Outgoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will be remembered by most for the insanely botched roll-out of ObamaCare, but her most shameful legacy to those of us who remember it, will always be her disgraceful tenure as Governor of Kansas because of her unwavering support for illegal late term abortions, and her role in vilifying the attorney general who was trying to put a stop to them.
By Debra Heine – Breitbart.com - Cross-Posted at AskMarion: Infamous late term abortionist, Dr. George Tiller, who practiced his shady, sordid business in Wichita, was able to game the system through strategic donations to Democrat politicians, most particularly, Kathleen Sebelius.
Kansas City resident Jack Cashill remembers the history well, and wrote about it today at the American Thinker.
During Sebelius’s six years as governor, women came from 48 states and points beyond to have late-term abortions in Kansas.
They came not because Kansas had uniquely liberal abortion laws. They came because Sebelius was uniquely hostile to the law’s enforcement. The state’s most efficient practitioner of this dubious art, the late Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, boasted on his website of having “more experience in late abortion services with fetuses over 24 weeks than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere.”
What Tiller’s website did not say is that during the six years of Sebelius’s reign as governor, he ended the lives of thousands of healthy babies ready to be born, in full violation of state law. Nor did the website tell how Sebelius personally intervened to let the carnage continue. This was no small task. To succeed, she had to destroy her Republican attorney general, Phill Kline, who was hot on Tiller’s trail.
Local Democrats and their media accomplices vigorously engaged in the "othering" of Kline.
Othering is a way of defining and securing one’s own positive identity through the stigmatization of an “other.” Whatever the markers of social differentiation that shape the meaning of “us” and “them,” whether they are racial, geographic, ethnic, economic or ideological, there is always the danger that they will become the basis for a self-affirmation that depends upon the denigration of the other group.
As Andrew Stiles recently noted at The Washington Free Beacon, liberals are in the process of trying to destroy Ted Cruz by "othering" him.
But before the othering of Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, there was the particularly vicious othering of another effective conservative, Phill Kline.
The story could begin in any number of places, but a likely starting place is 2002, the year Sebelius ran for governor and Kline ran for attorney general. As a state representative five years earlier, Kline had helped draft legislation to check the state’s then thriving late-term abortion business. The new law allowed for a late-term abortion on a viable baby only “to preserve the life of the pregnant women” or to prevent her from suffering “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
Tiller poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a variety of PACs and cut-outs, making what should have been an easy win for Kline in 2002 into "a nail-biter."
Four years later, he invested close to $2 million to Democrats.
He had to. For the three previous years, Kline had plied an unsympathetic state judiciary to get access to Tiller’s case file, and he was finally poised to succeed.
Tiller and his political patrons, chief among them Sebelius, resisted at every step. To block Kline, Sebelius persuaded popular Republican district attorney Paul Morrison to switch parties and run against Kline on her ticket. The Democrats, Tiller’s paid proxies, and the media then launched a vicious campaign to portray “Snoop Dog Kline” as a “panty-sniffer” with no greater interest than invading the privacy of Kansas women.
So relentless were The Kansas City Star’s attacks on the “anti-choice extremist” Kline that he lost the election, and the Star won Planned Parenthood’s top media honor, the “Maggie Award,” named for its eugenicist founder, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.
Margaret Sanger’s ideas are live and well in the Obama White House! Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sibelius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.) Sebelius has also been exposed as a major player in the Obama War on Religion.
Three months after Kline was forced out, Sebelius hosted an elegant but extremely discreet soirée at Cedar Crest, the governor’s mansion, for Tiller and his staff. What made this event newsworthy was that just a few months earlier, Kline had filed 30 counts against Tiller for performing illegal late-term abortions.
Photos from the "soiree", include Sebelius proudly holding up a tee shirt given to her by Tiller which reads “Trifecta 2006: Sebelius, Parkinson, Morrison.”
I cannot imagine that Ms. Sebelius is having much fun this week, but if she is known going forward only for the humiliation of ObamaCare, she will have a better legacy than she deserves.
Agreed. And the most disturbing aspect of the sordid tale is the fact that she was chosen by Obama to be his HHS Sec. not despite this shameful legacy - but because of it.
And only in Obamaland, where Progressivism runs wild, could this women entertain running for the Senate with a record and history like hers!!
RUSH/EIB: If I may get solemn and serious, as this requires, there is shocking news out of New York. I don't know how shocking it is, but it's really bad, and it's Cybercast news service, but the actual source of this is the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. So this is a city source: "In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758)..."
So out of a possible 56,000 black babies in New York City in 2012, 31,000 were aborted and 25,000 were killed, "and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in" New York City. This is shocking. Let me run these numbers by you again, because I know they're tough to follow on radio and I screwed up the addition. So there were, give or take, 56,000 black pregnancies in New York City 2012.
And 31,000 of the 56,000 were aborted and 25,000 were born. The 31,000 aborted was almost 50% of the total number of abortions, but the African-American population is only, what, 11 to 13%. These are striking numbers, and this is... Dare I go there? Yes, I do. This is exactly what Margaret Sanger had in mind when she came up with the whole notion of Planned Parenthood and eugenics.
I've always been amazed that the white, liberal elite champion Margaret Sanger, when it wouldn't take anything for Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to go back and figure out who she is what she really wanted. How in the world there's any support for whatever Margaret Sanger attached her name to is beyond my ability to comprehend. Well, no it's not, because I know the left. Abortion is the sacrament to them. But this is just...
These people that are relying on the Democrat Party to protect them to take care of them, to guard them against whatever extremism might be coming their way from conservative Republicans, are wiping themselves out -- with the support of and the recommendation of the Democrat Party -- which puts abortion in top two of the most important issues going. It's just amazing here, and when you look at the reality of this and then you understand who it is they blame for their lot in life and their plight?
"The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics." Now, you'd have to say this is shocking news, and you've got Democrat Party advocacy behind it. You've got Democrat Party identity behind it -- and if you'd add all the other abortions that Democrats are having, you may have a little bit better understanding of why they're so eager for amnesty, and you might understand why the US birth rate is now dipping below replacement levels, which has all kinds of bad connotations to it, not the least of which are economic.
Watcher of Weasels/Forum: Every week on Monday morning, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day.
As you may know, a number of states including Texas have placed major restrictions on abortions performed after 20 weeks. This week’s question: Do you agree with recent legislation in several states limiting late term abortions?
Rhymes With Right: I support these restrictions wholeheartedly. After all, they are consistent with Roe and its rationale that the state acquires a stronger right to regulate abortion the closer the child is to viability — because that child is undoubtedly a living human being that the state can and should protect.
Now some may point out Roe uses a trimester system for determining when a state may regulate abortion. Unfortunately for supporters of abortion, that logic was not based upon constitutional law, but upon the state of medical science in 1973. But over the last four decades, we have seen advances that make 20-22 weeks the point at which a child in utero becomes viable. As such, the courts are going to have to grapple with the reality that the bad law found in Roe is also bad science as well. As one of my professors (an ACLU board member at the time) agreed with me back during the Reagan years, the reliance of the Blackmun controlling opinion in Roe on medicine rather than the constitution makes Roe a decision inevitably on a collision course with itself. Well, today we have reached the point of collision.
So yes, these laws (including those in conservative hotbeds like New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts) will be challenged and some of them may be overturned at the District or Circuit Court levels. That will put them on course for the Supreme Court — which will have three choices. What they will not do is overturn the notion of abortion as a legal right — doing so would upset too many other cases because they depend upon the reasoning of Roe. So while the morally and constitutionally correct thing would be to strike down Roe as bad law, that won’t happen.They will either have to constitutionalize medicine as it stood in 1973, remove all restrictions from abortion, or (and this is the best choice) declare that advances in medicine have changed the time and manner for regulating abortion. What the Supreme Court will do will be dependent upon the whims of Justice Kennedy and any changes that take place in the court’s lineup between now and some future decision day in these cases.
Liberty’s Spirit: I have to say, along with 80% of the USA, that third trimester abortions are infanticide. 60% of society also thinks that second trimester abortions are infanticide as well. Science has proven that babies feel pain, suck their thumbs, play, burp, hiccup, respond to music and even their mother’s voices by the end of the 5th month of gestation. It is ignorant of the pro-abortion groups to continue to simply say that the only issue here is the right of the mother to do what she wants with her body. They fail to acknowledge that by the end of the second trimester there are two viable human lives at stake and that is exactly what makes this issue such a moral and ethical conundrum. Additionally the pro-abortionists fail to acknowledge that NO right is absolute. It is always a balancing act between competing interests. The same should be for abortion; the right(s) of the mother to life versus the right of a viable baby to be born.
I do not think that restrictions on late term abortions are necessarily good or bad. Quite frankly I think it depends on exactly what the exceptions happen to be. There are terrible genetic anomalies, which cannot be seen until after the 5th month of gestation. Sometimes there are such painful choices to be made during a pregnancy that it is simply heartrendering and these decision must be private. But for some advocates, on both sides of the issues, in order to get their own way, they like to make these issues simple but these issues are anything but simple or always clear.
Not all babies develop normally and at times terrible tragedies occur. There is no point in a baby developing without a brain or kidneys to be born. If they were born to what end? What about genetic testing for diseases like tay-sachs? Are the results of these tests known before the end of the 5th month? What is the point of allowing such horrible suffering to occur? What is the point of such a terrible death? If there is a more humane way for all to end the suffering then so be it.
But there are also additional issues with unfettered abortion. Gendercide, and the disrespect of the right to life of the disabled. While gendercide is illegal in the west, pro-abortion groups do not denounce it. Babies diagnosed with Down syndrome have a 98% chance of being aborted. Basically the disabled are thought to be less worthy of life. Doctors also think they know everything about the life of the disabled but they have been proven terribly wrong over the past decades too. Gendercide will lead to economic instability and procreative issues for future generations. Dehumanizing the disabled has immediate consequences for human society. Only the Nazis in modern history felt the disabled unworthy of life.
A major part of the problem with abortion is that to kill we need to see our victim as not human. The pro-abortion groups try to tell society that the child growing in the womb is not a person, or that the disabled are less entitled to life, or that its OK to decide you don’t want to give birth to a girl. The reality is that this attitude reaches down into the heart of humanity, and characterizes a civilization. To dehumanize the unborn, to make this an easy question with an easy answer, is to dehumanize all of us. Is this the legacy that we want to leave our posterity?
JoshuaPundit: I’m hardly surprised that the ‘right’ to murder a baby over 20 weeks old who was conceived via consensual sex, poses no danger to the mother’s health and is developed enough to feel pain and and shock at being ripped out of the womb would not be thought of as ‘radical’. After all, look the proponent of infanticide whom the American people not only voted in as president but actually re-elected.His stance on abortion is not much different than Dr. Gosnell’s except he favored doing it in somewhat cleaner surroundings.
There’s no question these new laws will be challenged, and I’m not certain they’ll survive – we’ll have to see. But the fact that something like this would even be controversial at all, let alone our embrace of politicians that regard something like this as controversial and make political capital out of it is..unholy. I can’t think of any other word for it. And I am by no means a hardliner who wants to see all abortion criminalized.
The Glittering Eye: Back when the Supreme Court initially decided Roe v. Wade, my immediate reaction was that the viability approach that the Court had relied on would result in abortion activists waging a losing war with technology. The recent controversy over a law limiting abortions after 20 weeks in Texas is just the most recent battle in that war.
I find it really fascinating that the Texas legislature’s position, actually a pretty moderate one and consistent not only with the laws of most other states but quite in alignment with public opinion nationally, is being portrayed by a compliant press as a radical position while a radical position, the one being taken by abortion activists and oddly inconsistent with the actual law of the land which has never held an unlimited right to abortion, is being portrayed as moderate and commonsensical.
The Independent Sentinel: I do agree with limiting late-term abortions. After seeing sonograms, I don’t know why everyone doesn’t agree with me. Babies are viable at 20 weeks and that should be the cutoff with the proviso that exceptions be allowed in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger.
For a woman who can’t make up her mind by 20 weeks, why should we justify abortion so she can rectify her “mistake?”
I am very tired of women calling their babies fetuses when they want to kill them but babies when they are looking forward to giving birth. It’s rationalization run amok.
Why did we bother prosecuting Kermit Gosnell if we are going to allow the murder of babies up to the moment-of-birth? What’s the difference between the two really?
We treat animals better in this country. Can you imagine how crazed animal lovers would be if we said that in order to reduce the dog & cat population, we were going to perform a partial-birth abortion on as many as possible. A partial-birth abortion, which is the means by which doctors abort late-term babies, requires the person performing the abortion to randomly pull out the baby in parts. It’s savage and we wouldn’t do it to cats & dogs.
While several states are limiting late-term abortions, we have governors like Andrew Cuomo of New York who wants abortion to the moment-of-birth enshrined in the state constitution as a civil right for political expediency.
The trend of limiting late-term abortions has peaked. Too many women believe they have the right to kill any baby in their womb because it’s their body. Unfortunately, a lot of men are only too willing to go along with them.
Decision comes as Planned Parenthood heaps praise on Obama
WND: PHILADELPHIA – The judge in the abortion murder trial for practitioner Kermit Gosnell has dismissed several of the counts in the case, including one of infanticide and three of murder.
The decision came today from Judge Jeffrey Minehart after Jack McMahon, Gosnell’s defense attorney, argued for the dismissals.
Also dropped were several counts of abuse of a corpse.
The trial, however, will continue on the rest of the counts that stem from the 72-year-old abortionist’s business in Philadelphia, the “Women’s Medical Center” that has been dubbed the “House of Horrors” for the events that occurred there.
He was accused of snipping the spinal cords of seven babies who were born alive at the facility, although witnesses have described that that same procedure was used to dispatch possibly hundreds of infants, as well as the drug overdose death of a patient.
Five other murder counts remain, and according to Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, who has been monitoring the case, it is a “watershed moment.”
“The discovery of his horrific practices helped shed light on an abortion industry that has run amok without oversight or accountability for decades, and has prompted significant changes in abortion laws and attitudes toward enforcement in several states,” he told LifeNews.
Minehart dropped the infanticide charge regarding “Baby B,” a baby born in a toilet, as well as murder charges for “Baby A,” “Baby C” and “Baby G.”
“”The prosecution has to show malice, the fact that Dr. Gosnell acted with intentional disregard for the safety of the mother and treated them differently than he did with the others,” McMahon said. “The prosecution has failed to do that.”
McMahon also cited Pennsylvania’s “24-Week Law.”
“Yes, Dr. Gosnell did abortions past the 24-week limit, but not one of those who he’s accused of harming were past 24 weeks.”
Prosecutor Ed Cameron said the counts fall within the law.
“The statute reads that if the crime offends common sensibilities, then the person is guilty. These acts offend reasonable sensibility,” Cameron said.
“The statute says that once the baby leaves the mother that the baby should be treated with dignity as a human being. That if they die, they should be disposed of with dignity. It is clear that Dr. Gosnell didn’t do that,” Cameron said.
“Cameron said that there are three signs that have to be present.
“It’s an either or. There has to be a beating heart and there has to be breathing. There also has to be voluntary movement,” Cameron said, “Even one of the doctors testified that they saw the baby breathing.”
In the case of “Baby B” and “Baby C,” Cameron argued that there was voluntary movement.
“The baby moved his arms. Lynda Williams said, ‘Hey look at this,’ as she called people to witness what she was doing,” Cameron said. “Williams pulled the baby’s arms and the baby pulled back.”
“That’s voluntary movement,” Cameron said.
“In the case of ‘Baby A’, Cameron said a clinic worker saw the baby move and breathe.
“It was a repeated course of conduct. Dr. Gosnell acted recklessly and with no regard for the safety of the women or the babies,” Cameron said.
President Obama, who has declined to weigh in, through his spokesman, on the case, meanwhile, is planning to attend a fundraising gala later this week for Planned Parenthood, the U.S. abortion industry’s biggest player.
Cecile Richards, president of the organization, said, “President Obama has done more than any president in history for women’s health and rights.”
In a statement that did not include the word abortion, she said, “He understands that access to birth control and preventive health care are economic issues for women and their families. We fought alongside him to ensure that women’s health access was expanded in the landmark Affordable Care Act, and now we have to fight hard to ensure that the full promise of health care reform is realized for millions of women.
“We are honored to President Obama join us…”
The details revealed during the trial have left Americans following the charges horrified.
For example, clinic worker Ashley Baldwin said Gosnell snipped the neck of many babies who could have lived.
The details of another instance are recorded in the grand jury report.
One report: “The baby had precipitated (emerged from the mother) when the doctor was not in the clinic. Lynda Williams (another clinic staff member) placed the baby in a basin on the counter where the instruments were washed and called the doctor to come.”
The details build: Baldwin heard an infant’s cry, and saw the baby move on the country. Estimated the baby’s length at 12 inches.
Gosnell arrived and all that soon stopped.
“He snipped the neck, and said there is nothing to worry about, and he suctioned it,” came the testimony.
The report also records the procedure for what would happen to the babies who were born when Gosnell was not at the clinic.
If Gosnell was absent, his employees would kill viable babies. Ashley Baldwin saw Steve Massof slit the necks of babies that moved or breathed ‘five or 10″ times. Massof, repeating what he had been taught by Gosnell, told her that that it was standard procedure to cut the spine in all cases.
Baldwin told the grand jury that she witnessed the similar procedure on several other occasions. An exchange between the prosecutors and Baldwin is also recorded in the grand jury report.
Q: These larger babies, when Dr. Steve was there, did he ever – was he ever there when any of the larger babies precipitated?
A: Yes.
Q: Babies that would move?
A: Yes.
Q: So, Dr. Steve – what would Dr. Steve do with babies that moved?
A The same thing.
Q. The same thing. And how many time did you see Dr. Steve?
A: A lot. He told me that – don’t worry about it. They are not living. It is just a reaction.”
The grand jury report also says that after Steve Massof left the clinic, clinic worker Lynda Williams took over the task of slitting the baby’s necks after they were born.
Former worker Kareema Cross said she later say Lynda Williams slit the neck of a baby (“Baby C”) who had been moving and breathing for approximately 20 minutes.
Gosnell had delivered the baby and put it on a counter while he suctioned the placenta from the mother. Williams called Cross over to look at the baby because it was breathing and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them. After playing with the baby, Williams slit its neck.
Marie Smith is another of Gosnell’s patients who almost died as a result of a botched abortion.
Smith was 19 when she had an abortion at Gosnell’s clinic. Three days after the abortion, she developed a fever and lost consciousness at her mother’s house.
She was taken to the emergency room where doctor’s discovered the cause of her infection.
“They showed me X-rays and said he [Gosnell] left an arm and a leg inside me. I almost died. I thought he knew what he was doing, but I guess I was wrong,” Smith told a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Marie Smith is lucky to be alive after having had a botched abortion by Gosnell in 1999,” Sullenger wrote.
Unlicensed medical school graduate Eileen O’Neill, Gosnell’s codefendant on murder charges, is reported to have given abortion drugs to clinic patients.
Lisa Dungee, a Gosnell clinic patient in 2009, testified to the court that O’Neill gave her the abortion pill before the end of the required 24-hour waiting period for an abortion and that she didn’t receive any pre-abortion counseling.
LifeNews.com reported that Dungee testified on the stand that, “When I came in to the facility, I already had my mind made up about what I wanted to do, so yes, I signed it,” Dungee said.
LifeNews also reported that Dungee didn’t deliver the four-week old baby until over 24-hours after taking the first abortion pill. The report says that O’Neill’s defense lawyer James Berardinelli has maintained that, “since Dungee did not actually expel her four-week baby until 24 hours after she took the first abortion pill, then the 24-hour waiting period had been observed.”
It was unclear whether the abortionist would testimony for himself.
WND reported earlier that the discoveries at Gosnell’s clinic were startling. A partial list reported by WND includes:
Rusty and filthy abortion equipment has been brought into the courtroom to document unsanitary conditions.
Medical records appear to have blood and other stains on them.
Gosnell’s staff acted as though they were doctors, even though some had little or no medical training.
Medications, including anesthetics, found in the office had expired years earlier.
A defense attorney blamed the woman, Bhutan immigrant Karnamaya Mongar, for her own death, since she left several blanks on her medical form. Prosecutors said she spoke little English and likely was unaware she needed to provide information.
Patients appeared to repeatedly get overdoses of drugs for their abortion procedures, including Mongar.
Photographs of the bodies of babies, revealed gaping wounds in the back of their necks. According to testimony, Gosnell or staff members routinely snipped their spinal cords to make sure they were dead. Operation Rescue said: “The babies were all intact and had the appearance of being partially mummified or dried. The brownish-black skin had shrunk as it dried, revealing the upper spinal column that authorities say was pierced with scissors in order to snip the spinal cords of newborn babies born alive during abortions by Gosnell.”
Photographs were introduced of babies’ feet, or even whole legs, Gosnell had preserved in jars.
"First MOLOCH, horrid King besmear'd with blood Of human sacrifice, and parents tears, Though, for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud, Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire To his grim Idol - John Milton, Paradise Lost
JoshuaPundit – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved. - Rashi, 12th century commentary on Jeremiah 7:31
There was in the city of the Carthaginians a bronze image of Cronus (Moloch) extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire. - Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 49 BC.
In ancient times, there was a god worshiped in the Middle East called Ba'al, Moloch, Milkh, or Tophet among other names among the Canaanites, Phoenicians and Carthaginians whose attributes were similar to those of the Roman Saturn or the Greek Cronos. Its rites included the murder of children by tossing them into the fire built within or next to the idol.
In Leviticus 20:2-5, G-d enjoined the Jews never to give any of their seed as a sacrifice to Molokh, and that anyone who did would surely die because "I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go astray after him."
There's a trial going on in Philadelphia today in Philadelphia that merits notice in this context.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell ran an abortion clinic in the city and is accused of a number of horrendous crimes, according to the Grand Jury report: "This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy - and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors."
"The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels - and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths."
He's been charged with 7 counts of first degree murder.
The illegal part of what Dr. Gosnell did is worthy of reflecting on.
According to his former clinic staff, at least 100 living babies were murdered moments after Dr. Gosnell (or in some cases, his unlicensed assistants) ripped them out of the womb.Pennsylvania law forbids abortion in most cases after 24 weeks (the end of the second trimester). His standard method of killing the children was snipping the spinal cords, what one of his assistants described as 'a virtual beheading.' Dr. Gosnell frequently used drugs to induce labor so as to deliver the babies faster and make the killing process easier. One of his assistants in testimony described 'fetuses and blood flying around everywhere.'
Several women patients were badly injured, according to the report. One was left simply lying there after her cervix and colon were torn in the process of trying to pull a baby out of her womb so it could be 'dealt with'. Another, only 18 years old, was not given proper care after her uterus was punctured and had to undergo a hysterectomy. Others actually contracted venereal diseases, painful infections and other complications because of the unsanitary conditions, where rusty and outdated machines, dirty, unsterilized instruments and filthy surroundings.
When the police finally got around to investigating Dr. Gosnell's clinic because of a tip he was illegally 'proscribing' drugs, they found fetal remains "stored throughout the clinic - in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers."
So what Dr. Gosnell is being charged with, actually, is performing late term abortions (illegal in Pennsylvania but not in a number of states), keeping a sloppy and unsanitary shop, allowing unauthorized and unlicensed personnel to perform procedures and administer drugs and the injuries and at least one murder that resulted from that.
Had he worked for, say, Planned Parenthood in a clean, up-to-date environment with licensed assistants in a state like California that allows abortion on demand for any reason no matter how far along the pregnancy is, he would have been doing essentially the same thing without any problems.
What Dr. Gosnell was doing to babies is not that much different than other doctors when it comes to late term abortions. They are merely more skillful and using better equipment.
The usual process is to puncture the baby's skull and use a hose to suction out the brains and collapse the skull so it can be pulled out of the womb.
Two questions come to mind of most people hearing about this immediately.
This went on literally for years. Didn't anyone complain to the authorities?
Yes, as a matter of fact, they did. The Departments of Health for both the City of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania had received reports of what was going on in Dr. Gosnell's infanticide factory. Even after one of Dr. Gosnell's employees went to the state board and filed a formal complaint on what was going on, nothing was done.
When Dr. Gosnell applied for membership in the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion practitioners because of the referrals that were possible, an inspector visited the clinic and turned him down - but made no report to the authorities on what she found there.
In the end, it wasn't the murder of babies or injuries to women that got Dr. Gosnell closed down, but a tip to the police that he was illegally prescribing drugs. Even then, he was allowed his freedom for a number of weeks, which gave him time to destroy most of his records.
Why?
And once this became a news story, why did the dinosaur media refuse to cover it? Under the classic journalism formula of 'if it bleeds, it leads' this should have been a major news story on the alphabet networks, the New York Times,the Washington Post, every major outlet you can think of. Why did they ignore it?
The picture below, courtesy of Breitbart is a photo of the empty 'reserved media section' at the Gosnell trial last week.
There are a number of reasons why the Pennsylvania authorities were reluctant to investigate Dr. Gosnell, and why the media steered clear of this story, and they're connected.
The dinosaur media, as even Dave Weigel of Slate admits, "are, generally, pro-choice. Twice, in D.C., I've caused a friend to literally leave a conversation and freeze me out for a day or so because I suggested that the Stupak Amendment and the Hyde Amendment made sense. There is a bubble."
These same, overwhelmingly Leftist journalists are generally rabidly anti-Second Amendment. So a one off situation where a mentally ill malcontent murders his mother, steals her guns and is somehow let into a school supposedly under lock down procedures is a headline story, a cause celebre' and a trigger for massive legislation whereas a Philadelphia doctor who murdered hundreds is something to be ignored. It's all about the agenda and what serves it.
The same thing applies to a bureaucracy in a state that has a strong 'pro-choice' lobby. They're reluctant to be seen shutting down an abortion facility unless the abuses are so blatantly obvious they can't be ignored.
Another aspect of the Gosnell case that merited it being studiously ignored by the media (and I've yet to see it mentioned anywhere) is its connection with President Obama.This president has a clear record as a vigorous advocate of denying babies who survive an abortion medical care. His stance on the matter was more radical than even NARAL's. and the proper name for this is infanticide. That's pretty much what Dr. Gosnell is accused of, murdering viable, fully formed babies outside the womb.
Even worse from the standpoint of the media and abortion-on-demand advocates, Planned Parenthood, whose primary source for their multi-million dollar income according to their own budget is abortion and the Federal funds that cover it seem to agree with that, as this snippet makes clear.
I actually feel for this woman. She appears to know that what she's defending is morally wrong, but also knows that as a Planned Parenthood spokesperson she's being paid to advocate for it. And her discomfort is obvious.
Now that this story is in the public eye, abortion on demand advocates are attempting to spin it by saying that Dr. Gosnell's little shop of horrors is what women will be facing if abortion is criminalized.But the fact remains this was a legally licensed abortion clinic in good standing, no one is talking about criminalizing abortion per se and that what we're talking about here is something very different. Again, had Dr. Gosnell been working for Planned Parenthood in a state that allows abortion later than 24 weeks in a clean shop with licensed assistants, nothing would be said.
What's bothering a lot of people whether they admit it or not is what this says about our culture.
One of the babies was so big - the 'nurse' estimated his age at 30 weeks - that Dr. Gosnell joked that that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop.
On another occasion, she testified that she killed a baby delivered into a toilet by cutting its neck with scissors. Asked if she knew that was wrong, she replied, “At first I didn’t.”
For thirty years, our culture has been instructed to think of children in the womb no matter how advanced in gestation as mere blobs of tissue rather than viable, living human beings. Is it any wonder that at first Adrienne Moton had no second thoughts, no qualms about what she was doing, that she had to think about it for awhile?
At this point, we get to the ultimate issue.
And it's not enough to mouth a slogan like "I'm a liberal and pro choice."
Is a six-month-old child in the womb not a person with a right to life? Obviously in some cases, say, where the mother's life is in danger there's a different priority.
But if we have a healthy mother and a healthy child in the womb conceived through consensual sex who is a viable baby, if a six-month old child in the womb with a fully developed nervous system and able to feel pain is 'not a person', if that child's choices should be arbitrarily taken away for someone else's convenience, then that is neither liberal nor pro-choice if we look at a dictionary and see what those words actually mean.
Dr. Gosnell made a choice. So did the women who went to his clinic. These women could have made the choice to procure a legal abortion anytime up to 24 weeks, and if they were poor the State of Pennsylvania would have paid for it. Or they could have chosen to allow the child to live, and put him up for adoption to a loving family.
The choice they made instead involved taking away the choice of a defenseless human being who wanted very much to live. Do people whom call themselves 'pro-choice' support that choice? Are we as a culture at a point where we support that choice?
If the answer's yes, than we are no better than than the worshipers of Moloch, hurling children into the flames. And we will ultimately share their fate.
by Steven Ertelt -LifeNews.com Editor - September 28, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new study with a very limited sample of women having abortions, just 69, has received considerable attention for supposedly disproving the plethora of peer-reviewed studies confirming women who have abortions face both depression and other mental health problems.
Other recent studies from the last two years provide nearly irrefutable evidence that abortion affects women in a myriad of ways — making it so they face everything from depression and relationship problems to PTSD and elevated risks for abusing drugs or alcohol.
An August study published in the Journal of Pregnancy and involving 374 women who had abortions — more than five times the number of women who appeared in the new study — found women having high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms for women having both early and late abortions.
Approximately 52 percent of the early abortion group and 67 percent of the late term abortion group met the American Psychological Association’s criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms (PTSD).
The authors of the study say those high rates are the result of women facing pressure or coercion to have an abortion or, at minimum, ambivalence about having it — showing more pre-abortion screening is needed to rule out abortion as an option for many women.
A May 2010 study put out by researchers at the University of Manitoba in Canada found women who have had abortions are about four times more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol as those who carried their pregnancy to term. The authors confirmed a link between abortion and the substance abuse issues.
The study appeared in the April issue of the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and it showed women having abortions were 3.8 times more likely to have substance abuse disorders.
That was the case even when other factors such as exposure to violence were included that could have raised the risk outside of abortion.
The Canadian study also found abortion associated with other mental health conditions such as mood disorders, but substance abuse proved to be the strongest link when it comes to post-abortion problems for women.
Meanwhile, three studies alone published in peer-reviewed medical journals at the end of 2008 show abortion causes problems for women.
Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, and her colleagues published a study in the Journal of Psychiatric Research showing an abortion-depression link exists.
The research team found induced abortions result in increased risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders.
The number of cases of mental health issues rose by as much as 17 percent in women having abortions compared to those who didn’t have one and the risks of each particular mental health problem rose as much as 145% for post-abortive women.
For 12 out of 15 of the mental health outcomes examined, a decision to have an abortion resulted in an elevated risk for women.
"What is most notable in this study is that abortion contributed significant independent effects to numerous mental health problems above and beyond a variety of other traumatizing and stressful life experiences," they concluded.
The study found that women who had abortions had rates of mental health problems about 30% higher than other women. The conditions most associated with abortion included anxiety disorders and substance abuse disorders.
Abortions increased the risk of severe depression and anxiety by one-third and as many as 5.5 percent of all mental health disorders seen in New Zealand result from women having abortions.
The study showed that women who had experienced an abortion were at increased risk of illicit drug and alcohol use compared with women who had never been pregnant or who gave birth.
In 2009, a review of studies examining various types of prenatal loss and the effects on subsequent parenting has concluded that abortion may be "particularly damaging to the parenting process."
Have you seen this NASA photo before? It is real.. a composite of the Helix Nubela taken by the Hubble Telescope, entitled God’s Eye. And for most of us it is a reminder that someone is watching…
Most Americans have always thought that our nation, the Founding Fathers and our Constitution were God inspired.
And many have seen the correlation between our demise and turning our back, as a nation, on God.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The House on Thursday fell short in an effort to ban abortions based on the sex of the fetus as Republicans and Democrats made an election-year appeal for women's votes.
The legislation would have made it a federal crime to perform or force a woman to undergo a sex-based abortion, a practice most common in some Asian countries where families wanting sons abort female fetuses.
It was a rare social issue to reach the House floor in a year when the economy has dominated the political conversation, and Republicans, besieged by Democratic claims that they are waging a war on women, struck back by trying to depict the vote as a women's rights issue.
"It is violence against women," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., of abortions of female fetuses. "This is the real war on women." (So why aren’t the feminists screaming about this?)
The White House, most Democrats, abortion rights groups and some Asian-American organizations opposed the bill, saying it could lead to racial profiling of Asian-American women and subject doctors who do not report suspected sex-selection abortions to criminal charges.
"The administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision," White House spokeswoman Jamie Smith said in a statement. "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way."
The bill had little chance of becoming law. The Democratic-controlled Senate would likely have ignored it, and the House brought it up under a procedure requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. The vote was 246-168 - 30 votes short of that majority. Twenty Democrats voted for it, while seven Republicans opposed it.
The bill's author, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said before the vote that regardless of the outcome, the point would be made. "When people vote on this, the world will know where they really stand."
Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, said he thought the bill was introduced because "somebody decided politically that this was a difficult place to put people in."
The legislation would have made it a federal offense, subject to up to five years in prison, to perform, solicit funds for or coerce a woman into having a sex-selection abortion. Bringing a woman into the country to obtain such an abortion would also be punishable by up to five years in prison. While doctors would not have an affirmative responsibility to ask a woman her motivations for an abortion, health workers could be imprisoned for up to a year for not reporting known or suspected violations of the ban on sex-based abortions.
An earlier version of the bill also made it illegal to abort a fetus based on race.
"We are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way," said Franks, who has also collided with abortion-rights groups recently over a bill he supports to ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries where there is a traditional preference for sons. The bill notes that while the United States has no federal law against such abortions, countries such as India and China, where the practice has contributed to lopsided boy-girl ratios, have enacted bans on the practice.
Lawmakers "who recently have embraced the contrived political rhetoric asserting that they are resisting the artificial `war on women', created by Team Obama for political purposes for his upcoming election bid, must reflect on whether they now wish to be recorded as being defenders of the real escalating war on baby girls," said National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson. (Let us remember that both President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius have always supported late term and partial birth abortions. Senator Obama even voted against giving the tiny survivors or abortions comfort after the procedure, which is barbaric!)
His group, in a letter to lawmakers, said there are credible estimates that 160 million women and girls are missing from the world due to sex selection.
But the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that favors abortion rights, said evidence of sex selection in the United States is limited and inconclusive. It said that while there is census data showing some evidence of son preference among Chinese-, Indian- and Korean-American families when older children are daughters, the overall U.S. sex ratio at birth in 2005 was 105 boys to 100 girls, "squarely within biologically normal parameters."
NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said that while her group has long opposed reproductive coercion, "the Franks bill exploits the very real problem of sex discrimination and gender inequity while failing to offer any genuine solutions that would eliminate disparities in health care access and information."
Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said the bill fosters discrimination by "subjecting women from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds to additional scrutiny about their decision to terminate a pregnancy."
"Doctors would be forced to police their patients, read their minds and conceal information from them," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Republicans also used the bill to continue their ongoing criticism of Planned Parenthood, founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger who endorsed abortion for racial purification, citing a video taken by the group Live Action purporting to show a Planned Parenthood social worker advising a woman on how to determine if her fetus was female before she terminated the pregnancy.
h/t Jim Abrams, June 1, 2012 6:50 am
The passing of this anti-sex-selection abortion law would have been more symbolic than anything else, for nobody would have gone into a clinic and said we want to terminate this pregnancy because of the gender of the fetus, especially after the law passed. As Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends said: “Who would ever have thought that America, the United States, would need a law like this?” But with the surfacing of now several videos showing that this despicable practice was not just an isolated incident and now the fact that Congress could/would not pass a bill banning gender selection abortion coupled with progressive politicians trying to turn this “real” ‘war on woman’ into a political shame… we sadly see that we definitely need this law! After this vote we can no longer call the practices of China barbaric; we have defined our own culture as the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way! We have fallen a long way from the the God fearing people that founded our country!
As the polls indicate, pro-choice Americans are at record low and partial birth abortions and gender selection is unthinkable to most Americans; plus the Catholic Church has brought suit against the Obama Conception Mandate of ObamaCare… yet unless you watch Fox news, participate in the conservative blogosphere or perhaps receive a publication for your church, synagogue or a pro-life group you probably don’t know about any of this. the media is silent… blacked out in support of President Obama and his administration. This alone should be a huge flag of how they will handle the news between now and election and worry us all… blacked out news, distortion of their opponents and issues they oppose and slanted favorable news of Obama and Progressive candidates and issues… sounds a whole lot more like the USSR vs. the USA.
What we are is God's gift to us. What we become is our gift to God.
Many feel he United States has fallen from grace… You be the Judge!
Many ask themselves how we got here… When is the last time you took your kids and grandkids to church? Are they teaching from scripture there? And how can a modern translation of the Bible, The Voice Bible (Paperback: The Voice New Testament), that changes the nouns for God, Jesus Christ and angels to Eternal One, the Anointed One and a messenger of God and then offers a “watered down” version of the Gospel. Was it T.S. Eliot who said the less people read the Bible the more they translate it?” He also said something like ‘Watered down Christianity is worth nothing.’
Now University of Rochester economist and former Slate blogger Steven Landsburg has jumped to Limbaugh's defense.
In a blog post, Landsburg argued that while the talk radio host's language may have been off-color, Limbaugh's logic was analytically shrewd. Fluke, Landsburg writes, "deserves only to be ridiculed, mocked, and jeered" for saying that women should have access to contraception."
He adds that Limbaugh's demand that Fluke and other Georgetown students post online sex tapes in exchange for contraception was actually a "spot-on analogy":
"If I can reasonably be required to pay for someone else’s sex life (absent any argument about externalities or other market failures), then I can reasonably demand to share in the benefits. His dense and humorless critics notwithstanding, I am 99% sure that Rush doesn’t actually advocate mandatory on-line sex videos. What he advocates is logical consistency and an appreciation for ethical symmetry. So do I. Color me jealous for not having thought of this analogy myself."
Unsurprisingly, Landsburg's arguments sparked a mini-firestorm at the University of Rochester, prompting the school's president to issue a public dissent. Landsburg has resoundingly dismissed his critics as "contraceptive sponges," and devoted another blog posts to rebutting their arguments in favor of contraception access.
But Landsburg's focus on the economic benefits and drawbacks of contraception have little to do with Fluke and her congressional testimony. Fluke was not, as Limbaugh and Landsburg have suggested, "demanding" that taxpayers pay for her to have sex; her testimony was originally part of a debate about whether religious institutions should be required to provide access to contraception. Her argument focused primarily on the medical (and non-contraceptive) uses of birth control.
It has become more and more evident that the appearance of Sandra Fluke is no fluke but rather has turned out to be a straw woman for Team Obama and the Progressive left… She is connected to Media Matters and the White House and is a professional activist for contraception, abortion and even taxpayer funds for sex change operations. While she is described as a “third year law student” they always conveniently fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Fluke is really 30-years-old (not the 23 that has been reported), and specifically went to Georgetown to fight their contraception policy – far from the innocent, wide-eyed victim she’s tried to portray herself to be. And Fluke’s testimony for Congress, included precisely zero references to recreational sex or to abortion. Instead, Fluke would have her audience believe she’s only interested in non-sexual reasons for needing contraceptive pills – such as treating ovarian cancer. According to one study, the number of people to whom this applies is about 14 percent of all contraceptive users.
But is this really all Fluke’s agenda is? Based on the affiliations she herself has cited, that question may be more complicated. Near the beginning of her testimony, Fluke said the following (emphasis added):
My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.
So if Fluke has these sorts of ties to an organization and mentions them by name for the purposes of appreciation, readers will probably assume she supports their agenda.
Now there seems to be increasing speculation that Sandra Fluke might be a great grandchild of Fabian/Progressive Founder of Planned Parenthood and the Negro Project whose beliefs are rooted in eugenics. The speculation began when someone noticed how much Sanger and Fluke look alike.
Margaret Sanger
Sandra Fluke
Margaret Sanger had 2 sons--Stuart and Grant--still looking into Stuart, but found this death notice for Grant (he was a Dr. and it says that he was survived by his wife, the former Edwina Campbell; three sons, Michael, of Baltimore, Alexander, of Manhattan, and Morgan, of Tortola, British Virgin Islands; a daughter, Anne Sanger of Bozrah, Conn., and 11 grandchildren.
While talking to a friend about the photo likeness and they sent the following info:
KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE SANGER | Visit Guest Book
SANGER, KATHRYN ISABELL FLUKE May 13, 1910 to Sept. 12, 2010 Kathryn died restfully in her sleep in the early morning hours of September 12, 2010. She was one of six children born to Carrie and Loren Fluke on the Kansas Prairie. She moved to San Diego in 1940, where she worked during the War at Convair. She retired from civil service after 20 years. Moved to Valley Center after the passing of her husband, Clarence (Bud) Sanger in 1975. She is preceded in death by son, Jimmy McClish. She is survived by son Gary McClish and daughter Barbara Blind, her brother Loren Fluke, and devoted niece Betty Jacobs; there are eight grandchildren, 10 great-grandchildren and eight great-great-grandchildren, and too many nephews, nieces and stepchildren to count. She was the most caring and loving person and always put the needs of others over her own. She will truly be missed by not only her family, but all those who knew her. Her passion was gardening; her love was deep for her roses, humming birds, and Padres baseball. A Viewing will be on Friday, September 17, 2010, from 5 to 9 p.m., with a Service on Saturday, September 18th, at 11 a.m. at Greenwood Memorial Park. Following the services on Saturday, a celebration of her life will be held at Bayview Molibe Home Park Clubhouse at 2003 Bayview Heights Drive.
Obituary Published in San Diego Union-Tribune on September 16, 2010
Thoughts: Are "Sanger" and "Fluke" considered typical names? And the fact that they were together is quite a coincidence? Also, the current Ms. Fluke, her middle name is "Kay", which can be a nickname for "Kathryn".
Comment: And here's where the "out on a limb" kicks in: Margaret Sanger/Margot Sanger--related/coincidence who knows but it sure does peak ones curiosity doesn't it??? TMH from the NoisyRoom
Washington, DC (
