Planned Parenthood Breaks Silence on Abortion Monster

itshappening

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
12,355
HotAir's Allahpundit has the break down:

-
Proof positive that we’ve reached a new phase of Gosnell damage control. Plan A: Ignore, ignore, ignore. Plan B: If Plan A becomes impossible, use Gosnell as some sort of exception that proves the rule about why, counterintuitively, America needs easier access to abortion.

@PPact (Planned Parenthood)
#Gosnell case is appalling. He ran a criminal enterprise, not a health facility, & should be punished to full extent http://bit.ly/ZRyssI

“Not a health facility” but something underground, not in any way similar to a Planned Parenthood clinic. If anything, the way to prevent future Gosnells is to have more clinics so that babies’ necks can be snipped earlier during gestation in a cleaner, safer environment. Be ready for this spin and know it for the garbage that it is. The reason Gosnell was able to run a “criminal enterprise” for 17 years is because the cretins in Pennsylvania state government decided they couldn’t risk the shrieking from pro-choicers if they insisted on tough inspections of clinics. So they stopped inspecting, which, as the Anchoress pointed out this morning, is likely why Gosnell felt safe keeping babies’ severed feet in jars as souvenirs like some Nazi degenerate at Buchenwald. No one was going to come knocking on his door or other clinics’ doors and he knew it, because the good people at Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al. would have made too much trouble for the state if they had. Read the grand-jury transcript, via Jordan Bloom:

“After 1993, even that pro forma effort [to inspect Gosnell's clinic and report its failings] came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions.”

In other words, it strongly suggests the absolutist pro-choice view that any regulation of abortion constitutes an infringement on reproductive rights led to the clinic not being overseen properly. All of these people [who are trying to spin Gosnell's case] had access to the grand jury report, even back in 2011. To ignore that and then make the case for why abortions should be more widespread and less regulated is incredibly dishonest.

But wait, there’s more. Here’s another bit of the grand jury report showcased in an old post by Melinda Henneberger when Gosnell’s case first came to public attention in 2011:

So too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar’s death. Despite his various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen.

Of course she didn’t. That would have alerted the state that inspections were necessary, no matter how difficult the politics, and the pro-choicers at NAF couldn’t tolerate that, even at the cost of letting this alleged lunatic go on carving up women and their babies. How can Gosnell’s practice be waved away now as a “criminal enterprise” when even a “respectable” abortion-rights group couldn’t be moved to report the crimes then? Didn’t a Planned Parenthood spokesman, not three weeks ago, refuse to condemn exactly the sort of live-birth abortions, i.e. murders, that Gosnell’s accused of committing? According to Lila Rose, PP still has yet to condemn it despite pro-lifers demanding a response ever since. Beyond all that, if Gosnell’s actually a case study in why we need more higher-end clinics, not less, why hasn’t the media been using him to that effect since he was indicted? Why a blackout instead? You know why: Because no one who sees that picture of the baby with its neck sliced thinks, “We need to make this easier, and to make the slicing happen a bit earlier in development.” The blackout strategy was smart. It just didn’t work.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/planned-parenthood-this-gosnell-case-is-appalling/

-
 
Flip floppers. One of the employees supported the killings in a public hearing, and Planned Parenthood put out a statement attacking the people who were asking the employee the questions.
 
I agree with the great women and men at Planned Parenthood. Gosnell's case is the best argument for legal late abortions there is.
 
I agree with the great women and men at Planned Parenthood. Gosnell's case is the best argument for legal late abortions there is.

Unreal.

Did you not read the analysis? The monster was allowed to operate because of the whole "lets be pro-choice" policy. He knew he could get away with it.
 
Unreal.

Did you not read the analysis? The monster was allowed to operate because of the whole "lets be pro-choice" policy. He knew he could get away with it.

If abortion providers in the state were less regulated, Gosnell wouldn't have been in business. An actual doctor would be the abortionist and wouldn't deliver a perfectly fine human only to kill it in its first hour.
 
If abortion providers in the state were less regulated, Gosnell wouldn't have been in business. An actual doctor would be the abortionist and wouldn't deliver a perfectly fine human only to kill it in its first hour.

How was he regulated?
 
If abortion providers in the state were less regulated, Gosnell wouldn't have been in business. An actual doctor would be the abortionist and wouldn't deliver a perfectly fine human only to kill it in its first hour.

I welcome dissenting opinions, provided they're from people who read the OP.
 
I welcome dissenting opinions, provided they're from people who read the OP.
Smart3 is a blatant troll. He has said we were 'anti-choice' and against the mother's freedoms. (with regards to this case) I wouldn't read too much into his bullshit.
 
Smart3 is a blatant troll. He has said we were 'anti-choice' and against the mother's freedoms. (with regards to this case) I wouldn't read too much into his bullshit.
No one questions my intentions except when I take a strong position on abortion. Since you can't refute my points, you just call me a troll.

Wake up, abortion will always be legal.
 
No one questions my intentions except when I take a strong position on abortion. Since you can't refute my points, you just call me a troll.

Wake up, abortion will always be legal.
What point is that? The baseless accusations that I am somehow anti-choice or that I'm against a mother's supposed freedom to crack her baby's cranium and vacuum out the brain matter?

Abortion will always be legal, huh? So if someone got their girlfriend pregnant. He doesn't want it, she doesn't either. He directly harms said baby, that is legal? :rolleyes: The hell it is. (oh, you mean when the state performs abortion. As if a mother could induce labor and crash the cranium, sucking out brain matter legally. GTFOH) You remind me of another poster who posts useless one sentenced bullshit and hardly comes back to debate the merits of them. If I recall correctly, you still haven't responded in the thread I alluded to. (am I wrong? might want to bump that one for the hell of it anyways) You are a troll. And of my entire posting history, I've probably used that term 2 times.

Abortions will always happen. They are often not legal.
 
No one questions my intentions except when I take a strong position on abortion. Since you can't refute my points, you just call me a troll.

Wake up, abortion will always be legal.
And please, list your points. They are hard to determine through your "abortions will always be legal" or "you are just anti-choice" or "the freedom of the mother"...

I honestly don't think I've seen your points.. or your exact arguments for. (please don't tell me the three I listed are them)
 
Last edited:
What point is that? The baseless accusations that I am somehow anti-choice or that I'm against a mother's supposed freedom to crack her baby's cranium and vacuum out the brain matter?

Abortion will always be legal, huh? So if someone got their girlfriend pregnant. He doesn't want it, she doesn't either. He directly harms said baby, that is legal? :rolleyes: The hell it is. (oh, you mean when the state performs abortion. As if a mother could induce labor and crash the cranium, sucking out brain matter legally. GTFOH) You remind me of another poster who posts useless one sentenced bullshit and hardly comes back to debate the merits of them. If I recall correctly, you still haven't responded in the thread I alluded to. (am I wrong? might want to bump that one for the hell of it anyways) You are a troll. And of my entire posting history, I've probably used that term 2 times.

Abortions will always happen. They are often not legal.

What could I possibly mention that has not already been mentioned thousands of times? Chile has twice as many abortions as Canada.
 
Back
Top