Monday, July 1, 2013

The Washington Post on abortion restriction's "formidible" foe

WaPo editorial on Senator Wendy Davis fillibuster of a Texas bill protecting children in the third trimester, with my commentary:

Wendy Davis is a formidible foe of abortion restrictions

By Editorial Board, Published: June 28

IN A moment made for Twitter, Texas Sen. Wendy Davis stood for more than 13 hours and filibustered an abortion-restricting bill into the wee hours of Tuesday night. Ms. Davis’s physical feat and her remarkable personal story captured the country’s attention — but her victory looks shaky. The state legislature is convening for another special session Monday at which the bill — which restricts abortion by creating unnecessary regulations — is expected to be reintroduced.
The bill didn't come to a vote because of Davis' filibuster and because of an abortion mob who disrupted the legislature until the session closed.
The legislation Ms. Davis is fighting resembles abortion-restricting bills that other state legislatures (including Virginia’s) have enacted. In addition to banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the Texas bill would require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as surgery centers, like those in hospital wings.
Surgery centers are not "hospital wings". Surgery centers are free-standing buildings in which many types of less-than-major surgery are performed. They are meant for same-day surgery procedures.

All states regulate surgery centers. The regulations are quite specific, including building layout, equipment and personnel that must be up to standards for patient safety. Even my outpatient center, where we see patients but don't do surgery, is heavily regulated. There are hundreds of standards we must meet.
Doctors who perform abortions would have to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, which may require them to live near one and/or meet a quota of hospital admissions per year. 
Obviously doctors who perform abortions should have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Sometimes things go wrong, or patients become ill, and a doctor who performs the abortion needs to have privileges at a nearby hospital so he/she may participate in the patient's care.
The case that such standards are needed to protect the health of abortion patients, as the Republican sponsors of the legislation claim, is weak.
The case is strong. I wouldn't consider doing any outpatient surgical procedure if I didn't have the ability to admit the patient to a nearby hospital and provide care in case something went wrong. If I do a procedure, and there is a complication, I would not abandon my patient.
The real point is to force most abortion clinics out of business.
If adhering to basic standards of public health and medical ethics is too onerous for an abortion clinic, it should go out of business.

Doctors have responsibilities to patients that exceed those of business transactions.
The proposed Texas requirements would be so costly to meet as to cause the closure of all but a handful of clinics.
Abortion clinics are extraordinarily lucrative. George Tiller performed 60,000 abortions in his "career". Fees run from several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, depending on the age of the child. Assuming an average of $1000 per baby, Tiller made $60,000,000 in his 30-year career. That's $2,000,000 per abortionist per year. Overhead is very low compared to most outpatient surgical centers.

Compliance with basic health and safety regulations is unlikely to drive abortion mills out of business.

I wish it would.
They offer no real safety protections to women seeking abortions, and they would cost women access to important health-care services such as contraceptive care, cancer screenings and other routine tests. 
Obviously health and safety regulations provide "safety protections" to women. That's the whole point. It's unclear who the WaPo editors would claim that meeting basic health and safety requirements would interfere with contraception, cancer screenings, etc. Health and safety regulations are in fact a part of the process of providing cancer screening, providing basic checkups, etc.

Gosnell's clinic is what happens when abortionists are not held to standard health and safety practices.
Unfortunately, Texas is not an outlier but part of a pack of states imposing suchspurious regulations. Bills containing expensive facility requirements have been passed in Alabama, Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, Pennsylvania and Utah. Bills requiring hospital admitting privileges were passed in Alabama, North Dakota, Mississippi and Tennessee; similar legislation is expected in Ohio and Wisconsin.
In all these states, women who are unable to access services other than abortion that these clinics offer, and in some cases safe abortions, find themselves in circumstances in which their health is at risk — the very problem these laws claim to minimize. 
The solution to providing health care to the poor is not to lower the standards for health care to the poor.

Again, Gosnell.
In Virginia, the final version of regulations issued by the Virginia Board of Health pursuant to a 2011 law requires abortion clinics to have public hallways at least 5 feet wide procedure rooms at least 120 or 150 square feet and heating and ventilation systems that meet certain specifications.
Hallways and operating rooms have to be wide enough to allow resuscitation equipment and personal to enter and work if there is an emergency. Try getting a stretcher and resuscitation equipment and personnel down a three-fool wide hallway into a tiny room in which a woman who is bleeding to death from a botched abortion.

There are reasons for the rules.
The expense of meeting those requirements is prohibitive, a fact illustrated when Norfolk’s Hillcrest Clinic closed in April because it was unable to pay some $500,000 in renovation and other compliance costs. 
If two abortionists are employed at Hillcrest Clinic, the net income to the practice is $4,000,000 dollars per year. $500,000 was necessary to make the clinic safe for women. You decide is that is onerous.

Admittedly, the closed clinic is now safer for all involved.
Today, abortion is a constitutional right.
All "constitutional rights", even fake ones, have limits. Routine health and safety regulations are obviously reasonable, even necessary, limits. If you don't understand, google "Gosnell".
Until that no longer is the case, it is deceitful for lawmakers to circumvent the rule of law with unjustified provisions.
"Circumvent the law?" Lawmakers were passing a law, requiring abortion mills to meet basic health and safety standards.

On the other hand, filibustering to prevent legislators from voting is close to circumventing the law, and disrupting the voting process by assembling a mob in the gallery to shout down the process is most certainly violating the law.
No doubt Ms. Davis will make that point when the debate resumes in Austin; sadly, the odds that her fortitude and common sense will prevail again don’t look good.
Thank God her chances for success don't look good.

On reflection, two things come to mind.

First, the Washington Post is correct when they observe that Davis is a formidable foe of abortion restrictions. Her brand of hateful abortion-mongering is a real problem in our country, and poses a deadly threat to the lives of millions of innocent children and to the health of millions of women. How people like Davis can demand the "right" to kill third trimester babies, without restriction and without minimal health and safety standards for the mothers, is beyond comprehension. That they do this in the wake of the Gosnell atrocities is beyond shame. This stuff is deep evil.

Second, America's elite newspapers ought to spell-check their editorials. It's a formidable help. One can't help but wonder if the fellow who posted the WaPo editorial may have been less than enamored of this hateful editorial, and provyded his own commentairy, wryly.


  1. Maybe they should call her a formidable foe of unborn children because that's what she is.


  2. It’s hard to imagine a government more intrusive in the lives of its citizens that one that uses its power to force women to have babies. Of course that power only extends to poor women; rich women will always have the means to get an abortion.


    1. No government is forcing women to "have" babies. They already have them. They simply won't allow them to kill their babies.

      Your use of language is deceptive.


    2. KW,

      "It’s hard to imagine a government more intrusive in the lives of its citizens that one that uses its power to force women to have babies."
      Women have babies after they have engaged in sexual union, kid. Birds and bees. In order for the government to 'force' women to have babies, you need breeding camps where women are forcibly inseminated and then made to carry the child to term. That is not what the late term abortion bills mandate.

      "Of course that power only extends to poor women; rich women will always have the means to get an abortion."
      Ah, here we see the true colour of the beast - the inner eugenicist comes roaring out. Solution to poverty? KILL the poor.

    3. Make abortions illegal then of course you’re forcing women to have babies. Getting pregnant is not the same as having a baby.


  3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 1, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    MS passed a law last year requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and it has basically killed the industry. The one remaining abortion mill is owned by Diane Derzis, known as "the abortion queen". Derzis is in a court battle to keep the abortion mill open, and a quick visit to her cheapo website for the Jackson Women's Health Organization ( shows they are advertising on the internet for a board-certified/eligible OB/GYN with local admitting privileges. Apparently, there aren't many takers.

    Derzis' clinic in Alabama is famous for its staff incompetence:

    The clinic’s lack of training or orientation policies led to abortion complications. It was because of this lack of training that the RN on duty on January 21, 2012, drew up and administered 2 cc’s of Vasopressin instead of the ordered 0.2 cc’s, or ten times the recommended dosage, sending a total of three patients to the hospital.

    The clinic owner, Diane Derzis, was confronted specifically about the regular practice of a non-licensed employee administering medications. She responded, “She’s been doing it for years.”
    [full 75-page ADPH report avail online]
    --- LifeNews

    It's the new back alley.

    As Egnor points out, abortions are a very lucrative business and will become more so when the flood of federal Medicaid money turns into a torrent. It's also a haven for quacks, who can open up a substandard medical facility and run it on a shoestring, as if it were a legitimate medical practice.

  4. OFF TOPIC: Forgive me, Doctor.

    The Syrian 'rebel's' have released video of a RC priest and another Christian being butchered in front of a baying crowd - including children. These are the barbarians we are supposed to support? This is the 'movement' to 'liberate' Syria?
    Words cannot express my disgust and contempt.
    May God bless keep the souls of these martyred men (and all the others who are lost to these beasts) and may His swift vengeance be felt by the sadistic barbarians who defile the name of religion in these ritual murders.

    WARNING EXTREMELY Graphic content. In fact I would not post this video if I did not think people NEED to see it.

    1. crus:

      Thanks. I had seen this. I pray for these innocents who have given their lives in service of Christ.

      I had considered a post on this, but there are some things that are so horrible and depressing that it's hard to write about them.

      Not that the stuff I do post about is so cheery...

    2. Mike,

      "I had considered a post on this, but there are some things that are so horrible and depressing that it's hard to write about them. "

      I completely understand that, mate. 100%. I am at a loss for words also. Prayer has been my only comfort.
      Still I felt it needs to be seen, so I have been trying to 'get it out there'.
      Sorry for straying off topic.

    3. [Sorry for straying off topic.]

      No problem. It's all on topic, crus, of one fabric. Thanks for bringing it up.

    4. Too bad there wasn't video yet when the Catholics did the same to,say, the Cathars for having the "wrong religion". I'm sure you would have posted that too, "Crusader".

    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 1, 2013 at 11:49 AM

      Too bad there wasn't video when the French atheists were doing that to priests, nuns, shopowners, and random people. I'm surprised you didn't bring that up, dhimmi.

    6. Hmmmm, maybe the pope can be convinced to use some his vast riches to finance an entertaining movie about the French atheists, where they strangle the last priest with the entrails of the last king.

    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 1, 2013 at 2:56 PM

      I had a feeling snuff movies would be up your alley, dhimmi.

    8. I am glad to learn you still have some below-the-belt-feeling left in that old carcass. Perhaps your recent recreational visit to the brothers awoke the slumbering giant again?

      Aren't you wondering why the Crusader didn't post any links to snuff movies of Sunnis beheading Shias and/or vice versa? It's almost as if he believes the live of a Christian is more valuable than that of a Muslim.

    9. Troy,

      You seem a little confused. Perhaps it the constant abuse of cannabis that inhibits your understanding of dates and times?
      At any rate, I will explain for the benefit of less historically educated readers (like you) and for those who do not understand the reasoning behind my moniker.

      Re: the Albigensian Crusade, I do not think the 13th century war on the 'heretics' of Languedoc was moral or properly Christian. Similar 'Crusades' (false) were called against my own sect and people in the 16th century - despite our own ancient Christian roots - over geopolitics by cynical popes in behest of their royal bankers.
      But, to be crystal clear: My issue with the 'rebels' in Syria has nothing to do with the religious justification for 13th century wars of unification and conquest. Rather, my issue has to do with NATO powers backing these MODERN DAY barbarians.
      I cannot do or say anything to save the Cathars of the 1200's. If I could, I can say quite sincerely that I would. Many modern Catholics would too.
      I can, however, speak out against the slaughter of Syrian Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Alawites happening TODAY (that's 2013 ad, Troy - not 800 years ago).
      I can speak against cannibalism, the execution of children, the rape of women being BACKED by western diplomacy as I write.
      I can and I will.

      Will you, Troy? Will you man up and speak out?
      Or will you instead cite the inhumanity against Cathars of the Languedoc of the 1200's as justification for the killing of innocents TODAY? Are the modern Christians of Syria deserving of that kind of death because of unrelated men who lived almost a millennium past in a distant land? What about the Shiites? The Jews? The Alawites? The Druze? How do they fit into your karmic plot of vengeance?
      ...or perhaps it is quite simply because these men are Christian you feel nothing should they should be butchered like animals (worse actually) on your tax dollars? Is that how deep your hate runs?
      Balls in your court, Troy.
      Please do explain.

      Re My moniker: It is a gift from the modern enemy - the Mujaheddin (that's the self professed 'Jihadists') of SWA.
      It was a semi-complimentary moniker, as it differentiated me and my command from those of my colleagues that they deemed 'Mongols' and 'assassins', both highly derogatory terms. It stuck.
      We (my command and myself) used it to our great advantage.
      It was/is not a reference to the Albigensian Crusade, which the Muslims are totally apathetic about (and some would probably approve of!).
      Rather the reference was to the Crusaders who fought the first Crusade and those who fought Saladin. Saladin was/is a hero to these men. This was quite explicit in the 'gifting'.
      It was an expression of grudging respect for an enemy with motives they (think that they) can understand and negotiate with. It means I am not Kafir (like you, Troy), but merely an infidel (heretic).
      I would be perhaps be allowed slavery or conversion (if it was deemed useful), you see. Maybe even held for a ransom.
      You, on the other hand, are a 'son of death' and are not fit to feed the dogs with. In fact, if a dog or carrion bird ate your dead flesh, they would kill it to save it's already 'unclean' soul from further contamination and consider it an act of mercy (to the dog or animal). One thing's for sure: They would not eat you like they have their Alawite enemies.

    10. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJuly 1, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      Dhimmi: "I am glad to learn you still have some below-the-belt-feeling left in that old carcass."

      Such a coy boi, Troi. But if you're looking for a date, try the online classifieds or a motorway toilet. You'll make better headway.

    11. Troy,

      "It's almost as if he believes the live of a Christian is more valuable than that of a Muslim. "
      Nonsense. All life is precious. Even yours.
      I have been against arming the Syrian 'rebels' from the get-go. My own experience in the field has taught me as much.
      The reason I posted THIS video is because I had hoped to get through to some of the people on Egnorance that this 'rebellion' is not about liberty, but a brutal civil war; that backing the 'rebels' is not a case of the 'lesser of two evils'. Far from it. It is the GREATER of two evils. They are intolerant fanatics who kill all but their own sect (and even then some!). If we are to side with a cliche it would be 'better the devil you know..."
      There is no simply money solution to Syria, and NO good guys - save the innocent victims.

  5. In anti-abortion measures snuck into the Ohio budget and signed into law with no debate, the old white men calling the shots decided that the state needs to jab a wand into the vajayjay of any women that wants an abortion. So much for limited government….