reported.

Patient allegations. Click to enlarge.

In 1993, three of Patel's patients came forward reporting that he had raped them. Patient #1 was groggy, recovering from her abortion, when Patel put his penis in her mouth. Patient #2 was groggy from sedation for her abortion when Patel raped her orally, vaginally, and rectally. Patient #3 reported that he had raped her vaginally when she was on the procedure table. Somehow, in spite of ample evidence, including taped phone conversations in which Patel admitted to putting his penis in Patient #1's mouth, he was acquitted.

Patel's bad behavior, moreover, hasn't been limited to fraud, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

In 1995, a patient sued him for putting a 6 cm. tear in her cervix and being unable to treat her for this injury because he had no hospital admitting privileges. Another patient sued him in 1994 after he had mangled her uterus and refused to call an ambulance until her family members demanded that he do so; she required an immediate hysterectomy to save her life. Another patient sued in 1994 when she began bleeding and expelling fetal parts after he'd discharged her from his clinic.

News clipping about fetus dumping.
Click to enlarge.

In 1992 he admitted to burning a bag of 60 aborted fetuses in an open field.

In 1990 he was reprimanded for disemboweling a 15-year-old abortion patient. His medical assistant saw him "pull out some tissue and take it in his hands." She then testified that Patel said, "That's her small intestine" before stuffing it back inside. The teen was rushed to a hospital, where surgeons found a hole in her uterus and a fetus floating in blood in her abdomen. She needed to have her fallopian tubes, ovaries, and portion of her colon removed due to injuries.

Redacted patient record recovered
from dumpster. Click to enlarge.

In 2013 Patel also disposed of confidential patient information in a dumpster, including patient consent forms,  financial information, and abortion documentation. He also dumped job applications that had personal information about the applicants. As if that's not enough, he also disposed of  biohazardous materials in the dumpster.

How many Patels and Gosnels must there be before pro choice Americans start to recognize that the abortion lobby protects the interests of abortion business, not the interests of the women who entrust their bodies and their lives to those people?

Den of Quackery Closes, More Rending of Garments on the Left

The sackcloth and ashes are being dragged out over the demise of a nasty Virginia abortion mill. I'll take the examples of weeping and lamentation from "Virginia Abortion Clinic, Busiest In State, Closes Due To New State Regulation," in the Huffington Post.

“I was deeply saddened to learn that NOVA Women’s Healthcare in Fairfax City has been forced to close its doors," executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Tarina Keene said in a statement. "NOVA Women’s Healthcare has provided safe, exemplary medical care in Northern Virginia for over 10 years, and was one of the largest women’s health centers in the Commonwealth. Its closure affects thousands of Virginia women and families, and leaves its many patients without their trusted healthcare provider.”  

Shall we look at a 2012 inspection deficiencies report?

Six of of 20 patients (30%) whose records were reviewed were not given physical exams, and doctors were not reviewing their medical histories, prior to abortions.

A staff member looked over the abortion tissues and told the doctor that the specimen was "okay." The doctor then signed off as if he or she had completed a proper pathology exam. Failure to do a proper pathology exam can lead to incomplete abortion or failure to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, both of which are potentially fatal to the patient. (One patient whose ectopic pregnancy NOVA failed to diagnose suffered a potentially fatal rupture. She collapsed at home, unable to reach a phone, and was fortunately discovered before she bled to death.)

Fourteen of 15 patient records reviewed had discrepancies in documentation of anesthesia. The patients reportedly underwent "conscious sedation" but their level of anesthesia was checked as "general anesthesia."

Given how risky anesthesia drugs are, do we really want them administered by somebody who doesn't know the difference between conscious sedation and general anesthesia? (Or were these women given general anesthesia that was incorrectly documented elsewhere as conscious sedation?)

There were numerous other issues with documentation as well, including contradictory notations made on patients who had to be hospitalized due to complications, and there were failures do document who ordered what medications to be given to patients. There were also no discharge orders signed by doctors.

The patient who later suffered the ruptured ectopic pregnancy was discharged from the facility when she was too weak to walk and had to be carried to a vehicle.

Is this "exemplary medical care"? To be treated by a doctor who doesn't examine you or take your history before performing surgery? To have your records screwed up so that nobody can be sure exactly what happened? To be discharged from the facility when you're still too weak to even walk?

HuffPo didn't even bother to do a little check on erstwhile owner Mi Yong Kim, who killed one patient with sloppy practices surrounding anesthesia, and who attempted to perform a first-trimester abortion on a woman who was 26 weeks pregnant, eventually finishing the abortion without informing the mother of the mistake and giving her a chance to decide to save her baby.

 Yet NARAL is "saddened" that this place is closing.

They Want Honest Advertising?

The abortion lobby keeps trying to pass legislation to correct what they see as "false advertising" by pregnancy help centers. They claim that the full weight of law needs to go into making it clear that CPCs do not do abortions, because women wanting abortions might go there by accident and be really annoyed.

I know of how to stop these attacks in a heartbeat.

The Full Disclosure to Abortion Patients Addendum..

Take the text of the anti-CPC bill and announce that prolife legislators will get 100% behind it as soon as an addendum to this effect is added:

1. Any facility that advertises as an abortion facility must provide complete and honest information as to the licensing status of the facility and staff. Physician's offices must clearly state that they are not licensed clinics. If a facility is not licensed by the state as a medical facility, this must be clearly stated.  If anesthesia is administered, the qualifications of those administering anesthesia must be posted. The qualifications of staff overseeing recovery must be posted. The qualifications of any staff providing counseling must be posted.

2. The results of the five most recent inspections must be posted in layman's terms in a highly visible area of the waiting room. Copies of the five most recent inspection reports must be made available to prospective patients upon request. If the facility is neither licensed nor inspected, a notice must be prominently posted to that effect.

3. Notice of any disciplinary actions currently in force against any licensed staff must be clearly and prominently posted in layman's terms.

 4. If a facility advertises that they provide counseling, they must also provide a breakdown as to what percent of their patients choose abortion, adoption, and parenting.

5. Information about patient deaths, along with deficiencies that led to the deaths, must be prominently posted, along with any other information a reasonable patient would want to know before making a decision about trusting her life to that facility.

Of course, this will be drafted in legalese, but you get the idea.

Here's what one currently operating chain's ads would look like:

A sign posted in a clinic lobby (for a fictitious clinic based on typical inspection deficiencies) might read:

November 2012 inspection deficiencies:
    * 7 instances of outdated medications
    * 11 instances of sanitary deficiencies
    * Re-use of disposable instruments
    * No current CPR certification for 5 of 7 staff records inspected

November 2011 inspection deficiencies:
    * 4 instances of outdated medications
    * 4 instances of sanitary deficiencies
    * Broken autoclave
    * Re-use of disposable instruments
    * No current CPR certification for 4 of 7 staff records inspected
    * Crash cart missing medications

You get the idea.

The abortion lobby would have two equally unpalatable choices:

1. Agree to the addendum and then watch the prolifers have a field day demanding that the law be enforced against specific facilities.
2. Fight the addendum and then watch the prolifers have a field day holding hearings showing why the addendum is necessary.

They'd drop the whole attack on CPCs like a devout Muslim would drop a pulled-pork sandwich.

I think it's a win-win for us and for the women of America. Why aren't we doing it?