Merry Christmas, abortion style

gift my fox orlando.JPGWere abortion illegal, pro-aborts would be trumpeting the case below as evidence abortion should be legal. Otherwise desperate mothers are driven to dangerous acts, they'd say.

But abortion is legal. And its legality has only resulted in increased access to dangerous acts of abortion.

Because this abortion was committed at 7 months gestation, and all this mother did was take a medication stimulate premature delivery, chances are her baby was born alive. If so, will she be charged with murder? From FoxNews.com...

A south TX couple put an aborted 7-month-old fetus in a gift box under a Christmas tree after they were unable to flush the remains down a toilet, authorities alleged Monday.

Ruby Lee Medina, 31, and Javier Gonzalez, 37... have been charged with abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence. Bond was set Monday at $20k each....

San Juan Police Chief Juan Gonzalez said police found the fetus inside the woman's trailer home Thursday after getting an anonymous tip.

Autopsy results are pending, but Gonzalez said police believe the woman used pills to induce an abortion Thursday, then called an ambulance after she began bleeding and told doctors she didn't know where the fetus was.

The police chief said the couple tried to flush the fetus down the toilet, but that didn't work.

"Apparently they cleaned up the fetus and they placed it inside a gift box under the Christmas tree," the police chief said.

More from TheMonitor.com...

... Medina's mother said she already named her unborn grandson, who was due in March 2010.

Instead, baby Noel was born last week during an apparent backroom abortion. The incident was punctuated by the unborn child's father allegedly burying the fetus wrapped in a Christmas gift box in the back yard....

Medina and Javier Gonzalez, her married boyfriend, turned themselves in Monday afternoon at the San Juan Police Department. The parents are accused of inducing an abortion, wrapping the fetus up as a Christmas present and burying it in the yard at her residence....

Those alleged acts translate into abuse of a corpse and evidence tampering charges the couple faced at an arraignment Monday afternoon....

Gonzalez, 37, had 2 other children with Medina, even though he remains married to another woman.

The married man and his mistress could eventually face capital murder charges pending autopsy results or an Hidalgo Co. grand jury's decision after prosecutors present them the case....

Medina, 31, delivered the fetus last week after she apparently took pills typically given during abortions, Perez said, adding that she did not know the drug's name. Perez said her daughter told her she took the drugs brought over by friends from Reynosa to treat heartburn.

Instead, the pills apparently induced labor, with Medina delivering the fetus while sitting on the toilet in her bathroom....

The male fetus was cremated at an area morgue early Monday afternoon....

Police continue to investigate the case and the possibility that another fetus delivered by Medina during a similar incident may be buried at an area cemetery..... In addition to the abortion drugs, police suspect Medina had taken cocaine during the forced labor, the chief said....

Should the corpse abuse charge be upgraded to capital murder, Medina and Gonzalez could face the death penalty, if convicted. Medina told investigators the fetus was not breathing after she gave birth.

"The autopsy report will indicate what type of investigation we have and where we take it from there and if there's any additional charges to file," Chief Gonzalez said....

And more from TheMonitor.com...

TX is one of at least 19 states that have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.... The law here in the Lone Star State defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

Otherwise healthy babies born at 28 weeks have a 90% chance of survival without physical or neurological impairment, according to the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.


Comments:

Abortion......the gift that doesn't keep on giving or...

Have a Happy Abortion or....

Not Many Happy Returns or.....

Wishing You and Your Could-Have-Beens a Happy Holiday Season or....

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, the parents were trying to figure out how to get rid of their problem or....

Silent Night, Unholy night or....

Mom got caught kissing Santa and then expected him to pay for the abortion...

God help us. For the darkness that has descended on our country via Liberalism is too much to bear.

Crush them in 2010 and 2012.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is Hisman at December 15, 2009 11:54 AM


sick...very sick....

Posted by: RSD at December 15, 2009 12:09 PM


Hey...I thought abortion was LEGAL! I thought things like this were not supposed to happen unless abortion was illegal!
And why won't she hold her head up and look at the judge in the eye??
None of this is ever going to stop until we can fully come to grips that life is precious! All lives...including our own.
Goodness gracious...what next??

Posted by: nancy at December 15, 2009 12:15 PM


Disturbing story, indeed...but, unclear what this has to do with whether or not abortion is legal.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 12:19 PM


@Danielle, One major argument for legalizing abortion was that it would do away with "back alley abortions." "No more coat hangers!" was the anthem. This story proves making abortion illegal did not eliminate back alley abortions. The promise of no back alley abortions was another lie to sell the larger lie.

Posted by: Kyle at December 15, 2009 12:42 PM


@Danielle, One major argument for legalizing abortion was that it would do away with "back alley abortions." "No more coat hangers!" was the anthem. This story proves making abortion illegal did not eliminate back alley abortions. The promise of no back alley abortions was another lie to sell the larger lie.
Posted by: Kyle at December 15, 2009 12:42 PM

-Which was never true in the first place. Yes, legalized abortion certainly may have REDUCED back alley - significantly, hence the rally cry 'no more hangers' etc - but there is no and never was a guarantee that there would/will never be another person who jeapordizes themselves in this way, for infinite reasons. Legalized abortion can no more eradicate situations like this any more than criminalizing it (or 'de-legalizing') can stop people from seeking it out.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 12:52 PM


We bought all of the lies. That abortion was good for women, that it would eliminate child abuse and lower the crime rate. Hows that working out for us?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 15, 2009 1:00 PM


:(

Posted by: Vannah at December 15, 2009 1:10 PM


Danielle,

The year before Roe v Wade the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low, so much so that the abortion leadership had to deceive the public with wildly exaggerated numbers they knew perfectly well were fabricated.
To the abortion establishment, the ends justified the means, even if those "means" meant lies and promotion of religious bigotry.
So please, this notion about "coat hangers" is a fallacy. How could the death rate be steadily decreasing if women were using such dangerous methods?
Well, the fact most illegal abortions were done in doctor's offices might explain it. My cousin had a couple. Also these doctors, unlike the ones doing assembly line legal abortions, had to fear legal consequences. As such, they had to be highly selective of what patients they took and be darned careful the women suffered no complications.

No guarantees? Well, we certainly didn't hear that when the struggle to legalize abortion was in full swing. No longer would women resort to dangerous methods once abortion was legal was the famous battle cry.

Human nature all too often does not follow logic.
There are factors such as fear, mental illness, protection of privacy, to name just a few. The human mind is a very strange machine. That is why abortion clinics can get away with being ratholes. They have women in a very compromised position. Also we have to dispense with the absurd notion that legalizing something puts the criminal element into an unemployment line. All too often it gives criminals opportunities they never dreamed of. Plenty of examples can be found of this when abortion was legalized,

I read years ago about generations of women in Europe, I don't recall the country but it may have been France or Belgium, going to women called "angels" who were trained in abortion. These "angels" apparently had quite a good track record, their trade was passed down through generations and they had earned the trust of women.
Abortion became legal and guess what? The "angels" didn't have to collect unemployment!
Business was never better. It wasn't that women couldn't have a legal abortion its that they didn't want them! For generations they had trusted the "angels" so why should they stop now?
Efforts to put the "angels" out of business were futile.
Again, human nature. The women did not have to fill out forms, give their name or any information, and no questions were asked. An "angel" would likely be more sympathetic and supportive than some doctor.
Sooo, the number of illegal abortions was not significantly curbed.

I personally know a nurse who planned to self induce an abortion if pregnant, but fortunately she was not. Again, protection of privacy and no hassle going to a clinic.

Sorry Danielle, but human nature isn't some simplistic slogan that fits on a bumper sticker.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 1:55 PM


Sorry Danielle, but human nature isn't some simplistic slogan that fits on a bumper sticker.
Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 1:55 PM

-Agreed. On this point only, but, agreed.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 2:11 PM


Danielle,

On what do you not agree?

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 2:37 PM


Danielle,
On what do you not agree?
Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 2:37 PM

-Excluding the take on human nature, pretty much everything else you said.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 2:57 PM


Danielle,

OK,

So, can you show where I am wrong and how?

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 3:12 PM


So, can you show where I am wrong and how?
Posted by: Mary at December 5, 2009 3:12 PM

-I don't know if it will benefit either of us. I don't know if 'wrong' is how I would see it - rather our perception and deductions of the how and why is completely opposite of each other.

I have no desire to get into a 'show me your source for those numbers' debate. I have no way to cooberate the anecdotal stories and conclusions you put in your post, so lets 1st take that off the table. You and I disagree on the agenda and deception intent of 'abortion leadership' in the early years of RwV and the severity of the illegal abortion problem pre/post. We disagree on the cause/correlation of abortion complications in the hands of licensed doctors. We disagree on whether or not the headlines from the PC side in the 70s was meant to guarantee a future with no criminality or complication to abortion. We disagree that abortion clinics are 'ratholes.' We disagree with the philosophy of whether legalizing formerly criminal acts upends the criminal element. We disagree with the idea of celebrating those who perform abortions and what their ultimate objectives are/were. Like I said, everything.

It's two people looking at a rorscach and coming up with entirely different responses as to what it is.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 4:20 PM


Danielle,

You state the obvious, we disagree. So point out where I am wrong as I pointed out where you, and the American public as a whole, has been misled.

The agenda of the abortion leadership is not my personal opinion, but rather is stated by Dr.Bernard Nathanson in his book, "Aborting America". Dr. Nathanson was a leader in the abortion legalization movement. Who better than he to say what really went on and what motivated the abortion leadership and movement.

Also, check out the "clinic" of Dr. Roy Carhart and tell me if you would consider that to be anything more than a rathole. How about Tiller hiring people off the street to work in his clinic, administer drugs, and supervise patient care? Ironically it has been Operation Rescue at the forefront of exposing hacks and their rathole clinics. Check out Operationrescue.org to get documentation on abortion clinic scandals and hacks performing operations.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 4:59 PM


you can not seriously expect to convince anyone with "data" from a source as dripping with bias as operation rescue

Posted by: l at December 15, 2009 6:01 PM


"The agenda of the abortion leadership is not my personal opinion, but rather is stated by Dr.Bernard Nathanson in his book, "Aborting America". Dr. Nathanson was a leader in the abortion legalization movement. Who better than he to say what really went on and what motivated the abortion leadership and movement."

Thanks Mary, I have that book, so you motivated me to find exactly where he talks about it. It is primarily on pages 197-198 where he acknowldges that there were approximately 39 deaths in 1973, not the 5,000 - 10,000 that the abortion activists claimed. He even says that they all pretty much knew this was a lie, but the number was helpful to their cause so no one corrected it.

I think Danielle should also learn Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano's stories, the original Roe and Doe in the 1973 abortion cases. They both feel that they were deceived and are now very powerful pro-life activists.

Posted by: Peg at December 15, 2009 6:04 PM


"It's two people looking at a rorscach and coming up with entirely different responses as to what it is."

Well Danielle, the law has looked upon it and decided that it was tampering with a corpse. That would imply the desecration of a human person's remains, otherwise the charges would have been along the lines of improper disposal of medical waste.

Of the many gut-wrenching dimensions of this story is the juxtaposition of the Christ Child in the Nativity set under my tree and the similar placement of this little human who was so close to being born. It is the enormity of evil that spits in God's face shown here in this story, the grotesque mockery of the Nativity meant to save us from precisely this malevolence.

"I came that you might have LIFE and have it more abundantly," was mocked by this couple.

Any woman can walk into ANY Catholic hospital and have all of her prenatal care provided for free if she states that she is without means. The same goes for social services should she decide to keep the baby or place it for adoption.

Some things are pretty straightforward Danielle, even for pro-choice folks. Eventually one comes to the point where they can no longer defend the indefensible, or go mad trying.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 15, 2009 6:42 PM


l

"Dripping wit bias" or not, if they can show documentation then you have to take them seriously, unless of course you can prove them wrong. They have done far more to expose abortion hacks and dangerous clinics than those great protectors of women, NOW and NARAL have.
If you can prove OR's exposure of these hacks and dangerous clinics to be false or biased, let's hear from you.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 6:53 PM


Hi Peg,

You're welcome. It should be pointed out that at the time the book was written, Dr. Nathanson was not pro-life. He was not particularly fond of PL people but was having some reservations about the abortion movement. Dr. Nathanson was never one to concern himself with being anyone's friend and he was devoted to the abortion movement.
I think these factors give the book a great deal of validity and objectivity.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 7:13 PM


Can we just get "Safe Haven" to be a national and nationally-agreed thing? Can we not concentrate on something so apparently crucially needed? It is so much better than boxing a baby who might've lived, who was indeed wanted by other parents. Where is that option? The only times I read of Safe Haven is when some authority wants to hunt down parents and either press charges or get history. If that means death for a little one, forego it, dammit.

Posted by: Carol at December 15, 2009 7:16 PM


Hi Peg,

You will note that abortion advocates now treat McCorvey with only seething contempt.

Hey folks, you had no issues with her character flaws, which she will readily own up to, when her situation could be exploited to your benefit so dispense with the sanctimony. The little white trash served her purpose, right?
It was being treated with such contempt that drove McCorvey to the PL side.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 7:18 PM


Carol,

Exactly. The parents apparently cared enough to leave the child in a safe place where he/she would be found. Leave it at that. They are unwilling/unable to care for the child and this does not merit prosecution.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 7:22 PM


You state the obvious, we disagree. So point out where I am wrong as I pointed out where you, and the American public as a whole, has been misled.
Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 4:59 PM

-I state the obvious because its the crux of the entire debate so far on this post. You provide proof of a malevolent agenda...from a renowned pro-life activist. One who for the past 30+ years, has shared what I will assume are many of the same viewpoints on abortion as your own. Dr. Carhart's clinic is shabby and run down, from the pictures I've seen on pro-life sites. For what reason, I don't know. You've deducted that this proves the entire industry's disregard for women who seek abortions. You also found a problem with the staffing of another doctor's offices, as though this also correlates to your existing viewpoint on abortion.

These were the points you addressed to conclude that, as you stated, I and the American public have been 'misled' (I'm not quite sure on what, specifically, but I'll assume we're talking about the procedure and industry as a whole). Again, the conclusions drawn from all the points here are...matters of perception.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 7:29 PM


I think Danielle should also learn Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano's stories, the original Roe and Doe in the 1973 abortion cases. They both feel that they were deceived and are now very powerful pro-life activists.
Posted by: Peg at December 15, 2009 6:04 PM

-Heard them both. Unmoved.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 7:31 PM


Well Danielle, the law has looked upon it and decided that it was tampering with a corpse. That would imply the desecration of a human person's remains, otherwise the charges would have been along the lines of improper disposal of medical waste.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 15, 2009 6:42 PM

-Gerald, FYI, I was not referring to this case when I was responding earlier. Thanks.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 7:34 PM


Danielle 7:29PM

You will note in my post to Peg that when Nathanson wrote his book, he was not involved with, nor did he particularly like PL people. He was not writing his book from a PL perspective.
He was beginning to have qualms about the abortion movement, which he had been fiercely devoted to, and its aftermath. He won no popularity contests when, in taking over the largest abortion clinic in the world, he demanded strict medical procedure, including surgical scrub and clean gowns and gloves for each patient. Aborionists didn't like this as it meant fewer patients they could operate on every day and less money. They couldn't race from patient to patient as was their custom.
His conversion to the PL cause was gradual.
I think that gives him more validity and objectivity.

Tiller's clinic was staffed by people with no medical training or credentials. That's a fact. You had only to check his website. Carhart's clinic had been powered by an outdoor generator. Something you would expect to see in an impoverished third world country. Central Women's Center in Kansas was a cockroach infested firetrap that violated every safety code. It was approved by the National Abortion Federation.

Not matters of perception Danielle.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 8:39 PM


I have no desire to get into a 'show me your source for those numbers' debate. I have no way to cooberate the anecdotal stories and conclusions you put in your post, so lets 1st take that off the table. You and I disagree on the agenda and deception intent of 'abortion leadership' in the early years of RwV and the severity of the illegal abortion problem pre/post. We disagree on the cause/correlation of abortion complications in the hands of licensed doctors. We disagree on whether or not the headlines from the PC side in the 70s was meant to guarantee a future with no criminality or complication to abortion. We disagree that abortion clinics are 'ratholes.' We disagree with the philosophy of whether legalizing formerly criminal acts upends the criminal element. We disagree with the idea of celebrating those who perform abortions and what their ultimate objectives are/were. Like I said, everything.

It's two people looking at a rorscach and coming up with entirely different responses as to what it is.
Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 4:20 PM

not really.
What I see is someone who is bound and determined to believe what she wants despite evidence to the contrary.
Sort of like, when proaborts insisted years ago that the unborn baby at 8 weeks was a blob of cells, despite scientific evidence and anecdotal accounts by women who had miscarried. :)

Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 8:43 PM


Not matters of perception Danielle.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 8:39 PM

-Neither of the topics you readdressed here were really issues of debate, Mary, other than whether or not the Silent Scream doctor is a credible, objective and accurate depictor of the early abortion movement. I didn't argue whether Carhart's office was a mess, only on what the conclusion of it was. On these points you and I will continue not to see eye to eye.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 8:51 PM


What I see is someone who is bound and determined to believe what she wants despite evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 8:43 PM

-I know. It's easier that way.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 8:53 PM


What I see is someone who is bound and determined to believe what she wants despite evidence to the contrary.
Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 8:43 PM

-I know. It's easier that way.
Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 8:53 PM

no what it is, is sad. Because of people like you millions of babies die every year.
ignorance is NOT bliss, Danielle.
How many abortions have you had or participated in either directly or indirectly?

Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 9:07 PM


no what it is, is sad. Because of people like you millions of babies die every year.
ignorance is NOT bliss, Danielle.
How many abortions have you had or participated in either directly or indirectly?
Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 9:07 PM

-Ignorance is a terrible teacher, that is the truth.

As a clinic volunteer and friend, I do not know the number I've indirectly participated in. I'm not sure what 'directly' participated means, though.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 9:24 PM


As a clinic volunteer and friend, I do not know the number I've indirectly participated in. I'm not sure what 'directly' participated means, though.
Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 9:24 PM

ahhh, as I suspected........

you poor thing.

Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 9:45 PM


you poor thing.
Posted by: angel at December 15, 2009 9:45 PM

-Thanks for your concern, Angel. I'll take this note of sympathy, vigorously sift through the condescension, and try to embrace it in the manner it was given. Have a good night.

Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 10:00 PM


Danielle, 8:51PM

Who would be more credible than Dr.Nathanson? As I said, he was never a man who was out to be anyone's friend.

I think denial is your way of coping and I can understand why. Its called human nature. We're your friends here Danielle.

Posted by: Mary at December 15, 2009 10:31 PM


Sad story. At Christmas. How sick are we humans. This couple could pay for cocaine, but not for a baby. And here it comes -- the pro-life people will declare how these poor victims (the adult-age people with plenty of knowledge about where babies come from, since they already had a couple) could not "afford" an abortion, since we don't have socialized health care. --They can afford cocaine, but not a baby, or an abortion. So, they sneak some pills over from Mexico. Sad.

Posted by: Row1 at December 15, 2009 11:17 PM


Danielle, almost every person who comes on this blog vigorously supporting abortion, participates in abortion to some degree.
This is also my life experience - every person I've ever met who is proabortion either has had at least one abortion, or is heavily involved in the abortion industry or is deeply entrenched in the contraceptive lifestyle.
My sympathy for you is genuine: to have helped destroy such innocent life as a baby under the notion of helping women is terribly sad.
How can death of a baby ever be a solution?

Posted by: angel at December 16, 2009 7:19 AM


Angel, here i am.
One person who is pro choice who has never had an abortion, has never been involved in anyway in the industry and doesnt take contraceptives.

nice to meet you.

Posted by: irish at December 16, 2009 8:23 AM


Danielle...

There are less than a 1,000 abortion clinics left in the US. Probably not ALL of them are dumps but photos/videos have proven a LOT of them are. I can't remember what abortion clinic it was that health inspectors came in and found they were sterilizing surgical equipment by running it through a dishwasher that was sitting by the toilet.

Another police officer was called to a clinic (again, can't recall which one but I can google these stories and find out for you) because the abortionist was accusing his staff of stealing money from him. The police officer had to give testimony later as to the FILTHY conditions of the clinic.

When operation rescue (yes a pro-life group) bought Central Women's Services (an abortion clinic) they found exposed wiring, dead cockroaches everywhere, blood on the floor, stains on the carpet etc..It was a nasty, dirty place. They have documented all of this through video and photographs.

I'm sure you think you're really helping women Danielle. I think from the testimonies of women on here who have aborted you will find you are an instrument being used in their emotional destruction.

Posted by: Sydney M at December 16, 2009 8:32 AM


No hot water


Florida's Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) 10/10/1989 inspection, uncovered that at the Miami International Aesthetic Abortion Center, Florida inspectors noted that there was no restroom at the facility. Patients and staff were forced to share a portable commode. Inspectors also noted that there was no hot water to ensure proper sterilization of the equipment and physicians or employees.


No surgical gloves, soap or hot water found


At the Ladies First abortion clinic in Florida, inspectors stated that there was no hot water and the hot water taps had been broken for some time.

According to an October 5, 1989 PR Newswire story (Florida HRS closes Broward County abortion clinic, agency claims facility worse of recent closings), there was no soap at the clinic's three sinks and there wasn't a single sterile surgical glove in the place. Meanwhile they were doing abortions.

Reports stated that a filthy mop that a veteran public health doctor said stunk of dried blood was stored with medical supplies.

Green mold, blood soaked table, and no soap inside


Florida's Blue Coral Medical (abortion) Center in Miami was inspected by the state.

Greg Coler, secretary of the State Department of Health said, "the Blue Coral clinics, appears to be little more than a satellite operation. There was actually an abortion-suction device in this place that had green mold growing on it. When we got there, there wasn’t any soap in the place, so our inspectors had to go next door to wash their hands."

It also reported that the stirrups on one table was covered with blood and an oxygen mask still had lipstick on it from a patient who had needed it some time before.
In addition to inspectors finding that that there was no soap in the abortion facility, they also noted that the facility staff could not find a single sanitary surgical glove, yet they were doing abortions.

The clinic inspectors temporarily shut them down under an emergency order describing "deplorable conditions," including a suction device with "green mold" growing in it; improperly discarded bloodstained sponges; generally poor infection control; about 70 different kinds of medication with expired dates; unsafely administered general anesthesia; stirrups covered with blood; and untrained workers monitoring women in recovery.


Abortion clinic uses dishwasher to sterilize


On June 16, 2005, the Kansas City Pitch Weekly did an in depth article on the horrific conditions at one Kansas abortion clinic.

The article, uniquely entitled, Mm, Mm Good, Startling allegations against an abortion doctor have been the centerpiece of two years of legislative warfare in Kansas, described photos taken at an abortion clinic owned by abortionist Krishna Rajanna in this way, "One photo showed that a bathroom used by patients and staff doubled as an instrument-sterilization room. The toilet had a brown stain smeared across the seat, and Styrofoam soda cups were stacked next to and on top of it. A pile of clutter and a broom sat next to the toilet, and a bottle of Always Save bleach sat on a dingy, peeling linoleum floor near full, open trash bags"

The Pitch indicated that Rajanna’s medical equipment was cleaned with Clorox and water then put in a "dishwasher".

Inspector calls abortion clinic the most appalling


The Boston Globe (Board suspends Malden doctor mistakes cited in abortion: 5/8/2003) and the Boston Herald, (State board: Abortion case 'appalling': 5/9/2003) reported that Malden police shut down the one-room office of Massachusetts abortionist Jian Yu which the medical board said had no running water or sterilization equipment.

Yu had voluntarily stopped practicing in March because of the investigation.

The Boston Globe reported that state medical board suspended Yu's license after he endangered the life of a 21-year-old woman by twice botching an abortion.

Achen Audesse, executive director of the state Board of Registration in Medicine said Yu had met all the requirements for obtaining a license in Massachusetts."He was certified by the international certification organization, had gone to an acceptable medical school, had all the required training and English skills and had passed his national boards," she said.

In any case, Audesse said, no procedure of any kind should have been performed "in an office without running water, appropriate sterilization equipment, emergency equipment or a plan for an emergency response in case of complications."

Audesse called the standards evidenced in Yu's office "the most appalling I've ever heard of in my time here."

She said the patient was "particularly vulnerable. She didn't speak much English and wasn't familiar with the U.S. health-care system."

Posted by: Sydney M at December 16, 2009 9:06 AM


Here is another part of the story....

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/back-alley-abortionist-may-lose-medical-license-if-ksbha-can-find-courage-to-act/

Posted by: Sydney M at December 16, 2009 9:11 AM


Ugh, how disgusting and sad. What on earth is the matter with people, anyway?

Reminds me of a case where a teenager gave birth in a school bathroom and tried to flush the baby down the toilet. She stuffed his mouth with toilet paper when he started to cry. She "succeeded" in murdering the child before she was discovered.

Our society is in a sad state when an infant is seen as something that SHOULD be flushed down the toilet... or killed by any means at one's disposal and thrown in the trash. Or abused, neglected, or murdered in any other fashion. Heaven help us.

And by the way, pro-abortion folks who were directly involved in inflating pre-legalization "back-alley" abortion death statistics have ADMITTED to doing so.

The VAST MAJORITY of pre-legalization abortions were performed by LEGITIMATE DOCTORS - they just did it without fanfare/advertising because of the legal status of abortion. MOST illegal abortions (something on the order of 90 percent) were done using the same medical skill as any other procedure of that day. Very few abortions were self-induced or done by a layperson. See the RealChoice blog (www.realchoice.blogspot.com) for LOTS of good info about all that.

Posted by: army_wife at December 16, 2009 9:27 AM


This is also my life experience - every person I've ever met who is proabortion either has had at least one abortion, or is heavily involved in the abortion industry or is deeply entrenched in the contraceptive lifestyle.
Posted by: angel at December 16, 2009 7:19 AM

-For the record, similar to the poster above...I do not fit your profile of those who are 'proabrotion', either. I am a former clinic volunteer, taking a hiatus due to scheduling conflicts (perhaps this labels me as someone 'heavily involved' to you). Instead, I'm just someone who believes in the cause. No tragic backstory, I'm afraid.

And what does 'deeply entrenched in the contraceptive lifestyle' mean? Are you referring to anyone who uses birth control?

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 9:48 AM


For the record, similar to the poster above...I do not fit your profile of those who are 'proabrotion', either. I am a former clinic volunteer, taking a hiatus due to scheduling conflicts (perhaps this labels me as someone 'heavily involved' to you). Instead, I'm just someone who believes in the cause. No tragic backstory, I'm afraid.

You support killing babies so much that you donate your time to a business that kills babies. How is that not pro-abortion?

I donate my time to lots of charities and I'm proud to say that I'm pro-child advocacy and pro-prenatal care and pro-the work these groups do. If you are ashamed to support what you enable so much so that you reject the label, then something is wrong there.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 9:59 AM


Did you know that the founding women of womens lib such as Susan B. Anthony were very against abortion not because of religion but because they believed it exploited women. Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics were originally funded in part by the KKK and placed in poor inner cities to "control the minority population."
I have counseled many post abortive women over the years and most say the same thing, "I wish I'd never had it." If you work at an abortion clinic then you do not see the aftereffects a year, five years or twenty years down the road. Planned Parenthood will tell you Post Abortion Stress, PAS is a myth. That's interesting since it is an approved psychiatric diagnosis in the DSM. I've personally counseled women who exhibit signs of this illness with symptoms as mild as sadness over the abortion to a few who were suicidal and felt they could not live with what they had done. (These women were sent to the hospital immediately.) Here is the question, if you feel bad about something doesn't that usually mean you did something wrong?
How can you perceive an unborn child as a thing? The baby's heart is beating at four weeks. Doesn't that mean the baby is alive?
90% of our ultrasound clients change their minds about having an abortion after seeing there baby on the monitor. This is whether it is a six week or 16 week pregnancy. Most people are horrified at second and third trimester abortions but not first. Being a sonographer I can assure you that it is not a blob of tissue even in the first trimester. Most abortions are done at ten weeks. At ten weeks the baby has eyes, nose and a mouth and even fingernails on his/her fingers.
How many couples out there have been on adoption lists for years without success? I always applaud the woman who keeps her baby or decides to make an adoption plan. That is a selfless woman. Abortion is the ultimate selfish act never giving the child a chance.
Women out there need to be responsible with their sexuality. 98% of all abortions are performed on women who it is not convenient for them at that time. Less than 1% are for rapes due to DNA evidence. It is not right to end a human life whether unborn or elderly.
It is very true that there is so much financial help out there for women with unplanned pregnancies that abortion should not be an alternative.

Posted by: Denise at December 16, 2009 10:03 AM


Angel, here i am.
One person who is pro choice who has never had an abortion, has never been involved in anyway in the industry and doesnt take contraceptives.

nice to meet you.

Posted by: irish at December 16, 2009 8:23 AM

- How sad it makes me that you are Irish. I'll pray to St. Patrick for your conversion as well as all the Irish saints who spent their life working so that your ancestors might know the truth.
--------
I do not fit your profile of those who are 'proabrotion', either. I am a former clinic volunteer...
Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 9:48 AM

As a clinic volunteer and friend, I do not know the number I've indirectly participated in. I'm not sure what 'directly' participated means, though.
Posted by: Danielle at December 15, 2009 9:24 PM

- I'm not sure how much more "heavily involved" one can get except actually performing the abortion itself, which I'm sure you would do if you considered yourself qualified. As far as your earlier comment, there was nothing "indirect" about your participation.

I will continue to pray for you and all on your side.

Posted by: MamaMT at December 16, 2009 10:05 AM


army-wife,

Exactly. And you can be certain these doctors were extremely careful since any mistake meant a prison sentence. Assembly line abortionists today have no such concerns.

We had one such doctor in this city. When abortion became legal he just opened a surgery center and did openly and legally what he had discreetly and quietly done in his office for years.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 10:09 AM


If you are ashamed to support what you enable so much so that you reject the label, then something is wrong there.
Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 9:59 AM

-No shame there, I just raise an eyebrow at the insinuation...it needs some clarification since 'proabortion' is all encompassing. I'm pro abortion when you want one and pro life when you don't. Which actually makes me...pro choice. But that's fine if you prefer proabortion if that makes it more efficient.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 10:19 AM


Hi Sydney M,

There was also the Detroit abortionist to whom unsuspecting women were referred to for second trimester abortions.

The appalling conditions of his "clinic" were uncovered by investigative reporters back in the days when we actually had such things and they did their jobs. Apparently the health department of legislators didn't concern themselves about the abortion clinics or how they were run.

The abortionist, a drug addict, ran the "clinic" with his wife, supposedly a nurse though she tended patients dressed like a streetwalker, wearing short shorts and a halter top. A couple stated seperately, in sworn affadavits, that they witnessed a dog walking around the surgical area while the woman was being operated on.

When the abortionist was asked about the couple's allegations he scoffed. Why, they didn't see any dog, they must have heard him discussing one of his patients! When the reporter asked if he always referred to his patients as "dogs" he replied, "if you saw what they sent me from Chicago you'd see what I mean".

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 10:20 AM


This woman made the "choice" to abort her child for whatever reason (and it really doesn't matter why, thanks to Doe v. Bolton's expansive definition of "health"), so I would expect "pro-choicers" to be affirming her for simply exercising her "right to choose."

Posted by: Jeanne Gawdun at December 16, 2009 10:28 AM


My God, why couldn't they just bury the poor baby?

Speaking of illegal abortions, in the black community there usually was a doctor who would do them. It was an open secret. Growing up in the city of _____, I also knew of a pharmacist who would give women with very early pregnancies drugs to abort. I'm not sure what these would be, maybe Dr. Nadal can clarify? This was in the sixties until abortion was legalized (I grew up in New York State, where I think abortions were legalized earlier than in 1973).

How do I know about this? My father was that pharmacist and he used to arrange for women to have these illegal abortions. And I have a brother who is an escort for PP. It seems like everyone in my family has had an abortion expect me and my 21 year old daughter. They all know I am strongly prolife, so we just don't talk about the issue. It makes holiday gatherings kinda tense, to say the least.

Posted by: Phillymiss at December 16, 2009 10:34 AM


Danielle,

Pro-life is not refusing an abortion. Pro-life is protecting children from abortion. Pro-life isn't some live and some die based on the mother's mood.

You are never pro-life, since that child whose life you a pro at the moment you would support killing if the mother changed her mind and decided to abortion.

You prefer pro-choice- I get that. I prefer that you not insult pro-lifers by attaching that label to yourself while you simultaneously admit that you've participated in the killing of babies that were no different from the babies you wouldn't kill, only unfortunate in that the mother carrying them didn't want them.

Pro-life is a proud label reserved for those that truly espouse it.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 10:36 AM


You prefer pro-choice- I get that. I prefer that you not insult pro-lifers by attaching that label to yourself while you simultaneously admit that you've participated in the killing of babies that were no different from the babies you wouldn't kill, only unfortunate in that the mother carrying them didn't want them. Pro-life is a proud label reserved for those that truly espouse it.
Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 10:36 AM

-Fair enough, Jacqueline. I'll stay pro choice, you'll stay pro life and we'll both wear our labels proudly.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 10:48 AM


Back to the news story. Was this baby born alive? does anyone know? If he was then this sounds like murder to me.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 16, 2009 10:52 AM


Fair enough, Jacqueline. I'll stay pro choice, you'll stay pro life and we'll both wear our labels proudly.

Explain to me real quick how decaying baby corpses under a Christmas tree or little arms and legs in a garbage disposal is something to be proud of, would you?

What good are you doing, especially for the bleeding woman more likely to abuse drugs, alcohol and 9 times more likely to kill herself?

What's there to be proud of?

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 10:54 AM


Hi army_wife,

I must correct myself. The doctor opened an outpatient surgery center but continued to do abortions in his office. He continued to remain discreet though it was certainly no secret. I would assume his office provides the privacy an outpatient center may not and is preferred by patients.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 10:56 AM


I think we have to conclude it was murder, Carla. If this baby was a stillborn preemie, odds are very good the parents wouldn't have gone to such lengths to hide the body.

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 10:57 AM


Danielle,

Since one can be "pro-choice" on abortion can one also be "pro-choice" on wife abuse and rape?

Can one personally oppose these acts yet still support the right of someone to make the choice to commit them?

I remember when people simply called themselves "pro-abortion" and only changed to "pro-choice" when the public began having qualms.

It never really made sense to me that one can oppose an act yet still support someone's choice to commit it so I wondered if this rationale extends into all areas of human behavior, including rape and wife abuse.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 11:01 AM



Anyone who is prochoice condemning the murder on this thread? Anyone? Anyone as sickened as I am??

I swear it is all so psyhotic sometimes...in one state you can kill a baby and mother and only get charged with one death...in another state you are charged with two.
A baby can be killed up until birth legally by abortion, kill a baby right after it is born and it is murder.

Psychotic.

Danielle,
I am grateful that for now you are not volunteering. I know you are lurking at times. I have always respected your ability to be civil. Wanted to tell you that.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 16, 2009 11:07 AM


Explain to me real quick how decaying baby corpses under a Christmas tree or little arms and legs in a garbage disposal is something to be proud of, would you? What good are you doing, especially for the bleeding woman more likely to abuse drugs, alcohol and 9 times more likely to kill herself? What's there to be proud of?
Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 10:54 AM

-Just for clarification, I haven't been referring to any points in this specific article responding, other than my 1st question. We seemed to have gotten off on a tangent (which is fine) so its confusing in context of this specific thread. I have no defense or insight into what this couple is accused of doing.

As for the rest, well, it's all been said before. I'm not quite sure I have a response that will satisfy you. I'll try to sum my answer up as neatly as possible without getting 'trapped in the weeds' so to speak: I obviously do not agree with a cause/effect correlation to the dysfunction you described and having an abortion. In terms of supporting adults with drug addiction and mental instability as you brought up, we can each choose to look into ways of helping them. Overall, my pride comes in being able to support something I believe in - choice - either financially or with my personal time. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 11:21 AM


I have no defense or insight into what this couple is accused of doing.

But had this couple come to your clinic, you'd have helped support their choice either financially or with your personal time, right? (Only the baby would be in an incinerator or bucket of formaldhyde rather than under a Christmas tree).

Do you support abortions in the 7th month?

Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 11:25 AM


Hi Jacqueline,

Had they gone to Tiller or Carhart's clinic there would have been no issue. They could have legally killed their baby. They simply made the choice to do it themselves.

So what's the issue? Why should they be prosecuted.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 11:36 AM


Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 11:01 AM

Since one can be "pro-choice" on abortion can one also be "pro-choice" on wife abuse and rape?
-Speaking only for myself, no.

Can one personally oppose these acts yet still support the right of someone to make the choice to commit them?
-See above.

I remember when people simply called themselves "pro-abortion" and only changed to "pro-choice" when the public began having qualms.
-I don't think I've been in the game long enough to know all the different labels that have used decade over decade. I explained above how I'm pro-choice, but some PL folks lump it altogether as 'pro-abortion'. I don't worry myself over the semantic here.

It never really made sense to me that one can oppose an act yet still support someone's choice to commit it so I wondered if this rationale extends into all areas of human behavior, including rape and wife abuse.
-For the record, I'm not a 'I oppose it but it should be legal' PC'er, although there are many. I think for those, the choices they make for themselves and their family don't have to mirror what someone else would do for their own in order for them to see how it is either a) necessary enough to warrant accessibility to others or b) tied up in issues so profound and personal (ie - sex, pregnancy, parenthood, autonomy) that they reject the notion of any outside involvement.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 11:36 AM


Danielle, 11:36am

So you have no issue with being called "pro-abortion"?

Can I argue that while I don't really support wife abuse, I just think that people make choices for themselves that I may not approve, they reject any notion of outside involvement, and this is a personal issue, after all what a man does in his home is no one's business. So, don't call me pro-wife abuse, call me pro-choice on the issue.
Would you accept this argument? Personally I think its complete nonsense.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 11:44 AM


Do you support abortions in the 7th month?
Posted by: Jacqueline at December 16, 2009 11:25 AM

-I don't even know if that's legal...thought 24 weeks was the limit. Regardless, I don't know. If it were reasons beyond health of mother or survival rate for the baby/fetus, I don't know how one would get counseled around that. Can't answer that one.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 11:46 AM


This story is beyond sickening. This baby was aborted at 7 months. They tried to flush him/her down the toilet??? My daughter was BORN at 7 months(well, 7 months and one week). Sickening. Poor, precious baby. :(

Posted by: Pamela at December 16, 2009 11:50 AM


OOPS....I see. The baby was a little boy.

Posted by: Pamela at December 16, 2009 11:53 AM


Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 11:44 AM

So you have no issue with being called "pro-abortion"?
-Not enough to fight you on it.

Can I argue that while I don't really support wife abuse, I just think that people make choices for themselves that I may not approve, they reject any notion of outside involvement, and this is a personal issue, after all what a man does in his home is no one's business. So, don't call me pro-wife abuse, call me pro-choice on the issue.
Would you accept this argument? Personally I think its complete nonsense.

-Yes, because it's your belief. And yes IMO it's nonsense. Actually, a lot of people do feel that way about domestic abuse. I may not agree with it, but you think whatever you want to think. That doesn't, however, give you legal license to abuse someone on your own (or, I think in some juristictions, aid/abide in abuse but dont quote me), because it's against the law.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 11:54 AM


Danielle: "because it's against the law."

Ahhh, so because it is the law, it is wrong?

You do realize that you are either making a circular argument - it is right to be the law, because it is the law, and the law is right - or you are admiting that your POV is meaningless - whatever the law says is therefore moral, so whatever the law becomes on abortion, it is moral.

What is your point in discussing? We all know the current law on abortion. Where do you think law gets the idea to make something "wrong" in the first place?

Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2009 12:15 PM


Danielle: "because it's against the law."

Ahhh, so because it is the law, it is wrong?

Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2009 12:15 PM

-Oliver, please re-read. That is not what I said. I stated that is was wrong/personally offensive, etc but not relevant if someone disagreed. It is not relevant because the law supports that it is wrong anyway. That person can feel as much as they want to feel that they disagree, but they cannot manifest that into action (re: freely abusing others), without breaking the law. Again: re-read. Thanks.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 12:28 PM


- I'm not sure how much more "heavily involved" one can get except actually performing the abortion itself, which I'm sure you would do if you considered yourself qualified. As far as your earlier comment, there was nothing "indirect" about your participation. I will continue to pray for you and all on your side.
Posted by: MamaMT at December 16, 2009 10:05 AM

-Got it. I assumed 'direct' participation would mean actually performing abortions, which I've never done, but you are correct - I think I would if I were a physician.

as for the prayer, I'll take it. Thanks.

Posted by: Danielle at December 16, 2009 12:33 PM


Danielle: "That person can feel as much as they want to feel that they disagree"

I did read you properly. Maybe you didn't understand the post to which you were responding, then.

The original point of that post was to suggest that it is a little absurd to "personally" believe something is a violation of a human's right, but believe that its simply a choice for others.

Your response was, "yeah some people might think that, but I don't, and besides, it's against the law anyways."

So, I come back to, why do you think whether something is against the law, that it matters in regards to morality? In other words, would it make sense to legalize domestic violence under the premise that, although you "personally" are opposed to it, it is up to others to decide?

Posted by: Oliver at December 16, 2009 12:38 PM


Oliver 12:38PM

An excellent job of expanding on the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at December 16, 2009 3:36 PM


Oliver you've just proved Danielle's logic doesn't hold. As you always do so very well!

I'd say any work in a clinic is direct involvement in abortion.

How can death of the baby be a choice, Danielle? What about the baby's choice Danielle? Who speaks for the baby? And who are you to arbitrarily decide when a baby merits protection?

And yes, I believe abortion is directly related to contraceptive use.
A contracepting couple does not expect pregnancy. about half of the women presenting for abortion used some kind of contraception.
A baby is not what they expected.
Pre-pill days, you took your chances and accepted that if pregnancy occurred you had the baby. It was after all an accepted POV that a baby was a baby - a human being that had a right to be born. It was killing a baby to have an abortion.

Now, with the pill, and a messy unwanted pregnancy, suddenly it's a product of conception, a fetus, and it's dehumanized so that women might just feel better about killing it.

No contraception. People take less chances getting pregnant, meaning they wait until they are in a stable relationship (aka marriage) to have sex.

Posted by: angel at December 16, 2009 9:03 PM


No contraception. People take less chances getting pregnant, meaning they wait until they are in a stable relationship (aka marriage) to have sex.

Actually, there is more light being shed on this topic that reveals a bad flaw in human behavior. An upcoming article in the journal Contraception should address the issue of how men and women knowingly take risks with unprotected sex. Many women forget to take their daily pill. And a small minority of people are actually 'turned on' by the risk of getting pregnant. They like spontaneous sex and don't really think about the consequences.

For example, some participants in this ongoing study had similar answers along the lines of 'if I get pregnant, the baby will be cute because my partner is beautiful.' But they don't think about the 'what next' scenario - of that partner or the woman being involved in raising that baby.

Human beings were not more cautious or more abstinent in the pre-barrier contraception era (the mid 1800s). In some cultures, they usually got married younger, and usually married their first partner. But mature adults had about the same amount of sex than they do today (some would argue more sexual activity).

Danielle - good points. But wrangle it back to the original point of the post. How is the story of a reckless couple inducing a possibly deadly miscarriage proof that legal abortions didn't stop back alley abortions? If no doctor was involved in promoting the act, then it isn't related to legal abortion at all. And again, the antis cannot have this argument both ways. They can't acknowledge that most pre-Roe abortions were done by doctors, and then argue that dangerous procedures have increased post-roe. It was safe before Roe. It is safe after Roe. What changed was the legality.

Posted by: Dhalgren at December 16, 2009 9:41 PM


...and level of access. That changed dramatically. Before Roe, women had to go to Canada and major US cities. Now it is available in nearly every US state, in both clinics and far safer and less exposed hospitals.

Posted by: Dhalgren at December 16, 2009 9:42 PM


Dhalgren 9:42PM

Access changed because anyone who wanted to open up a clinic and perform abortions could, that included a former Chicago used car salesman who found abortions much more profitable as well as a mortician school dropout, not to mention the drug addict who allowed his dog to walk around the clinic procedure room. Dr.Nathanson was appalled when he took over the largest abortion clinic in the world, in NYC, only to find dangerous practices such as racing from patient to patient without properly washing hands or changing gloves and gowns.
You call this safer? I call it giving the unethical and even criminal elements opportunities they never dreamed of.

As I pointed out Dhalgren, doctors just discreetly and quietly performed abortions in their offices. People out to turn a fast buck didn't open up facilities where anyone who wanted to operate could.

I'm not so certain about access. Last I checked at NARAL their was some concern over the US counties that have no abortion facilities. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall it was 70-80%.

Oh and Dhalgren, I'll let you in on a dirty secret. Abortionists are looked down on in the medical community so this generally does not inspire a lot of people, whatever they think of abortion, to make a career of it. Sure they're tolerated, the occasional pregnant mistress might even be sent to one for a discreet abortion, and lip service will even be paid. But dirty their own hands? That's another story.

Posted by: Mary at December 17, 2009 6:36 AM


Dhalgren,

Yes we certainly can argue that legalizing abortion did not make it safer.

Doctors performing illegal abortions had to fear legal consequences. ONe "slip-up" meant a prison term. My cousin had hers done by her doctor in his office more than once. As I pointed out less than reputable people could open up "clinics" and operate with no fear of legal consequences. Tiller staffed his mill with people off the street. Its been discovered that Carhart did the same. The Chicago situation I mentioned above was uncovered by investigative reporters. Moonlighting novices from the local medical school were earning an easy buck, and yes injuries and unreported deaths were discovered.

My favorite analogy is what my brother, a former police officer told me years ago. Want to know what raises a police officer's suspicion that a driver has stolen a car or is engaging in some kind of illegal activity?
He's overly cautious. He follows every traffic rule to the letter. He doesn't go one mile over the speed limit. Obviously they are doing everything possible to avoid any contact with the police.
Heck Dhalgren, you're a lot safer on the road with these folks than with your average driver!

Using this analogy its not hard to understand why illegal abortions may have indeed been safer.

Posted by: Mary at December 17, 2009 7:03 AM


I'm not so certain about access. Last I checked at NARAL their was some concern over the US counties that have no abortion facilities. Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall it was 70-80%.

Oh and Dhalgren, I'll let you in on a dirty secret. Abortionists are looked down on in the medical community so this generally does not inspire a lot of people, whatever they think of abortion, to make a career of it.

Yes, I was careful to say 'most states,' but there are some states that only have a couple of counties that have a clinic.

But there have been excellent developments on the hospital front. The University of Utah in Salt Lake just established a family planning department. Parkland in Dallas might do the same in coming years as it builds an all-new campus. Brown University Medical Center is also considering one to fill its new hospital. Montreal's new mega-hospital has the largest family planning department in that country, and if abortion is ever criminalized in the USA, that's where a lot of women will have to go.

Doctors who perform abortions are not disliked within the medical community. It is of course disliked in many circles outside of medicine. If it wasn't for a well-funded recruiting and fellowship program, there wouldn't be a new class of doctors graduating each year. Access would shrink yet again. It takes more than an aspiring doctor to want to do terminations. It takes a talented doctor who is also brave and understands that she is entering a 30-year period in which she must work diligently and also watch her privacy and security. It's like joining the CIA. And 99% of all new doctors have been female.

In order to do safe abortion as a real doctor, you still need 4 years of college, 2 years of medical school, 4 years of residency, and 2-3 years as a fellow. During residency, you serve in every department of the ER, working trauma and doing c-sections. It's the same long, expensive process whether you're an OBGYN or a rock star cardiologist.

And isn't Randall Terry the former car salesman, not a current doctor? I know what you're saying. A former car dealership owner opened a clinic? Really? He heard the call to devote his energy to family planning? Well if that story is true, it might explain why he couldn't pay and retain real doctors. Abortion is real medicine. And real medicine requires a real doctor who earns six figures.

Posted by: Dhalgren at December 17, 2009 7:24 AM


Abortion is real medicine.

Prove it. What medical condition of a woman does abortion heal?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 17, 2009 8:46 AM


Danielle wrote:
"I don't even know if that's legal...thought 24 weeks was the limit."

That's a common misunderstanding. Roe established the well-known trimester framework, and most people believe that framework actually means something for abortion law. But Roe's companion case -- Doe v Bolton -- blew the trimester framework into smithereens. Basically, there is no legal limit on abortion in the United States.

Here's how it works. Roe seemed to give states the right to regulate abortions in the second and third trimesters, with increasing limits during the third trimester. Yet a woman must always be able to get an abortion for "health" reasons. Doe created such an expansive definition of "health" that there really isn't any limit that could be applied.

Here's the exact quote from the Doe decision:
"We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman."

In reality, what this wide-open definition means is that any doctor who wants to perform an abortion at any stage of the pregnancy can find a reason to do so. There are no limits.

Posted by: Naaman at December 17, 2009 11:18 AM


Naaman, it's good to see you again! How are the missus and little one doing?

Posted by: Rachael C. at December 17, 2009 1:03 PM


Testimony of
Sandra Cano
(The former Doe of Doe v. Bolton)


http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4393

Testimony of
Norma McCorvey
(The former Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade)

June 23, 2005
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1553&wit_id=4394

Awesome watch unborn 4Weeks 4Days old~ heartbeat in action http://bit.ly/2pXiim

The embryo has brainwaves by 6 weeks, 2 days!

From 6 to 6½ weeks, the cerebral vesicles will double in size.1 Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2
Also by 7 weeks, cell groupings resembling taste buds appear on the tongue3 and hiccups begin.4
http://bit.ly/5QenK4

These are in the embryonic stage, not even to the fetus stage to see more check out:
http://bit.ly/4LOwmi

By 8 weeks, 75% of embryos exhibit right-hand dominance. The remainder is equally divided between left-handed dominance and no preference.
http://bit.ly/5KcR28

Posted by: RooForLife at December 17, 2009 1:18 PM


Dhalgren,

A family planning department in Utah or an abortion clinic? Parkland and Brown might and are considering. Well, that's quite a boom!!
Why isn't every county in the US well supplied with abortion clinics?
Uh, Dhalgren, Montreal is in Canada. Not the U.S.

Dhalgren, I've been in the medical area longer than you've been born. Take my word for it when I tell you these doctors are tolerated, but for the most part looked down on. Its just viewed as hack work, something respectable doctors don't do.
Oh sure there's lip service galore. In fact a lady I worked with in OR years ago gave me a long dissertation on her support for "choice". But dirty her own hands? No way.

Dhalgren, I don't quite understand your dissertation on medical school and the CIA so if you would kindly clarify the point you are trying to make.
Also you need not inform me on what it takes to be a doctor, thank you.

Is Randall Terry a doctor? That's news to me. I've have never been one of his fans or admirers so I have not made it my life's mission to follow his career.

LOL, sure Dhalgren, the used car salesman was answering the call for family planning.
No my friend, like the drug addicted hack in Detroit, you know, the one who allowed his dog to walk around the procedure room, they were both answering the siren call of the almighty buck.

Being there were no regulations and thus no laws violated, both these men, the used car salesman and the mortician school dropout, were free to open clinics and hire who they want with no concern for legal consequences. They could hire novices from the medical school because no law said they couldn't and they were certainly cheaper than paying doctors. The used car salesman, as well as the mortician school dropout could also allow these novices to run from patient to patient with no concern for the trivialities and expense of properly sterilizing instruments, washing hands, and changing gloves.
Time after all was money, and money was the name of the game.
They opened these clinics in Chicago's most exclusive neighborhood, making women even more unsuspecting. Why, look at these legal clinics set up in the best neighborhoods!

The story is true Dhalgren, and like the drug addicted hack in Detroit it proves that legal abortion only allowed the hacks, the unethical, the greedy, and the criminal element to set up shop and did nothing to protect women.

Posted by: Mary at December 17, 2009 5:04 PM