The NJ Health Department has issued its report on the Alternatives abortion mill in Atlantic City, which I recently reported was closed June 22 for unspecified health and safety violations.

The NJHD has mailed me the complete report, from which I'll post excerpts upon receipt. Meanwhile, The Press of Atlantic City published some of NJHD's findings yesterday. As quoted from The Press....

Abortion physicians did not scrub for procedures and used the scrub area for storage [which] [a]n unnamed employee defended... saying: "Abortions aren't really surgery, they aren't sterile procedures."

The facility only employs two registered nurses and both have allowed their licenses to expire, one in July 2006 and the other in May 2007.

Some medications, including a half-full container of silver nitrate and several IV fluids, were expired. One IV fluid expired Feb. 1, 2005. Also, endotracheal tubes used during anesthesia had expiration dates ranging from August 2002 to May 2004.

The report also cited several sanitary issues, including "what appeared to be dried blood under the leg pads" on the procedure tables. Dust, rust, dirt and debris also were found on some equipment, and floors in the operating room, laboratory and recovery room were "soiled and stained."

Some of the sterilization problems may have stemmed from the clinic's lack of hot water.

Investigators located a patient log that listed 37 minor complications and five major complications... [including] one incident recorded as a perforation. None of the incidents was reported to the clinic's medical director and administrator, as required by the state.

Moving on to the next nasty mill, kudos to WDIV in Detroit for conducting an undercover investigation of quack abortionist "Dr. P," and airing a three-part expose on it.

This guy - still licensed in MI - commits abortions in more than one abandoned building, charging only $150, openly breaking parental notification and 24-hour waiting period laws. He also instructed a bleeding patient not to go to the hospital.

Watch the three (3-5 minutes each) undercover videos here, here, and here.

[Hat tip for Alternatives report: JivinJehoshaphat; Hat tip for Dr. P: Valerie and Right to Life of MI blog]

Ugh, they are all so disgusting! Abortion is not a surgery? Not a sterile procedure? Blood all over the place, and very unsanitary conditions? Why do we keep seeing this happening, and how can anyone keep defending these places and how can they even dare to bring up back alley abortions, when it obviously is happening today, with abortion being perfectly legal!
I wish someone would explain to me why they really feel women are supposedly so much safer today, with things like this happening every day?

Wasn't SoMG going to give us examples of "exemplary" abortion doctors...guess it's getting a harder and harder to find them. Tiller is the best he could come up with and he's being charged up the ying-yang.

That's gross! Welcome to the days of the legal front alley abortion. Again where are NOW and Naral? This doesn't sound any different than the back alley days that a lot of pro choicers complain about.

I wonder if he'll just pack up and move on to another abandoned building. How ironic. He's located between a cemetery and a day care. I couldn't help but notice that all of his patients were black. Remember how we talked about their race being targeted?

"how can anyone keep defending these places"

Because abortion is a religon to them.

I'll bet that someone from NOW will be asking us to give this poor sap a break.

In a message dated 7/25/2007 7:43:34 AM Central Daylight Time, melandmad@yahoo.com writes:
About yesterday. I am sorry. Come and join us on Jill Stanek's blog. We don't hate you. We hate what you do..
I also want to thank you for taking the time to answer e-mails. I really think you're rather brave for doing so. My first e-mails were out of extreme anger. Please come to Jill's blog. We all have some questions for you.PlEEEEASE!. thanks, Heather
I wouldn't touch it. Why? Well, I'm sure those in your inconsequential little in-group will go on and on about what a "coward" I am, how I don't have the moral integrity to confront the religious insanity that people like you regard as unassailable "truth" and "light," even that I am "possessed" by some mythical "demon," or - oh - I don't know - could it be - SATAN?!?, that my motivation can legitimately be reduced to "hate," or "mental illness," etc., etc., etc.

I have told you about all I can about my motivation, but it has fallen upon deaf ears, so convinced are you that you know what you only believe.

Below is a C&P'd snippet from a long essay I wrote years ago that pretty well sums up my take on religion, especially the religious fanaticism such as that of of those in your little blog, which I see as obviously tearing our world apart. Osama bin Laden, no less than you, "knows" he is doing "God's will." I would say to him, as I have said to you: No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you only believe, you only believe it - and I would get no further in convincing him than I am likely to get in convincing you, since you, no less than he, firecely believe that you know what you merely believe - and your evidence for believing as you do, if truth be told, is no better than his, and it boils down to ancient myth and superstition.

C&P'd:
I do not fail to recognize that the Roman Catholic Church, along with its many and varied offshoots including Christian Protestantism, as well as all other religions, are, in word and in deed and in many ways, the sources of an enormous amount of good in our world, nor do I fail to respect and appreciate that contribution. However, no human and no human institution, religion, or philosophy is infallible, perfect, or above criticism - and nothing is more contrary to, and irreconcilable with, the fundamental ideals and principles of the United States of America than attempts to force upon others dogmatic religious beliefs and philosophies about what to think and how to behave. Such efforts by any religion, or by any corruption of it by misguided followers, inevitably spawn fanatical fundamentalist extremism that is indistinguishable from any other form of uncompromising religious fanaticism, such as the militant Islamic fundamentalism that is also responsible for such horrific human suffering among millions and has declared jihad, or "holy war," against the United States and the entire modern world. With our whole world being torn apart, as it has been throughout recorded history, by the extremes of misguided religious fervor, it is my fervent hope that we will at long last see the lesson in this and overcome not only Islamic fanaticism, but the fanaticism that sprouts from all other religions as well. Our survival and the survival of our freedoms and our way of life depend upon overcoming these anachronistic barriers to acceptance and cooperation, now more than ever before, in this age of global technological interconnectedness and interdependence through rapid transportation, trade, and instantaneous worldwide communication - and the ability to massively kill and destroy.

It matters little whether one of these fanatical extremists is a wild-eyed, screaming, ranting, raving, bomb-blasting, gun-brandishing, murderous zealot or a silent, passive, and polite one who claims to offer mainly moral or financial support, he or she is still a fanatical bigot who has personally identified with, and thus contributes to, a larger body of fanaticism that does indeed threaten all of our lives, especially the lives and health of millions of women and teenage girls - usually arising out of underlying neurotic needs to compensate for feelings, generally to a large extent engendered and reinforced by the extreme religious beliefs themselves, of inferiority, shame, fear, and guilt, by selectively identifying with certain ?cherry-picked,? selected and twisted, highly speculative and controversial beliefs about ?absolute? laws of ?God? and thus feeling superior, more ?Godly," more moral, and more civilized than the "unsaved" who have not "seen the light" (i.e., the ?infidels?) It is an extreme, fanatical, and uncivilized position in a free and pluralistic society, regardless of one's particular ideology, method, or degree or kind of activism, to advocate that any individual, and much moreso a whole class of fellow citizens, be stripped of human rights, whether on the basis of one's indoctrinated religious belief system or any other opinion-based rationale for tyrannical control. I, too, have very grave concerns about a tradition-bound and abiding cross-cultural insensitivity to death and suffering, one that is ages-old, and the well-meaning Pope is one of the world's leading advocates of this death-dealing, pious moral blindness that so troubles me.

Lest my thought and opinion be dismissed merely as careless and gratuitous arrogance and religion-bashing, I think I should openly clarify in as few words as possible my position on religious belief, although religious belief should not in my opinion be of general relevance to the secular question of abortion rights. There are as many, or more, abortion providers and abortion rights supporters who are religious believers than not. (The reader might find the website of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice interesting and enlightening: http://www.rcrc.org) I think I can state my beliefs briefly and simply, but only at the risk of appearing to be cursory and simplistic, which I do not believe myself to be. Although I am not a religious believer, it is not religion I disrespect, fear, and fervently oppose, but extreme religious zeal, or fanaticism ? the belief of absolute certainty where in fact, clearly and obviously (!), none really exists, the megalomaniacal claims of diverse religious zealots that only they know the ?true mind of God,? and their strident efforts to impose their own particular (and often quite peculiar, even bizarre) religious beliefs upon all others by fear and intimidation. After all, is it not exactly this that we have observed to be the basis of the relentless and ruthless terrorism that holds the entire world under threat of death and destruction and come to see as the greatest barrier of all to peace and cooperation anywhere in the world and to modern civilization itself?

Yes, of course it is!

The great religions of the world are the sources of immeasurable good. However, the flip side is that the power and influence they command by virtue of their good works and fear-inducing belief systems, when twisted by the false certainty and intolerance of fanatics, become the evils of tyranny and terrorism, whether Islamic, Christian, or other.

I am agnostic, meaning simply that I simply acknowledge that I do not know what is not known. That seems reasonable enough to me. Although my mind was assaulted in my childhood by the emotionally-charged, terror-inducing Southern Baptist barrage of indoctrination that pervaded the small Texas town in which I grew up, I somehow managed to preserve my ability to question authority and commonly held beliefs and to think for myself even while observing that most of my friends and acquaintances were having theirs ?brainwashed? away (?indoctrinated? if you prefer ? ?a rose by any other name . . .?). I remember creating quite a stir and getting into trouble I couldn?t then well comprehend when I decided at about the age of five or six, all by myself, that nobody could possibly visit every child in the world and bring them all gifts that were packed into one small sleigh in the space of many lifetimes, much less in one night and, besides, deer didn?t fly. Expecting to be honored for this triumph of rational thought over unquestioning belief in magic, I excitedly told everyone I could about my discovery. Of course, the other little kids were angry and upset, told their parents, who complained to mine, and hence the trouble. One young boy in the neighborhood even threatened to kill me for saying (or even thinking) that, and that threat was the harbinger of many like threats I was destined to receive throughout my life for questioning authority and thinking for myself.

But I was right.

It should have been just a short and easy step from doubting the legend of Santa Claus to doubting the broadly similar mythology of Christianity (and all other religions as well, but the only religion I knew of at that time was fundamentalist ?bible-belt? Christianity). After all, aren?t they both essentially the same stories of reward for ?good? and punishment for ?evil? by a supernatural old man endowed with magical powers with the element of gruesome human sacrifice amended to one but not the other? I think so. Obviously. However, the stakes for disbelieving the one imbued with religious significance were far greater (or so I was assured by the furrowed-brow concern of everybody within my range of experience). Risking Santa Claus filling my hung-with-care stocking with a generous supply of switches presumably with which to be beaten, as was the common scare story told to children to encourage them to be ?good,? along with my parents? disapproval for upsetting the other little kids in the neighborhood, was as nothing compared to being rebuked and condemned as an ?infidel? by the whole town and maybe (I wasn?t that sure of myself or of any of it) eventually serving a promised ?after-life? sentence of eternity in a ?lake of fire? or worse for not being ?good? enough to believe in ?God? and obey all of ?His? supposed commands. So what should have been a short and easy step of extrapolating disbelief in one case of imagined superstitious, supernatural folklore to another actually became a very long and fearsome journey of many years of on again, off again torment during which I repeatedly reprimanded myself for doubting the false certainties of religion and vacillated back and forth with great anguish.

That is all way behind me. Now, long-since having left that small town behind and thought my way through all of that fear and trembling, it seems perfectly clear to me that the questions that all religions speciously claim to answer in their diverse ways are as yet unanswerable and that all the religious ?explanations," stories, beliefs, and rituals are pretentious, anachronistic vestiges of ancient folklore and superstition, nothing more. However, I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know that which I believe to be not known (or presently even knowable) by anyone - either that there is or is not a "god," or a "creator," or, if there is such an entity, whether he, she, or it is of the nature described variously in any of the staggering array of different religious traditions -- or, if so, which one. The sheer number of different religions, as well as the dizzying array of different denominations, sects, and cults within each of them, each with its own unique concept of ?God," constitute more than ample proof to me that no one really knows what the vast majority of people believe they know so certainly.

The most oft-heard argument in favor of the assertion that there must be a ?god? is the one that rests upon the principle that every effect must have a cause, so that therefore there must be a ?god? to have caused the creation of the universe and all that is in it. While I know of no concrete exceptions to the principle of cause and effect and thus generally agree that every effect must have a cause, I could never accept the gross irrationality of those who jump to a conclusion about the nature of that cause by surmising that there logically must be a conscious and deliberate ?god" of the identity in which they choose to believe, on the basis of the specific and particular ancient folklore and historical tradition to which they have been exposed and indoctrinated, in order for the universe and all that's in it to exist, but then could not (or would not) comprehend the obvious and logically inescapable fact that one cannot rationally take the logical approach of invoking cause and effect to that point and then abandon it entirely - for, if every effect must have a cause, then a "god" must also have a "creator" of a presumably higher order, then that "creator" a still higher one et cetera ad infinitum. If there must be a "god" in order for the heavens and the earth to have been created, there must for the same reason then also have been a creator of "God" for "God" to be created. Who or what created "God?" And who or what created the ?god? that created ?God?? Etc. The ?answer? uncritically accepted by the majority of people is no answer at all, the ?explanation? explains nothing, and the mystery remains unsolved -- and, what?s worse, even further obscured by abandonment of the quest for an answer by the intellectually reckless and irrational expediency of believing that what is only believed is known.

Some believers assert that the ?obvious? intelligence in design of the universe points to an intelligent creator. I wonder what they mean. Do they mean the intelligence of design that created the human lower back? Or the intelligence of design that made a rabbit's intestinal tract too short to extract nutrients from the vegetation rabbits eat, thereby forcing rabbits to reconsume their own feces to process it twice? Or the intelligent design that launched the occasional asteroid toward earth to decimate life now and then? Or the intelligent design of random quantum phenomena? Or the useless vermiform appendix in the beginning portion of every person?s large intestine that accomplishes no known purpose and frequently becomes inflamed and infected and can cause painful death? Or . . . ? To them I say, ?Good grief! Look around you. The universe is not terribly ordered by our customary standards except in obeying the laws of physics and chemistry that were derived from observation of it, and man himself is the one remaining twig on a previously lush branch of hominid evolution. There's no proof of God's existence in the design of the universe. It pretty much looks jury-rigged by the laws of physics and chemistry interacting with the seemingly random forces of nature to the objective observer. You keep trying to find proof where there apparently is none. All you have is faith, and if you keep trying to dredge up proof, you must think faith is a terribly weak foundation. With that I agree wholeheartedly.?

A common refrain of opponents of legal abortion is, ?Every human life is, from conception, created by God and is infinitely precious in His sight.? Given the indisputable fact that approximately 50% of those "infinitely precious in His sight" are spontaneously aborted (miscarried), another several million a year are electively aborted, legally and illegally, after women discover they are pregnant, and many millions more are slaughtered or starve to death throughout the world, God has a terribly odd way of showing how precious these human lives are in His sight. Given the horrors that this supposedly all knowing, all seeing and all powerful entity permits, might it be that "God is" not "Love" and infinite goodness after all? That would certainly make more sense given the horrors that afflict so many of the world's very young and so many of its poor and defenseless. It seems to me, given what we know about so much of history and the multitude of children's and other innocents' suffering and deaths for all of humanity's history, that God is just an irresponsible sadist - or s/he is powerless, blind, and really doesn't care. Or, most likely, is but a non-existent figment of the imagination.

Or am I just cynical?

I do not have any credible explanations for why or how it (the universe and all related things) all came about. In my opinion, it is clearly obvious that no one as yet has final answers, and just as clearly obvious that objective scientific inquiry, not blind belief in the ancient folklore and superstition called religion, offers the only real hope of ever discovering such answers. I cannot accept what to me are patently obvious to be the imaginary, fictitious explanations of different religious traditions. I do not at all believe that there is a "god" or ?gods? above like a big ?Santa Claus? in the sky keeping a ledger on the "goods" and "bads" of all us ?little boys and girls? toward the end of eventually rewarding or punishing us. I've never understood why a "god" would indulge in this seemingly childish game of "You must believe in me without seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling me, or in any other way being able to directly and definitively verify even my very existence or I'll cause you indescribably and incomprehensibly excruciating misery and pain forever and ever because I love you so much." I am agnostic only because I think for myself, and, displaying the opposite of arrogance, I have the honesty, the humility and the rationality to understand I could be wrong in believing that I know what I only believe.

I?ve found that generally, in regard to matters beyond the mundane and practical, believers do not think, and thinkers do not believe.

Regardless of how fervently, fearfully, proudly, or fondly one believes that one knows what one only believes, one only believes it.

Some, knowing they don?t know, decide they have nothing to lose by believing anyway, so decide to believe. ?If I don?t believe and ?they? are right," they reason, ?I?ll go to ?hell,? but if I just go ahead and believe I?ll go to ?heaven.?? ?O.K., fine," I reply, ?but you can?t believe in one ?god? as ?THE GOD? without disbelieving all the others, and what if one of the others is the ?real? one? Why, what if Huitzilopochtli, the ancient ?god? of the Aztecs is the ?real? one, and the only way to ?heaven,? or ?paradise,? or ?eternal life? is through carving the still beating hearts out of living young virgins atop great pyramids with stone knives? That?s really ?old-time religion.? Stone Age. Or what if ?THE REAL GOD? is the one who some believe rewards those faithful enough to pilot large hijacked airliners full of innocent people into tall buildings full of innocent people (which, by the way, was extremely mild compared to what devout Roman Catholics did to those tens of thousands branded as ?heretics? during the Crusades and the reign of the ?Holy Inquisition? ? as well as paltry compared to the suffering and death directly and indirectly caused by religious beliefs of all various kinds operative in the world today)? Some who call themselves ?Christians? now believe that they could get a non-stop ticket to ?heaven? by killing me. There are many other versions of ?God.? Which ?God???

Do ?miracles? occur? The word ?miracle? is casually tossed around a lot with little or no thought as to its actual meaning, just as are many other words and phrases that get similarly roughed up in common usage, but do they actually occur? Well, here?s what I make of it: No, they do not, or at least I'm not willing to concede that they do, because I've yet to see or hear of a "miracle," i.e., an event or phenomenon said to be caused by an only imagined and believed in supernatural force, that was not either a misconception, a coincidence, a constellation of coincidences, an outright fabrication, or more likely explainable in terms other than causation by supernatural intervention or influence. As has clearly and consistently been demonstrated time after time throughout history, phenomena follow the laws of nature whether we as yet understand all of those laws or not. When something happens that seems strange, unusual, or unlikely to have happened, or appears to exceed or run counter to our always limited knowledge, our every day experience, and our expectations, or to defy the laws of nature as we perceive them to be, and we have no ready explanation for it, we are perplexed and faced with a dilemma. How could this have happened? Is our surprise and puzzlement shared by others or the result of our own unique ignorance and lack of experience with such a phenomenon? How can it be explained? Can it be influenced or controlled?

The most significant distinction between human beings and all other life-forms on earth and the factor that has allowed humans to achieve the dominant position, perhaps only temporary, at the top of the ?pecking order? among life-forms on earth (which is in many ways ultimately and disastrously to the detriment of the very environment that sustains all life) is the human brain that is so capable of abstract thinking, contemplating life and knowing of death, wondering why and why not, and imagining elaborate myths in attempting to understand those cases of why and why not for which explanations are not immediately apparent. In the beginning, the mass of unexplained phenomena, especially natural disasters resulting in illness, injury, and death, was so overwhelming and disturbing that there was a desperately felt need for a sense of understanding that might lead to some feeling of control or influence over them. In response to that desperately felt need, supernatural beings, ?gods? and ?goddesses,? as well as mythical ?devils? and ?demons,? had to be imagined as blanket explanations for all that was mysterious and otherwise unexplained, be it wonderfully good or horrifically bad, and religions were therefore conceived in and born from the human imagination. Then, over decades and centuries, as the imagined ?gods? and ?goddesses? were further elaborated in folklore, myth, and legend, it became more universally accepted, i.e., believed (i.e., NOT known), that, though unseen or otherwise directly sensed or observed, they actually existed, concretely and factually, and further that illness, injury, famine, flood, war, death, and all other harmful or merely unpleasant natural occurrences were the results of displeasing these imaginary supernatural entities and being punished by them. Conversely, prosperity, good fortune, bountiful crops, good health, happiness, and all else perceived as good and desirable were attributed to pleasing them and enjoying the rewards of their fantasized ?divine intervention.? (?He?s making a list and checking it twice; gonna find out who?s naughty or nice . . . He sees you when you?re sleeping; he knows when you?re awake; he knows when you?ve been good or bad; so be good for goodness? sake.?) Thusly, the systems of belief and superstition known as religion were born out of the human mind and elaborated upon through many centuries of richly imaginative folklore, ritual, and art. And politics. Perhaps the main reason religious dogma has survived and flourished through the ages of human history is that chieftains, rulers, and monarchs, both secular and sectarian, found the fear of imaginary ?gods? so useful as a means of maintaining control over subjected masses of people by perpetuating myths of their own ?divine? selection or guidance ? exactly the manner in which, and the reason, religious belief is kept alive today.

In instances of especially unexpected and unexplainable turns of good fortune, the concept of what came to be called ?miracles? of ?divine intervention? was forged in the minds of those who were believers in the imagined ?gods? and ?goddesses.? All the vast array of unexplained phenomena were attributed to ?miracles,? and, ?That is simply that; no need to look any further for explanation and understanding,? sufficed for all but a relative handful of renegades and ?infidels? through the centuries. Dissatisfied with the mythical ?explanations? and ?answers,? the false certainty, of religious belief, these mavericks, gradually and against great odds, through relentless and often egregiously brutal persecution by the believers, dared to question the generally accepted systems of belief and develop the rational philosophy and science through which most of what was once considered ?miraculous? has been explained in natural rather than supernatural terms and by means of which we have learned to channel and control so much of the forces of nature to our benefit, at least in the short term.

Such rebellious ?infidels? were generally denounced and ostracized, or much worse, for their unorthodox ?heresies? that contradicted the established traditional systems of belief and were thus feared to be displeasing to the ?gods? and ?goddesses.? Consider as one of countless examples the case of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), a Dominican monk of the Roman Catholic Church, who summed up his ?heresy? by writing, "It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."

The Holy Office of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church had Bruno imprisoned, tortured with ghastly brutality, and eventually burned alive because he believed that the earth circled around the sun in contradiction to the official position of the Church that it was just the other way around. The Roman Catholic Church, then as now, considered its authority to be unquestionable, absolute, and infallible. However:

He was of course right,

not the Church.

The Church has never even apologized, and these same qualities of rigid authoritarian dogmatism and intolerance and persecution for ?heresy? continue to the present day, albeit in watered down form which now is by and large confined merely to [a] threatening an eternal ?after-life? in ?Hell? filled with the kind of incomprehensibly severe brutality once regularly meted out directly, right here on earth, by the Church itself to countless thousands of living, breathing persons as punishment for deviating in thought or deed from the official dogma of the Church ? and [b] intensive political involvement toward the ends of restricting certain human rights and rational medical intervention in some matters especially disproportionately harmful to women, most notably those involving sexuality and reproduction, such as effective contraception, abortion rights, stem-cell research, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, and even comprehensive reality-based sex education.

Do we have ?souls?? I have not found a reason to believe that I know there really is such an entity as a "soul" or which religion's version of a "soul" to believe. If we do have ?souls,? I'll leave it to someone else to explain in credible terms how abortion harms an "immortal soul" and to credibly tell me also why an omnipotent "God" would care so much about every human zygote, embryo, or fetus. If "He" is omnipotent, if "He" created the entire universe in a few days and nights, "He" could just have something like a quick thought and in the blink of the ?divine? eye create countless human fetuses. Right? No big deal. Furthermore, although there are numerous oft-quoted scriptures in the Bible in which the obvious facts of the development of a fetus in the womb is simply acknowledged, nowhere is it stated in what believers take to be the "word of God" that "He" abhors abortion. Indeed, just the opposite. There are various references in the stories of the Bible in which "He" not only condones, but orders, massacres and mass destruction of newborn babies and fetuses in the wombs of pregnant women, despite the innocence of those babies and fetuses, and believers surely must credit ?God? with the deaths of uncountable millions of embryos and fetuses lost to spontaneous abortion, or ?miscarriage,? also despite their innocence. It is likely that considerably less than fifty percent of pregnancies progress to birth of a baby when simply left to nature, or to ?God.? Despite the innocence of them all.

But, ?Because we are so ?miraculously? conceived and wondrously made,? some say, ?only ?God? has the right to terminate our lives.? Are we that much more ?miraculously? conceived and wondrously made than a chimpanzee that is over 98% genetically identical to a human? We are conceived through the combination of DNA from two parents. Is this combination of human DNA any more ?miraculous? than the combination of bovine DNA from which we make hamburgers?

Actually, there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that abortion should be illegal. There may be passages that seem to indicate that maybe it should be, according to the Bible, but dragging that meaning out of even those passages is quite a stretch. Many offenses of relatively trivial nature are specified in considerable detail in the Old Testament: Don't eat the flesh of cloven-hoofed animals; don't keep graven images (e.g., like the little gold crosses worn as jewelry, graven images of the scaffolds of brutal torture and capital punishment used to accomplish crucifixion in the ancient Roman Empire); don't let cattle graze with other kinds of cattle; don't have a variety of crops on the same field; don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric; don't cut your hair or shave; any person who curses his mother or father must be put to death; if a man cheats on his wife, or vice versa, both the man and the woman must die. When even relatively inconsequential things are forbidden in scripture, there appears to be little mincing of words on the subject, and whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term is a pretty important decision regardless of whether approved or disapproved, so I would think that if either ?God? or the human authors of scripture had thought it was an important moral issue some one of them would have said so explicitly. They did not, and the primary text of the Judeo-Christian faiths is entirely silent on the subject except to note in passing that it was considered as a punishment in one instance. Under the circumstances, arguments against abortion must obviously be considered outside the context of scripture simply because there is no basis for them in scripture. The actual theological arguments against abortion and contraception arise not from scripture, but from the natural law philosophies developed by Roman Catholic scholars and philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, who attempted to derive principles of human morality from what he termed the "nature of human beings." While that philosophical foundation deserves some measure of respect as an honorable contender for a workable system of morality, it is not scriptural, and certainly to disagree with its conclusions should not be considered ?heresy? even by Roman Catholic believers.

Let?s turn from considering what some believe to some things we know. We know that all over the world since human civilization began, countless "crimes against life," including

oops, sorry guys. Beket wrote me back. I think I posted too much. I'm sorry. See where I apologized and asked him to come to the blog? He wrote back and sent me this really long page. There is even more. I cut it off 1/2 way. Again, sorry.[Tried carder's approach]

I've worked in several animal hospitals; on a farm with Llama's, horses, dogs and cats; at a zoo; and volunteered at a wildlife rehabilitation center.

I have never seen conditions as bad as what is described at any of those places, not even the Llama farm! The barn was cleaner than that places.

News about CPC's and not giving info out about abortion is all over the place in the news, NARAL has an entire document about how horrible they are, NOW constantly brings them up, yet they are silent when it comes to this?!!

Woman's rights is non-existent.

Our pets are treated better than women and none of the "feminists" organizations care.

That was a really really long post Heather...

midnite, sorry. I'm new to computers, so I really wanted to cut that off sooner. I didn't know how. That was an abortionist responding to me. It was like 2 pages long.

Sadly for Beket, the appendix does serve a function, which means that it is NOT vestigial.

From LiveScience.com

The appendix is a slimy, dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. It's about a half inch in diameter and three inches long. As quickly as 11 weeks after conception, the appendix starts making endocrine cells for the developing fetus. Endocrine cells secrete useful chemicals, such as hormones, and the appendix endocrine cells secrete amines and peptide hormones that help with biological checks and balances as the fetus grows.

After birth, the appendix mainly helps the body stave off disease by serving as a lymphoid organ. Lymphoid organs, with their lymphoid tissue, make white blood cells and antibodies.

The appendix, by virtue of its lymphoid tissue, is part of a complicated chain that makes B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and a class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A antibodies. The appendix also produces certain chemicals that help direct the white blood cells to the parts of the body where they are needed the most.

The dirty gut is a good training ground for young white blood cells. The appendix, with its sac routinely collecting and expelling foodstuffs, exposes the white blood cells to myriad bacteria, viruses and drugs passing through the gastrointestinal tract. This way, the white blood cells learn to fight potentially deadly bacteria, such as E.coli.

The appendix's contribution to the body's white blood cell and antibody production reaches its peak when you are about 20 or 30 years old, then production falls off sharply. By age 60, the appendix serves very little active purpose.

Rotten luck

The appendix can cause trouble when food gets stuck in there. The food rots, causing an infection that can be fatal, particularly if the appendix bursts. Once infected, the appendix needs to be removed. Life goes on; you'll likely never miss it.

In the not-too-distant past, zealous doctors would remove the appendix during other types of surgery---to get it "out of the way" just in case it would some day become infected. The philosophy was: The appendix is useless; I'm already elbow-deep into this person's gut; why don't I just snip the appendix now.

But no more.

Doctors now realize they can use the appendix for reconstructive surgery. In one type of bladder "replacement" surgery, doctors take part of the intestine to form a bladder and use the appendix tissue to recreate a sphincter muscle, which can contract and open the bladder when urinating. Similarly, the appendix is used as a substitute ureter, a tube that carries urine from the kidneys to the bladder.

A healthy appendix is as good as gold in the body. Then again, think how much Hayden Penn could get selling his appendix on eBay.

Jill, thought you might be interested in this:

Planned Parenthood is NOT to be trusted

Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties is currently being sued for medical malpractice by Rebecca Glover, a former customer who claims PP misdiagnosed her cervical cancer. The malpractice suit explains that Glover did not find out that Planned Parenthood had hidden this important medical information from her until her cancer had advanced to stage three, over a year later.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood failed to tell Glover that the results of her pap smear revealed that she had cervical cancer. To make things worse, Planned Parenthood allegedly attempted to cover up this grave mistake by subjecting Glover to a series of unnecessary treatments and ultimately refusing to turn over her medical records.

You may remember reading in the June 27 issue of the Wednesday STOPP Report that Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties is the same affiliate that is being sued for the death of 21-year-old mother and her preborn child. Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties is also one of the affiliates clamoring for more government funding in California.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood is a business that claims to be �the nation's most trusted sexual and reproductive health care advocate and provider.� As you can see from the numerous lawsuits being brought against Planned Parenthood, this could not be further from the truth. In reality, Planned Parenthood is consistently lying to and hurting men and women--and killing children--all across the country.

It is time to loudly and publicly tell our communities and their leaders that what Planned Parenthood offers is not health care; that Planned Parenthood cannot be trusted and doesn�t deserve a penny of our money.

Bethany, wow, I scanned a headline about that woman but didn't read that PP purposefully tried to cover up its negligence. These are not good times for that PP. Excellent. I feel very bad for that woman, however. She didn't realize she was going to a front alley gyne mill for her PAP.

You gave it the old college try, didn't you Heather?

Eerie. Felt like I was reading a Cameron post, or a Diana post sans the hostility towards religion.

OK, pro-choicers, it's obvious how us pro-lifers would respond. How would you guys respond? Keep in mind he's on your side.

carder, he has been responding to my e-mails all day. I have several more.

One attorney sent us pictures his assistant took when she went to an abortion "clinic" to pick up their client's medical records. She saw human feces on the stairway landing! When she went back a week later, the pile of poop was still in the same place!

After inspectors visited Nabil Ghali's "clinic" in Miami, they had to go next door to wash their hands, because Ghali's place had no soap or hot water.

Mona and I got a laugh at a picture of three health inspectors testifying in court about conditions inside an abortion clinic. They all three looked like they were about to hurl.

Speaking of hurling, Curtis Stover sued another abortionist for making him throw up when demonstrating his method of disposing of second trimester fetuses: he ground them up in a hand-cranked meat grinder and flushed them down the sink.

Christina, Oh that's awful!

I also got a response from Beket...the exact same one that Heather got...

Here is my reply...

Well my goodness, couldn't you have explained yourself a little better? I'm teasing...I will save this post and read it through slowly so as to understand better what you believe. I am unaware of what you believe and therefore couldn't possibly take pot shots at it. I only invited you to Jill's hoping to gain insight into how someone who does what you do, thinks. It is possible that some of the people there would "attack" your work, and certainly all of us would argue with you, but for the most part the folks at Jill's site come from all different ways of looking at this issue, and the dialogue tends to be civil. I really wanted it to be a learning experience, but if you would rather not, I completely understand. I'm not sure I'd be chomping at the bit to join a pro-choice group only to be turned into the "mascot for religious right nutcases". I myself am a Catholic, probably the group you dislike the most, and would surely fall back on Church teaching for my arguments. In that you are correct. Thanks for taking the time to answer. It can't be easy being in the position that you are in. And I know our side doesn't make it any easier.

He then sent this:
BTW, it took me less tham 30 minutes to draft and send the reply you just received, so don't go assuming that I have time to spend whirling around in circles of futile debate on the Stanek site. I don't. Neither do I have the interest.

And I responded:
That's fine. I appreciate the time you have given me already. Thanks! (Hey, you can't blame a lunatic for tryin', right?)

You know, I honestly can't blame the guy, and I do give him credit for responding to our emails...

Oh well, it would have been waaaayyyy interesting!

Carder,
You're right, I'm interested in hearing what the "other side" thinks, and what questions they would have asked. As to sounding like Cameron or Diana, I honestly think he sounds like SoMG's clone...creepy, huh?

MK, I also received the e-mail about the 30 second posting. At one point he even told me that I seemed somewhat sincere. He calmed down today a little. However, he still stands his ground, and he makes no apologies.

I think that one of the biggest problems with abortion is dealing with those who don't believe in God, religion, the afterlife or just human compassion in general. My good agnostic friend had an abortion. She doesn't believe that the baby was ever human. She says that she doesn't believe in God at all. I asked her if she has ever had any regrets about her abortion. Her response; " No." " I don't think about it at all." "Why would I?".....what can you say to these people? She doesn't even care about pro life/pro choice. She doesn't take a stand.

abortionist Ghali has been charged with sex abuse of his patients too.

Heather4life,

My husband has a friend who was an athiest. He was always very interested in the concept of God though. They would debate and debate until my husband told him to ask God for something. He came back a few days later and said "I believe in God". Of course you can't ask for anything that messes with another's free will. He is now a much happier person and you can just see how much his life has changed for the better. Of course, your friend may not want to accept that challenge, would you?

Rosie, great point. It's funny because when she's upset she will say "God help me." or "Oh my God." Unfortunately, I see a lot of selfishness in her behavior. On the other hand she can be very generous and helpful. I SEE the good in her. She generally only calls if she NEEDS something. It's usually all about her though. I guess I've gotten used to it. I still pray for her though.

Never hear anyone drop a plate and say "Oh Buddah"
Or "for Krishna's sake, knock it off..." or how about "Vishna damn it"...just sayin'.

@MK: Lol...that's kinda funny actually...I like "For Krishna's sake" the best. :-p

Yes, MK, for every bad abortionist you mention, I could compile much longer list of good ones (if I were inclined to take the trouble, and if I didn't have misgivings that posting their names on Jill Stanek's site might not be appreciated). Also, I could compile lists of bad practicioners, practicioners who have been shut down by the government, and practicioners who have been sued, in any other medical field--obstetrics, ophthalmology, whatever. It says nothing about the performance of the field overall.

Anyone who knows anything about statistics, or public health, or epidemiology knows: A list of bad practicioners doesn't mean anything, except that the system is working, these bad practicioners are being exposed and shut down.

SoMG,

That argument might even hold water...except for one tiny detail. These places aren't being exposed by their own kind, or the people who claim they are out there supporting the safety and health of women.

They are being exposed by pro lifers. What would happen if we weren't there? These places would still be open, and NOW and NARAL not only don't do anything to shut them down, they also ignore or deny that they exist.

You prove my point. Instead of showing outrage that places like this would give "legitimate" clinics a bad name, you simply defend the industries likelihood of having having a few bad apples.

You'd have more weight if just once you said "These place are horrible! What a disgrace to the profession"

Not that we'd agree with you, but at least you'd give the illusion of caring.

Sorry, but until these places are policed and regulated by pro-choicers (or at the very least, neutral sources) I don't see how you can say they are safe or anomalies.

Face it. Neither you nor anyone else in the abortion industry cares about anything but the almighty dollar...

SOMG,

Why don't you give us the list? We've been waiting a long time. If you already know who they are then why would it be so much trouble to name them?
You have concerns about posting their names on this site because they wouldn't appreciate it? PUH-LEEZE.
Anyone of any persausion on the abortion issue can open a phone book and know who they are and what they do. They can check the internet. Also, people talk.
Our local abortionist, when interviewed by a reporter, wouldn't admit to doing abortions because of "concern" about patient confidentiality. A doctor telling the public what procedures he performs is violating patient confidentiality? Excuse me doctor, but if you take a look in the yellow pages of your local phone book, you will see doctors listing what services they perform.

Mary, you wrote: "Anyone of any persausion (sic) on the abortion issue can open a phone book and know who they are and what they do. They can check the internet".

You go ahead. You're so keen to see a list, make it yourself. It'll be a good exercise for you.

MK, I don't think the NJ clinic was exposed by right-to-lifers. I think it was the Department of Health, or the local medical board, or some organ of government that investigated independently.

lol Somg, if you're going to claim you can make a list, the ball is in your court, not Mary's.

Come on SOMG,

Bethany is right. YOU make the claim so you are the one who must produce. I admit that I have no idea who these sterling characters you claim exist are or where to find them, so it will be necessary for you to inform me as well as the others on this blog as to who they are.

SoMG,
" The state Health Department�s inspection report on Alternatives is the department�s first in six years despite a state requirement to write one every other year."

Missing from the report Monday was a corrective action plan, which facilities are required to deliver to the state 10 business days after receiving an inspection report. The corrective action plan normally responds to each violation with details for fixing the problem

Oh yes, thank goodness these guys are on the job...10 to 1 says they finally inspected it because someone (a pro-lifer?) complained...

SOMG, thanks, but don't worry about my feelings. Knock yourself out. Post their names.

As for statistics, what matters here is the ratio. Measure the ratio of good doctors to bad in any other discipline against the ratio of good abortionists to bad, and that's where the truth will be seen.

You may find a quack pulmonologist every now and then, but not every time you turn around.

SoMG,

I taught pre-school for 12 years. When I would hear a horror story about another preschool, I would be outraged.

I am a mother. When I hear about mother's abusing their children, I am outraged! Don't they know that they are giving all mothers a bad name?

When some of the priests in the Catholic Church were exposed as pedophiles, I was outraged. They represent the church. Don't they understand the damage that their individual actions have done to the church as a whole. And the most upsetting thing of all was that our own Bishops didn't expose them, outsiders did.

Where is your outrage? Why aren't you upset that all abortionists are being given a bad name, and that your own kind is turning a blind eye while "outsiders" are exposing these scum?

Bad apples are bound to happen, but cover-ups and denial are the real sins...Perhaps yours is the only clinic left that has hot water and sterile instruments? Lucky you!

Whoever did or didn't report, these conditions should never have been allowed to exist and obviously state Health Department inspectors were derelict in their responsibilities. Are they this irresponsible with all health facilities or is it abortion clinics only that are given a free pass?
I can't imagine that reputable, self respecting, concientious, and properly trained and licensed medical personnel would tolerate these kinds of conditions, or would even work in them. I worked a week in a third world country hospital where personnel took pride in their work and despite conditions we can't even comprehend, made every attempt to maintain cleanliness and sterility. What possible excuse did the Alternatives clinic personnel have not to?

SOMG & MK -

Both clinics in NJ were finally inspected by the health department because of the lawsuits they were having filed against them by patients. It was the NJ right to life group that pushed for the inspections BEFORE some of the lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits get filed, and then pulled by the woman injured because they are afraid. (of what? - who knows)

SOMG - Why don't you give us that list? You keep saying you have it. There are several websites that give all abortionists names but they don't have a star rating or anything like that. And the abortion clinics that aren't ambulatory surgical centers or regulated by that state do not have to release a public list of complaints that have been made against them. In order to find out on those, you would have to go to the courts and have them pulled, at a fee of course.

Heather4life -

My father has worked in the business end of hospitals my whole life. In the late '70's and early '80's when abortions were more common in hospitals he did make note that it was the atheist DR.'s that complained the most that abortions were being done. He says it is still that way. He has only worked in small town hospitals, so that may be the difference.....

Mary -

"I can't imagine that reputable, self respecting, concientious, and properly trained and licensed medical personnel would tolerate these kinds of conditions, or would even work in them. "

If you think about it: Abortionist consider there day a success when 1/2 of all their patients hearts stop beating.

"I worked a week in a third world country hospital where personnel took pride in their work and despite conditions we can't even comprehend, made every attempt to maintain cleanliness and sterility. What possible excuse did the Alternatives clinic personnel have not to? "

As I've said before, animal hospitals, zoos, barns, wildlife rehab's are all better than those two abortions clinics. Our pets are being treated better than women and people like SOMG don't care. Think about it - dogs are given more respect - what does that say about how these people view women?

Valerie, great point! My vet's office is squeaky clean! So is our local animal shelter. I wonder what kind of woman wouldn't question his set up. What if some of these girls are HIV+? The same unsterile equipment being used again and again. A lot of abortion patients have STD's. Did you guys notice his urgency for the money? He's probably scrambling for his motel room payments. Jill, any word on what's going to happen to him?

Heather4Life: A lot of abortion patients have STD's.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Where did you read that?

Good grief, Laura. She didn't say all abortion patients have STD's. She didn't even say the majority of them do. She said "lots". And how can you possibly think otherwise, if the following information is true?

"More than half of all people will have an STD at some point in their lifetime. [1]

The estimated total number of people living in the US with a viral STD is over 65 million. [2]

Every year, there are at least 15 million new cases of STDs, some of which are curable. [2,3]

More than $8 billion is spent each year to diagnose and treat STDs and their complications. This figure does not include HIV. [4]

In a national survey of US physicians, fewer than one-third routinely screened patients for STDs. [5]

Less than half of adults ages 18 to 44 have ever been tested for an STD other than HIV/AIDS.

Each year, one in four teens contracts an STD. [6]

One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD by age 25. [7]

About half of all new STDs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24. [8] The total estimated costs of these nine million new cases of these STDs was $6.5 billion, with HIV and human papillomavirus (HPV) accounting for 90% of the total burden. [9]

Of the STDs that are diagnosed, only some (gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B) are required to be reported to state health departments and the CDC.

One of 20 people in the United States will get infected with hepatitis B (HBV) some time during their lives. [10] Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV. [11]

Approximately half of HBV infections are transmitted sexually. [12] HBV is linked to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.

It is estimated that as many as one in four Americans have genital herpes, a lifelong viral infection, yet up to 90 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it. [13] With more than 50 million adults in the US with genital herpes and up to 1.6 million new infections each year, some estimates suggest that by 2025 up to 40% of all men and half of all women could be infected. [14,15,16]

Over 6 million people acquire HPV each year, and by age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. [17] Most people with HPV do not develop symptoms. Some researchers believe that HPV infections may self-resolve and may not be lifelong like herpes. [2]

Cervical cancer in women, while preventable through regular Paps, is linked to high-risk types of HPV.

Each year, there are approximately 3 million new cases of chlamydia, many of which are in adolescents and young adults. [8] The CDC recommends that sexually active females 25 and under should be screened at least once a year for chlamydia, even if no symptoms are present.

About two-thirds of young females believe doctors routinely screen teens for chlamydia. [18] However, in 2003 only 30% of women 25 and under with commercial health care plans and 45% in Medicaid plans were screened for chlamydia. [19]

At least 15 percent of all American women who are infertile can attribute it to tubal damage caused by pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) , the result of an untreated STD. Consistent condom use reduces the risk of recurrent PID and related complications. [20]

References
Koutsky L. (1997). Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. American Journal of Medicine, 102(5A), 3-8.
American Social Health Association. (1998). Sexually transmitted diseases in America: How many cases and at what cost? Research Triangle Park, NC: American Social Health Association.
Cates W, Jr., American Social Health Association Panel. (1999). Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 26(Suppl. 4), S2-7.
Institute of Medicine. (1997). The hidden epidemic�Confronting sexually transmitted disease (edited by Thomas R. Eng and William T. Butler). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
St Lawrence JS et al. (2002). STD screening, testing, case reporting, and clinical and partner notification practices: a national survey of US physicians. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1784-1788.
Alan Guttmacher Institute. (1994). Sex and America's Teenagers. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Cates JR, Herndon NL, Schulz S L, Darroch JE. (2004). Our voices, our lives, our futures: Youth and sexually transmitted diseases. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W, Jr. (2004). Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 6-10.
Chesson HW, Blandford JM, Gift TL, Tao G, Irwin KL. (2004). The estimated direct medical cost of sexually transmitted diseases among American youth, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 36, 11-19.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis B Frequently Asked Questions. Updated April 1, 2005. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/faqb.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hepatitis B Prevention for Men Who Have Sex With Men. Online Fact Sheet. Updated April 1, 2005. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tracking the hidden epidemics, 2000: Trends in the United States. Retrieved April 22, 2005 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/news/RevBrochure1pdfHepatitisB.htm.
Fleming DT et al. (1997). Herpes simplex virus type 2 in the United States, 1976�1994. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1105�1111.
Corey L & Handsfield HH. (2000). Genital herpes and public health: addressing a global problem. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 791-794.
Armstrong GL et al. (2001). Incidence of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology, 153, 912-920.
Fisman DN et al. (2002). Projection of the future dimensions and costs of the genital herpes simplex type 2 epidemic in the United States. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29, 608-622.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Genital HPV Infection. Online Fact Sheet. Retrieved May 9, 2005 from http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm.
American Social Health Association. (2005). State of the Nation 2005: Challenges facing STD prevention in youth. Research Triangle Park, NC: American Social Health Association.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. (2004). The state of health care quality: 2004. Washington, DC: NCQA.
Ness RB et al. (2004). Condom use and the risk of recurrent pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic pelvic pain, or infertility following an episode of pelvic inflammatory disease. American Journal of Public Health, 2004, 94:1327-1329.

Page last updated May 3, 2006
http://www.ashastd.org/learn/learn_statistics.cfm "

And Laura, what is your point anyway? What is your opinion of a doctor who is not washing his equipment before reusing it on different women? Do you not find that absolutely disgusting?

And Laura, what is your point anyway? What is your opinion of a doctor who is not washing his equipment before reusing it on different women? Do you not find that absolutely disgusting?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, I say close all the dirty medical facilities. Of course, you are FAR more likely to get a nosocomial infection at a hospital than at a free-standing clinic, and if you're going to be molested by a medical professional, it's FAR more likely to be a dentist.
If you people are so concerned about women, why arent you fighting to outlaw these "hospitals" and "dentists" who are harming them? Why are you going after abortion providers where this kind of thing is actually less likely to happen?

Abortionists delibrately kill 1/2 of all their patients (the majority of them being female, just fyi). This is the first reason they should not exist. Real doctors don't try to kill, they try to heal.

The molestation and filthy conditions is just another thing to add to their list of atrocities.

Where is your proof that it is more likely to be molested by dentists than abortionists?

(not that I don't acknowledge there are lots of scumbag dentists out there!)

"If you people are so concerned about women, why arent you fighting to outlaw these "hospitals" and "dentists" who are harming them? Why are you going after abortion providers where this kind of thing is actually less likely to happen?"

what? you don't make any sense Laura. Do work at a abortion clinic Laura?

I would support hanging out to dry any type of health care practitioner at any level who sexually abuses a patient.
The abortionist will have the advantage of having the woman in a very compromised position, whether he sexually abuses her, practices substandard care, or injures her. She most likely wants her pregnancy and abortion kept secret, and wants to get out of that clinic as soon as she can and never look back. This is not a woman who will be anxious to file a complaint or testify in court. That could well explain why the molestation of women could continue for a prolonged period and why the dirtbags who molest them have little to fear.
I don't think any of us would hesitate to report inappropriate behavior by our dentist or family practitioner. Nor do I think we would step foot in their offices if we saw unswept floors, dirt, blood, rust, dirty instruments, or noticed the practitioner didn't waste time on such trivialities as handwashing between patients.

Laura, objectively speaking, isn't Mary's point as to why aborting women are more susceptible to sexual abuse than others rational?

Laura, objectively speaking, isn't Mary's point as to why aborting women are more susceptible to sexual abuse than others rational?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure, it's possible. Of course we know for certain that there's a crisis level of child sexual abuse in this country involving Christian clergy, and I don't see a single one of you attempting to outlaw Christianity in this country.

I can guarantee you this Laura, every day in abortions mills across the country ~3,500 people are killed intentionally. Can't say about other medical facilities.

Laura, You are writing off topic again. What is it with you pro choicers and the kidney and dentist arguments? For cripes sake! Here is the BIG difference. Most women don't want to talk or tell anyone about their abortions. If this was something to proudly trumpet, we wouldn't have those ugly lil parental notification laws. Why do you think NOW and Naral are trying to stop it in some states. Abortionists KNOW that women want their abortions to be kept secret. Therefore the abortion patient becomes easy prey. Teens are especially vulnerable. They don't want this all over the news. They don't want the storey to hit the paper. Then people might find out about their dirty little secret. Nope. The abortion patient just slinks off with her mouth shut. I second what Mary said about ANY professional and sexual misconduct. LOL! How do I know that abortion patients have STD's? Helllooo! Some of my friends have had abortions and STD's. That's enough evidence for me. I even have a good friend who is HIV+.

Laura -

Try not to use big words that you don't understand.

"Of course, you are FAR more likely to get a nosocomial infection at a hospital than at a free-standing clinic"

Nosocomial infections mostly occure in patients who have an overnight stay in a HOSPITAL. As a matter of fact the definition of nosocomial is an infection obtained during a hospital STAY.

In free standing clinics, whether abortion or not, you do not have an extended stay. In abortion mills like Tiller's in KS where the late term abortion takes days the patient stays at a hotel not at the clinic. So of course these infection will happen more often in a hospital.....

"If you people are so concerned about women, why arent you fighting to outlaw these "hospitals" and "dentists" who are harming them? Why are you going after abortion providers where this kind of thing is actually less likely to happen?"

You see Laura - the dentist and other health care professionals that harm their patients have many different organizations that a patient can turn to when they need help. They are also inspected by health departments on a regular basis and have to answer to any mistakes. But many abortion mills arent' even licensed. No one governs over them. They do not have any state laws or rules that they are forced to abide by. Many of these facilities do not even pass the basic fire safety codes (see PP of Kansas and mid-missouri and how they are fighting these regulations).

This is why we "go after" the abortionist and their mills. Because the people who are supposed to be protecting women are turning their backs and ignoring the problem.

We had a local OBGYN in my state who ended up in prison for sexual misconduct. He did not perform abortions. There was a huge ta do in the papers, on the local news, and outrage from the women involved as well as the community. Everyone wanted the guy's head on a platter. He was fondling patients, kissing them, and giving them his home phone number, in hopes of a little after hours fun. He will be spending a very long time behind bars. Yet, the local abortionist can do the very same thing, and he can get away with it for years! This guy only got away with it for about 2 months.

My point? If I'm just going in for my annual Pap, and my gyn tries to kiss me, I'm screamin at the top of my lungs! Why on earth would I feel ashamed?

Valerie:
Laura -
Try not to use big words that you don't understand.
Nosocomial infections mostly occure in patients who have an overnight stay in a HOSPITAL. As a matter of fact the definition of nosocomial is an infection obtained during a hospital STAY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't use big words that YOU don't understand.

Nothing in the definition of nosocomial infections has anything to do with an overnight stay.
The truth is that freestanding clinics, whether they be birthing centers, dialysis facilities or women's clinics, have WAY lower rates of nosocomial infection than hospitals.
A 4-8 hour hospital "STAY" for birthing, dialysis, abortion, wound care or ANY care for that matter, is more likely to end in lethal infection if done in a hospital rather than a freestanding facility.
Why do you think that so many birthing centers, burn centers, cosmetic surgery facilities, chronic wound centers etc. pride themselves on being a seperate entity from their local hospital? Create a separate facility and the insurance rates - not to mention the litigation rates - drop down to nothing.

Laura,

It seems that there is no way to know for certain how many of these infections occur in abortion clinics...and I doubt that these girls and women would connect their abortion with a mysterious fever or rash 3 weeks after their abortion. I'll be curious to see the statistics in 2009 when most of the states have begun to keep records. For now, I don't think you can argue either way, except to say that anywhere, blood and bodily fluids are being exposed, and strict, meticulous methods aren't used, it would make sense that you would have increased chances of contracting "something"...

It's what we've been saying all along...until these clinics are regulated the same way ALL other medical facilites are, we have no way of knowing how many women get sick, how many abortions are botched, how many babies are born alive, how many women are molested, how many clinics are rat infested...

I guess you don't care tho, as long as the clinics stay open...

United States 18 Yes

Alabama No NA
Alaska No NA
Arizona No NA
Arkansas No NA
California Yes By January 1, 2008, health care associated infections to be reported to state
Colorado Yes Starting on or before July 31, 2007, health facilities shall routinely submit its hospital-acquired infection data to the national healthcare safety network in accordance with national healthcare safety network requirements and procedures. The information shall also be made available to the state. The reporting requirement includes hospital-acquired infection rates for specific clinical procedures, including the following categories: (I) Cardiac surgical site infections; (II) Orthopedic surgical site infections; and (III) Central line-related bloodstream infections
Connecticut No NA
Delaware No NA
District of Columbia No NA
Florida Yes Data on hospital-acquired infections to be reported to state
Georgia No NA
Hawaii No NA
Idaho No NA
Illinois Yes Infection rates to be reported to state
Indiana Yes Health care providers are to provide state with information relating to infection rates
Iowa No NA
Kansas No NA
Kentucky No NA
Louisiana No NA
Maine No NA
Maryland Yes Health care-associated infection information from hospitals to be reported to state
Massachusetts No NA
Michigan No NA
Minnesota No NA
Mississippi No NA
Missouri Yes The state shall collect data annually on required nosocomial infection incidence rates from hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, and other facilities; Medical facilities must also report nosocomial infection outbreaks
Montana No NA
Nebraska Yes Each hospital licensed in Nebraska shall, at least annually, provide surgeons performing surgery at such hospital a report as to the number and rates of surgical infections in surgical patients of such surgeon; Health care providers must also report to a patient safety organization all unanticipated deaths or major permanent losses of function associated with health care associated nosocomial infection
Nevada Yes Within 14 days of the occurrence, a health care facility must report the date, the time and a brief description of the event to the state health division
New Hampshire Yes Each hospital shall regularly report to the department the hospital infection data it has collected, including data on central line related bloodstream infections, ventilator associated pneumonia, surgical wound infections, and urinary tract infections
New Jersey Yes A health care entity shall maintain for a period of four years all records and source data relating to its infection rate and shall make the records available to the division, the board which licenses or otherwise authorizes the health care professional, the review panel and the Department of Health and Senior Services, as applicable, upon request
New Mexico No NA
New York Yes Each general hospital shall maintain a program capable of identifying and tracking hospital acquired infections for the purpose of public reporting under this section and quality improvement. Each hospital shall regularly report to the department the hospital infection data it has collected.
North Carolina No NA
North Dakota No NA
Ohio Yes Hospitals must report volume of infections to director of health
Oklahoma Yes For device-related blood stream infections, hospitals must report to the Hospital Advisory Council
Oregon No NA
Pennsylvania Yes Providers must submit to the Health Care Cost Containment Council rates of infection for specified diagnoses and treatments, grouped by severity, for individual providers
Rhode Island Yes Infection outbreaks (as defined by the department in regulation) shall be reported to the department of health division of facilities regulation
South Carolina No NA
South Dakota No NA
Tennessee Yes Every facility shall report unusual events, and certain other defined incidents, to the department of health within seven (7) business days from the facility's identification of the event or incident. These events include intravascular catheter related events including necrosis or infection requiring repair. Most facilities must also report infections to the Centers for Disease Control's National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance/National Healthcare Safety Network (NNIS/NHSN) surveillance system.
Texas No NA
Utah No NA
Vermont No NA
Virginia Yes Acute care hospitals shall report information about nosocomial infections to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. Such hospitals shall release their infection data to the Board of Health. The specific infections to be reported, the hospitals required to report, and patient populations to be included shall be prescribed by Board regulation. (effective July 1, 2008)
Washington No NA
West Virginia No NA
Wisconsin No NA
Wyoming No NA

Guam No NA
Puerto Rico No NA
Virgin Islands No NA

Residence Unknown No NA
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A 4-8 hour hospital "STAY" for birthing, dialysis, abortion, wound care or ANY care for that matter, is more likely to end in lethal infection if done in a hospital rather than a freestanding facility.

And you can back this up, how?

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=8&ind=407

Link for the above post...

Laura -

nosocomial infection:

From Websters: acquired or occurring in a hospital

From cancerweb online medical dictionary:
Pertaining to or originating in the hospital, said of an infection not present or incubating prior to admittance to the hospital, but generally occurring 72 hours after admittance, the term is usually used to refer to patient disease, but hospital personnel may also acquire nosocomial infection.

From Medlineplus medical dictionary:
acquired or occurring in a hospital

From medterms.net medical term dictionary:
Hospital-acquired infection: An infection caught while hospitalized. The medical term for a hospital-acquired infection is "nosocomial." ....
A nosocomial infection is strictly and specifically an infection "not present or incubating prior to admittance to the hospital, but generally occurring 72 hours after admittance." The word "nosocomial" is made up of two Greek words. The prefix "noso-" comes from "nosus" meaning disease and "-comial" comes from "komeion" meaning to take care of. Nosocomial could therefore refer to any affliction acquired by a patient while under medical supervision, but it doesn't. It now refers more narrowly to a hospital-acquired infection.

From medicine.net:
Originating or taking place in a hospital, acquired in a hospital, especially in reference to an infection.
A nosocomial infection is specifically one that was not present or incubating prior to the patient being admitted to the hospital, but occurred within 72 hours after admittance to the hospital.

From the medical-dictionary.com:
1. Of or relating to a hospital.
2. Of or being a secondary disorder associated with being treated in a hospital but unrelated to the patient's primary condition.

From intellihealth.com:
originating or taking place in a hospital

All I did was go to google, type in medical dictionary and pulled the first several medical dictionaries definitions with the exception of websters definition.

I was responding to YOUR statment:

"Of course, you are FAR more likely to get a nosocomial infection at a hospital than at a free-standing clinic"

Since, by definition, you cannot get this type of infection at a free standing clinic, your point is moot.

Now, is there any reason why you ignored the 2nd part of my post?

MK -

Ye of little faith!

I really did know what I was talking about....

;-)

MK -

Don't you like how we went from just a socomial infection to a lethal infection....

Drumming up emotions perhaps?

Laura is in a tizzy about hospitals and infections, yet we have an abortionist in an abandoned building without sterile equipment. This just screams infection. Not to mention all of the laws he's breaking.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf
page 34.
Number of abortion related deaths per 100,000 abortions for 1972-2002 (Some states didn't report)
486
Number of abortions performed between 1972-2002
40,000,000
40,000,000 divided by 100,000=400
400 X 486 = 194,400
I stink at math, but it would seem to me that this is saying that there were 194,400 abortion related deaths between 1972 and 2002...

Before I draw any conclusions, someone check my reasoning...
Posted by: MK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 27, 2007 08:53 AM

Someone check my reasoning before I draw any conclusions...I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong...

that's correct MK

Well,
I've been searching for over an hour and cannot come up with a single source providing statistics on deaths occurring in the dentists office.

But I would have a hard time believing that in the last 20 years or so, 194,400 people died in the dentists chair...

MK, I also want to add that more dentists might be exposed than abortionists, for their sexual misconduct. After all, I have yet to meet anyone ashamed of their root canals or tooth extractions.