Saturday, January 22, 2011

A thoughtful prochoice voice on the Kermit Gosnell scandal

Let's start with an appetizer before the main course. Ready? An actual straightforward and factual video report from the Associated Press! (And don't tell me the AP isn't a prochoice voice. Puh-LEASE!)

Now on to the blog:

  • Slicing Spinal Cords with Scissors:

    I’m mostly pro-choice but this horrific story demonstrates just how utterly extreme and insane the left in general and the Democrat party in particular have become on the matter of abortion.

    He gives us a couple of news snippets about Gosnell's House of Horrors.

    I am pro-choice but this tragedy occurred because the left violently resisted even the least regulatory oversight of even the most extreme late term abortions. The left has made abortion the highest good that trumps every other concern, and the resulting real-world policies border on the surreal.


    Hell, according to leftists, Gosnell’s only moral or technical crime was in not killing the babies inside the womb. Had he snaked a surgical instrument inside the womb and killed the viable baby there, he would be morally in the clear in the eyes of the left.

    That is insane.

    The most disturbing thing I have read is the Philidelphia DAs statement:

    “I am aware that abortion is a hot-button topic,” said Williams. “But as District Attorney, my job is to carry out the law. A doctor who knowingly and systematically mistreats female patients, to the point that one of them dies in his so-called care, commits murder under the law. A doctor who cuts into the necks severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies, who would survive with proper medical attention, is committing murder under the law.”

    He’s apologizing to his deep-blue/far-left constituency for having to prosecute the guy for killing hundreds of live babies! That he feels he needs to apologize for prosecuting this case speaks volumes about the left’s extreme and irrational attitudes towards abortion regulation.

    He's added a coda that he's been sprayed with spittle by people who don't believe the story of his relative. Tsk-tsk, spittle spewers! Ask the man for clarification. As I did.


    ceej said...

    It occurred to me that his relative might have needed a dilation and evacuation, that is, manual removal of the dead baby from the mother. I am not a doctor, but it's possible that induced vaginal or c-section delivery were not options for this woman and she needed more assistance. I found this old posting on the Abortioneers blog that expresses outrage over OB-GYNs not having training in abortion procedures:

    I am 100% pro-life (and can't tell you how nauseating it was to hunt through the Abortioneers blog postings to find that). However, if the story they told is true, it's a rather serious issue. Frankly, to me it seems to stretch the limits of credibility that a qualified OB-GYN would not know how to evacuate the contents of a patient's uterus. I do not know a pro-lifer in the world who would object to a doctor knowing how to do a D&E on a woman whose life is in danger or the baby is already dead. We object when the baby is alive and the mother is healthy enough to carry to term, and the procedure is only being carried out because someone wants that baby to die and the mother not to be pregnant.

    So I'm really quite perplexed - is it true that OB-GYNs don't always know how to do this? If so, why don't they learn? I will say that if an OB-GYN is incapable of removing a dead child from a mother's uterus, that's ridiculous. But I wonder if the only chances OB-GYN residents get to learn are with women getting elective abortions rather than women who need dead babies removed from their uteruses. That would put pro-life doctors in a terrible position: either commit murder, or go into practice not knowing how to do something that their patients may legitimately need.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    ceej, I'd have to know more. Perhaps the woman's doctor found the procedure too distasteful and figured he could avoid it himself if he referred her to an abortionist.

    But I just can't imagine a situation in which it would be necessary.