Obama dances around topic of Gosnell
In a Today Show interview taped earlier in the week but airing today, President Obama was (thankfully) asked about Kermit Gosnell. Watch video beginning at 3:00…
Transcript:
Savannah Guthrie: Have you been watching the Gosnell trial. It’s a Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of gruesome crimes. Are you following it, and do you think it animates a larger debate about abortion in this country?
President Obama: I am familiar with it. I can’t comment on it because it’s an active trial.
What I can say is this. I think President Clinton said it pretty well when he said, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.”
If an individual carrying out an abortion, operating a clinic, or doing anything else is violating medical ethics, violating the law, then they should be prosecuted.
Well, duh on that last sentence. Was there a question? Guess Obama had to clarify. And, of course, Obama has had no trouble discussing Trayvon Martin, despite the fact his is an open case.
In a follow-up interview Obama needs first to be asked why he thinks abortion should be rare. The word “rare” has been removed from the Democrat platform, because it obviously implies there is something wrong or bad about abortion. In fact, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL, recently wrote she thinks abortion should be the opposite – “common.”
Another question: Does Obama still believe, as he did in 2002, that all abortionists are to be trusted? In a post the other day I included the written transcript of Obama’s opposition on the Illinois State Senate floor to a bill forcing abortionists to provide medical care to abortion survivors. Here is the audio, pretty chilling:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/YUkbuhXzbvI[/youtube]
Yet another question: Does Obama still oppose a law, as he did as state senator, protecting abortion survivors against infanticide?
Interesting that NBC Philadelphia, where Gosnell is being tried, made this section of Obama’s Today Show interview into a lead story, using the photos at the top of this post.
There would be no curiosity about Obama’s position on Gosnell did not everyone know Obama supports infanticide.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
What a weasel.
EMTALA and the baby doe amendment to federal child abuse law already mandates treatment of born infants.
EMTALA doesn’t apply to abortion facilities, BV.
JoAnna says:
EMTALA doesn’t apply to abortion facilities, BV.
That makes sense. If it did, then Gosnell would be facing charges in a federal court.
I found this:
However, not all hospitals have obligations under EMTALA. Only hospitals that accept federal funds from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are subject to civil liability under the Act. The CMS and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) enforce EMTALA.
So a hack shop like Gosnell’s would not have to be concerned with EMTALA. Planned Parenthood gouges a lot of MedicAid dollars, so maybe they have to comply — but only if they fear that Obama or Sebelius will investigate any complaints that they are letting children die.
I went to the whitehouse.gov petition site and signed (though it took many tries and two attempts to recover my password) the petition. It said I had signed. Then the total dropped back by 1! That website is so frustrating. I’d bet thousands have signed. It only registered 771, then back to 770 once I had ‘voted’. Ugh.
Obama is in favor of infanticide (as his opposition to bills that protect newborns from failed abortions proves), but he doen’t want to say it openly. It would open up a “can of worms” for him!
I want someone to ask Obama why he can comment on the Martin case but not Gosnell’s.
Obama has no stance, no consistency. That’s one of the reasons that he never makes any logical sense.
I’ve finally been seeing some more coverage of Gosnell. And, wouldn’t you expect it, the anti-lifers are jumping on the blame-pro-lifers bandwagon. The Atlantic has an article that details how the pro-lifers SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, gee, but NAF, they get a free pass, and DONCHA KNOW, it’s our fault for protesting those fancy wonderful planned parenthood clinics and driving women to have Gosnell kill their babies instead.
Anti-lifers, you spend as much energy as you can trying to convince yourselves and others that babies aren’t people, that they’re disposable property, but you just cannot own it and need someone to blame for your deeds. You can lie to yourselves all you want, and it won’t make the babies less human or less dead, and it won’t make you less wrong. Abortion is stigmatized because it’s murder. Don’t like the stigma? Then stop promoting abortion. See, it’s the same as “don’t like abortion then don’t get one.” Don’t like pro-lifers? Then end abortion and we’ll all find hobbies.
“it’s our fault for protesting those fancy wonderful planned parenthood clinics” – well you sure don’t contribute to an environment which encourages the best facilities and personnel.
“Then end abortion and we’ll all find hobbies.” – new hobby same as the old hobby? Different topic but still trying to make others live as you think they ought?
I’ve always maintained that people are not as polarized, even in this town, as it’s portrayed in the media.
He’s not really our president, is he? He’s really a comedian, right?
He may be a comedian but its the GOP which is the joke :-)
“well you sure don’t contribute to an environment which encourages the best facilities and personnel.”
You ignored my point on the other thread. Do you think that if Gosnell was under scrutiny by pro-life protesters that he would have had the same ability to fly under the radar? I don’t remember PPs that get protested daily having the same issues with filthy conditions and untrained staff administering contraindicated medications, or random aborted baby parts being kept around their clinics. Maybe if Gosnell had more attention from protesters his crimes would have come to light a long time ago.
And don’t forget that the NAF knew that Gosnell’s clinic was screwing up and did nothing about it except not let them join their special club. I’m sure that’s somehow pro-lifers fault too.
Quite possibly he wouldn’t have Jack.
It’s more likely though that if decent clinics weren’t being protested and boycotted and their staff intimidated then Gosnell may well have not had any clients.
It’s like Heather said “I guess women are just that desperate to have it done”
So if we get abortions into hospitals and support and encourage good medical people then this sort of situation would pretty much disappear.
Reality, your assertion is completely, demonstrably false. Plenty of pro-lifers prayed outside Gosnell’s clinic and his customers weren’t scared away. Can you show any proof that peaceful, prayerful protesters “scare” women into visiting less reputable, more expensive, dirtier clinics that also have peaceful, prayerful protestors in front of them?
No it’s not JoAnna, if you only protested outside the bad ones and left the good ones alone then the bad ones would go out of business.
“Can you show any proof…etc” – the necessary information probably isn’t, and hasn’t been, gathered to show either way. Unless you have something to demonstrate otherwise?
That’s still not the best outcome though. The best outcome is to get abortions into hospitals and support and encourage good medical people.
“Can you show any proof that peaceful, prayerful protesters “scare” women into visiting less reputable, more expensive, dirtier clinics that also have peaceful, prayerful protestors in front of them? ”
It’s the party line for them at the moment, that it’s pro-lifers fault because we fought for restrictions and because some protest the “good” clinics. This writer says basically the same thing that Reality is saying: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-michelman/kermit-gosnell-abortion_b_2924348.html
Because it makes more sense to blame those that want abortion stopped all together than go after NAF, for example, for not reporting Gosnell when they knew bad stuff was going down.
“So if we get abortions into hospitals and support and encourage good medical people then this sort of situation would pretty much disappear.”
Unacceptable to us, as you know. But anyway, why would abortion need to be in a hospital anyway? If it’s such a minor procedure with such a small chance for complications, I don’t see why it’s more necessary for it to be done in a hospital than oral surgery or something.
Reality, there’s no such thing as a “good” abortion clinic. They all kill children, so they’re all “bad.” So we will protest at all of them until such time as they stop killing children.
I already linked to my evidence, above, proving that pro-lifers did indeed protest in front of Gosnell’s clinic, as well as other clinics in the Philadelphia area.
Well if you’re going to create a scene out the front of clinics, boycott companies which supply services and products to them, and hang around schools with signs declaring kids parents to be murderers…
If NAF didn’t have to waste so much time protecting the good clinics then maybe they could focus more on dealing with any bad ones.
Do you think anyone behaving in the manner Gosnell is alleged to have done would last more than five minutes in a hospital?
“no such thing as a “good” abortion clinic. They all kill children, so they’re all “bad.” – mm, subjective. You’ll understand that I disagree.
“pro-lifers did indeed protest in front of Gosnell’s clinic” – indeed you did. But you also stated “as well as other clinics”. So what I said before isn’t completely, demonstrably false.
” If NAF didn’t have to waste so much time protecting the good clinics then maybe they could focus more on dealing with any bad ones.”
I knew you would try to pin the NAF failure on anyone but pro-choicers! Lol. You can’t support that, it’s just your opinion. As it was, they inspected his clinic, saw it was lacking, and never bothered to follow up. I’m still waiting for even one of you to call them out on that.
” Do you think anyone behaving in the manner Gosnell is alleged to have done would last more than five minutes in a hospital?”
Eh, probably not to the extent that he did, no (though there have been many doctors/nurses who worked at hospitals and killed their patients). But again, I would want to see abortion criminalized, not moved into hospitals.
They stopped doing abortions in hospitals because the demand for abortions was crowding out the other medical procedures that heal people.
It’s pretty ludicrous to blame protesters for the deplorable conditions inside America’s abortion mills. We are the one group that has absolutely No influence on what goes on inside. If abortion advocates want abortion to be safe (for women), then they will need to reform the abortion industry. Whenever we have tried, we’ve been accused of waging “war on women”.
There is no such thing as a “good” abortion clinic. It’s a nasty business in which the employees feel compelled to do “values clarification exercises” to cope with what they do for a living.
If NAF didn’t have to waste so much time protecting the good clinics then maybe they could focus more on dealing with any bad ones.
You aren’t making sense. NAF conducted an investigation of the facility, and the investigator called it the worst facility she’d ever seen. It would have taken, what, five minutes to call the PA Dept of Health and make a report. Are you claiming that NAF is “so busy” that they can’t take five minutes call the PA DoH to report deplorable conditions at a single facility? Shouldn’t that take priority over everything else they allegedly have to do?
And if your claim is that pro-lifers WEREN’T praying at clinics other than Gosnell’s, doesn’t that contradict your earlier assertion (that all of the other clinics DID have protesters, and thus women went to Gosnell’s clinic to avoid them)?
“pro-lifers did indeed protest in front of Gosnell’s clinic” – indeed you did. But you also stated “as well as other clinics”. So what I said before isn’t completely, demonstrably false.”
Yes, it is false. If there are people praying outside nasty clinics, and there are people praying outside cleaner clinics, then why would women (whom you claim are scared of people praying) chose the nasty clinics? The short answer is they wouldn’t. Your statement makes no sense.
“Your statement makes no sense.”
That applies to just about everything he says.
“They stopped doing abortions in hospitals because the demand for abortions was crowding out the other medical procedures” – well there’s a clear message.
“We are the one group that has absolutely No influence on what goes on inside.” – create a scene out the front of clinics, boycott companies which supply services and products to them, and hang around schools with signs declaring kids parents to be murderers. If you have no influence on what goes on inside why are you there?
“then they will need to reform the abortion industry” – I have said how this can be done.
“There is no such thing as a “good” abortion clinic” – mm, more subjective. I disagree.
I didn’t make that assertion JoAnna. I was asked “Do you think that if Gosnell was under scrutiny by pro-life protesters that he would have had the same ability to fly under the radar” – I took this to mean that there hadn’t been protestors. I fully accept your information that there were. From reading the article you linked, my guess is that the ones at Gosnell’s had significantly less presence and were easier to avoid.
tut tut hippie. I mentioned a whole lot more than just praying outside clinics. If you don’t selectively quote mine then it does make sense.
“That applies to just about everything he says.” – I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you :-)
“They stopped doing abortions in hospitals because the demand for abortions was crowding out the other medical procedures that heal people.”
This is not true. Hospitals do abortions. However, most doctors won’t do abortions and even those that do them, only do them under certain circumstances. Hospitals don’t just have abortionists on staff to do elective abortions early or late term. A regular ob/gyn doctor with admitting privileges is not doing tons of elective abortions if he is doing any at all.
Reality, I really find it disturbing that you (well, not just you, but you and other pro-choicers) seem unable to admit that yes NAF should have taken steps to get Gosnell reported and out of business. I don’t see why you guys can’t admit it when one of your organizations makes a mistake.
It’s more likely though that if decent clinics weren’t being protested and boycotted and their staff intimidated then Gosnell may well have not had any clients.It’s like Heather said “I guess women are just that desperate to have it done”So if we get abortions into hospitals and support and encourage good medical people then this sort of situation would pretty much disappear.
Here is the whole quote, which does not make sense. My favorite is the boycott part. I mean, duh, pro lifers are boycotting abortion clinics? Imagine that. Pro lifers don’t intimidate women. Women walked right past them to their deaths in Gosnell’s clinic and other clinics.
Put a sock in it Reality.
You trying to get something started? Ain’t happening.
Jack,
I like that you try to appeal to people. I get that. So I will leave you to try and appeal to Reality. :)
” I like that you try to appeal to people. I get that. So I will leave you to try and appeal to Reality.”
Lol. I’ll appeal at him. He’s not going to agree with me but you never know who’s reading!
“I mean, duh, pro lifers are boycotting abortion clinics” – if you’re so good at whole quotes how did you miss “create a scene out the front of clinics, boycott companies which supply services and products to them, and hang around schools with signs declaring kids parents to be murderers.”?
It would appear that NAF certainly didn’t cover themselves in glory in this particular instance Jack. I’m sure they’ll lift their game somewhat.
I guess that ultimately the anti-choice movement has a choice to make. Does it continue in its attempts to demonize and restrict the safe operation of a legal and well patronized service, thus potentially limiting its ability to provide the very best levels of safety for women, or does it encourage and support the provision of the best facilities and personnel possible.
” It would appear that NAF certainly didn’t cover themselves in glory in this particular instance Jack. I’m sure they’ll lift their game somewhat.”
Well, thanks for at least somewhat kinda admitting that they aren’t perfect, lol.
Your boycott argument is just plain weird. Lots of businesses get boycotted, most of them don’t suddenly fall apart and start doing blatantly illegal and gross things because of it. I don’t remember Chick Fil-A suddenly having health violations all the time because gay rights supporters boycotted them.
” I guess that ultimately the anti-choice movement has a choice to make. Does it continue in its attempts to demonize and restrict the safe operation of a legal and well patronized service, thus potentially limiting its ability to provide the very best levels of safety for women, or does it encourage and support the provision of the best facilities and personnel possible.”
Plenty of things are well-patronized and could probably be made somewhat safer by decriminalizing them and such. Doesn’t mean it’s right or a good idea to do so in every instance.
“Your boycott argument is just plain weird” – not you too Jack! No, Chick Fil-A probably didn’t break any health reg’s when they were being boycotted. But as I keep saying “boycott companies which supply services and products” – now if Chick Fil-A’s waste collection provider had been boycotted because it provided a service to Chick Fil-A then it may have been a different story. Anti-choicers boycotting abortion clinics isn’t any great problem (indeed I wish they would – stay as far away as you can), boycotting companies which provide products and services to them is.
Well, Obama is either dancing around topics or just plain dancing around. I’m not sure which I dislike more.
“But as I keep saying “boycott companies which supply services and products” – now if Chick Fil-A’s waste collection provider had been boycotted because it provided a service to Chick Fil-A then it may have been a different story. Anti-choicers boycotting abortion clinics isn’t any great problem (indeed I wish they would – stay as far away as you can), boycotting companies which provide products and services to them is.”
I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. Animal rights groups boycott stores that stock animal-tested products all the time, the stores don’t start randomly selling subpar products and breaking the law.
And still, you’re completely ignoring the abortion clinics that DO follow the law (much as I disagree with the law, a lot of them follow it), and provide good patient care (lol that’s gonna get me into trouble with my fellow pro-lifers, and obviously they aren’t providing good patient care to the unborn babies, but a lot of them provide proper medical care to the women) even under way more “siege” from pro-life groups than Gosnell did.
I showed Gosnells dead baby pictures to 3 people today . One cried. Haha got 3 more people to the pl side…*snap*!!
Reality, it’s just getting pitiful and ridiculous … the trying to blame pro-lifers for anything whatsoever that happened in connection with Gosnell. Admitting the oversight was a problem and the abortion industry has issues to address does not suddenly make “fetuses” human beings or anything! (Note: because they already are).
” Admitting the oversight was a problem and the abortion industry has issues to address does not suddenly make “fetuses” human beings or anything! (Note: because they already are).”
Exactly! Thank you for stating succinctly what I was trying and failing to say.
“I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. Animal rights groups boycott stores that stock animal-tested products all the time, the stores don’t start randomly selling subpar products and breaking the law.” – Jack, boycotting any particular business itself doesn’t generally cause sub-par operational functions. Boycotting companies which supply goods and services to that particular business can. Hence the example I gave “if Chick Fil-A’s waste collection provider had been boycotted because it provided a service to Chick Fil-A then it may have been a different story” in that Chick Fil-A’s operational functions may have become sub-par because they couldn’t dispose of waste/out of date products etc.
“Haha got 3 more people to the pl side…*snap*!!” – sure. Until they feel the need. Then they’ll just tell themselves ‘well I won’t be going anywhere like that, I’ll go to a good clinic’.
LifeJoy, you need to read the last paragraph of my 11.10pm comment.
“does not suddenly make “fetuses” human beings or anything!” – oh I agree!
“Jack, boycotting any particular business itself doesn’t generally cause sub-par operational functions. Boycotting companies which supply goods and services to that particular business can. Hence the example I gave “if Chick Fil-A’s waste collection provider had been boycotted because it provided a service to Chick Fil-A then it may have been a different story” in that Chick Fil-A’s operational functions may have become sub-par because they couldn’t dispose of waste/out of date products etc.”
No, I see what you’re saying. But you seriously have zero evidence that these boycotts you’re claiming are creating issues like this. Why are all the abortions clinics down here able to dispose of their trash properly, when we have more pro-life activity? And it appears Gosnell’s clinic rarely had protesters anyway, so you’re basically just making this argument as a red herring, it’s got nothing to do with the conditions at Gosnell’s.
Thanks, Jack, but you made the point just fine. Some people just don’t want to hear it.
And you know, Gosnell just couldn’t get a decent place to put those baby feet with all those boycotts – he had to put them in individual jars! And it’s super hard to sterilize equipment, when you, like, know there’s pro-lifers outside, or people out there somewhere oppose what you’re doing. For real.
From memory. on this site I have seen articles about boycotts of companies providing services or resources to clinics. This includes applying verbal or written pressure on those companies not to provide services. All these actions as well as protestors and intimidating staff or potential staff aren’t conducive to providing the best environment for care now are they.
“it appears Gosnell’s clinic rarely had protesters anyway” – I’m pleased someone else picked up on this. It could be why people went there rather than the big, shiny clinics with near-permanent protestors out the front.
No red herrings.
“And it’s super hard to sterilize equipment, when you, like, know there’s pro-lifers outside” – well no, it’s not. That’s not the point though is it. The point is that because there was so much less protesting outside Gosnell’s clinic than the good ones, he gained more customers.
“I’m pleased someone else picked up on this. It could be why people went there rather than the big, shiny clinics with near-permanent protestors out the front.”
Well, there’s also the little fact that Gosnell was aborting babies past the legal limit. Some of those women actually couldn’t walk into PP and get their 26 week abortion. Which I’m sure you’ll blame on us, even though plenty of pro-choicers think that the cut off for abortion should be around 20 or even 12 weeks. :/
I guess that ultimately the anti-choice movement has a choice to make. Does it continue in its attempts to demonize and restrict the safe operation of a legal and well patronized service, thus potentially limiting its ability to provide the very best levels of safety for women, or does it encourage and support the provision of the best facilities and personnel possible.
The PRO-CHOICERS should be insisting on the “very best levels of safety for women” and the “best facilities and personnel” when it comes to abortion, not the pro-lifers. I see the Gosnell tragedy as a decision point for pro-choicers, not pro-lifers. Do pro-choicers continue to fight for abortion access regardless of safety? Or do they start actually caring about the women that seek abortion instead of just profits and start to police their own pet industry. Do pro-choicers start to welcome common sense regulations and inspections in order to keep women safe? Or do they continue to fight against them and place women at risk.
I’m sure the pro-life movement will continue doing what it always does, loving the women and the babies and fighting for the lives of both.
The solution to unsafe abortions isn’t to abort children “safely” but to stop killing children.
-Randy Alcorn
Obama believes gun laws should transcend politics? I’m all for some things transcending politics – like the murder of premature infants.
Hi Lilian:
Saw your comment on Obama and gun laws. I could not help but think of his lashing out at the lawmakers and calling them “liars”.
Back in 2008 during the height of the campaign when Jill and others exposed Obama’s vote against BAIPA he lashed out and called them “liars”. It appears we have discovered how he deals with being boxed in…he goes on the offensive and calls those who oppose him “liars”. Nice guy.