|
|
"Doctor" and Nine Employees Charged With Murder.
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
They need lock these people up and throw away they key The Dept. of Health is also responsible. It received numerous complaints about this "doctor" and ignored them. Clinic inspections haven't been done since 1993. If the DA had not been investigating illegal oxycontin sales, this "clinic" would still be open.
West Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged with Murder � Philly DA
West Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Charged with Murder
By tashaj4
Philadelphia, January 19, 2011: District Attorney Seth Williams today charged 69 year old Kermit Gosnell, a medical doctor, with Murder and other related offenses. Gosnell is accused of causing the death of one of his female patients; and killing viable babies, born alive in the 6th, 7th, and 8th month of pregnancy, by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
A search of Gosnell’s office, called the Women’s Medical Society, in West Philadelphia revealed that bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building. Jars containing the severed feet of babies lined a shelf. Furniture and equipment was dusty, broken, and blood-stained. The doctor himself was seldom present. In his absence, untrained, unsupervised workers, one of them a teenage girl, routinely injected dangerous sedatives into women undergoing illegal late-term abortions.
Law enforcement officers happened upon the medical abuses in the course of investigating tips that the doctor had been illegally selling thousands of prescriptions for oxycontin and other narcotics to “patients” that he never examined.
The grand jury investigation revealed that, for over two decades, government health and licensing officials had received repeated reports about Gosnell’s dangerous practices. No action was ever taken, however, even after the agencies learned that women had died during routine abortions under Gosnell’s care.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
They need lock these people up and throw away they key
Goes without saying.
The Dept. of Health is also responsible. It received numerous complaints about this "doctor" and ignored them.
As much as I dislike all these redundant and (in many cases) useless federal agencies full of paper-shuffling, money-wasting bureaucrat bastards, I fail to see how or why the DOH should be held directly responsible for the actions of some psycho doctor and staff.
Now, held accountable for the endless piles of money they've pissed down a toilet, and other mismanagement and abuse they've probably committed within their own department, that's probably over time weakened the entire system enough to make incidents like this harder to catch before it's too late? Sure.
But directly for the criminal actions of private citizens? I just don't see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
The DOH stopped inspecting abortion clinics 18 years ago. One inspection would have shut it down.
Gosnell, a family practioner who was never certified as an OB/GYN, operated the clinic for years primarily treating lower income, minority women. Along with performing abortions beyond the legal 24 weeks time, he is also accused of delivering and then killing healthy, viable babies; using a sliding pay scale to administer anesthesia; re-using unsanitary instruments; performing procedures in filthy rooms-some of the rooms had litter boxes and animals present at the time of the operations; and allowing unlicensed employees to perform operations and administer anesthesia-including a teenaged high school student.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow. That's pretty gruesome. This guy should be thrown under the jail. Period.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
WOW!!!!
There is not much more I can say or add to this. Just my shock that some one was able to get away with that kind of business for so long. Almost want to label him a monster. Almost every aspect of this story is alarming form the late term abortions to the bloody unclean tools. Its just disgusting!.
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
They need lock these people up and throw away they key.
Without question. They are butchers. But the most important thing is to find the folks who were exposed to this horror and help them deal with it. Assets should be seized and liquidated to set up a trust for the victims. Well, I mean the LIVING victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
I also wonder about women who would go into that house of horrors and let those people operate on them. Was it desperation, ignorance, or stupidity?
and yeah, throw him and his staff in prison for the rest of their pathetic lives. Plus sell all the doctor's and clinic's property and start a fund.
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Shaddim
I also wonder about women who would go into that house of horrors and let those people operate on them. Was it desperation, ignorance, or stupidity?
Probably a combination of all three. That particular state made late term abortions illegal, so the only way for women to get one was to go to an illegal clinic not much better than a coat hanger.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
Probably a combination of all three. That particular state made late term abortions illegal, so the only way for women to get one was to go to an illegal clinic not much better than a coat hanger.
Well, despite my recent switch to a more pro-choice stance, I'm still against late-term abortions unless the woman's life is in danger. For the life of me, I can't see how a person can take more than a couple months to decide on whether they want to keep a child or not.
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Shaddim
Well, despite my recent switch to a more pro-choice stance, I'm still against late-term abortions unless the woman's life is in danger. For the life of me, I can't see how a person can take more than a couple months to decide on whether they want to keep a child or not.
Agreed.
OAW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have a similar stance. I think 6 months is ample time to decide whether or not you want to keep the baby. There are extenuating circumstances, of course, but those should be dealt with on a case by case basis. A carpet ban on all late term abortions is wrong, and if they do make a ban, there should be more counseling available.
I think the state should also make it easier to adopt children or become foster parents, and should consider discounts on caesarean section births for women who set up the baby for adoption before it's born (if deciding they don't want it even after 6 months.)
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Philadelphia Department of Health was responsible for managing the safety and appropriateness of health care facilities-not some federal agency "full of paper-shuffling, money-wasting bureaucrat bastards." Why, after receiving repeated complaints over decades, did this agency not investigate? According to a report in The Nation, the Health Department seems to have either turned a blind eye to such reports, or to have actively blocked their submission. Their complaint submission process seems to be needlessly difficult and intrusive to the reporting party.
It seems to have taken a complaint about illegal drug sales that got the DA involved. "Law enforcement officers happened upon the medical abuses in the course of investigating tips that the doctor had been illegally selling thousands of prescriptions for oxycontin and other narcotics to “patients” that he never examined." I think there are a lot of "public servants" who need to stand before the bar to answer "accessory" charges along with this fiend.
This is not "choice" issue, since Gosnell was performing procedures that are flatly illegal in Pennsylvania. It's not choice, it's "taking advantage of desperate women." It's heinous.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Shocking, but making sure the people who chose to do this are equally punished. Takes two to tango...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by freudling
Shocking, but making sure the people who chose to do this are equally punished. Takes two to tango...
Assuming that the women involved independently sought out these services, rather than had themselves manipulated into feeling they "needed" them. Someone who is pregnant and scared is quite vulnerable, and historically it's been certain elements of a community that place the stigma on unwed motherhood. Having a "procurer" working for Gosnell that would locate such vulnerable women and use social pressure to funnel them to his "clinic" is not only possible but I believe probable.
Safe and legal early abortions are available in Pennsylvania. The women Gosnell preyed on were much farther along and subject to plenty of external influences. These women were victims; first they were victimized by some social pressure not to carry an already well established pregnancy to term, and then by Gosnell.
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
The rat that got caught. God help everyone involved.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status:
Offline
|
|
That this comes as surprise to anyone is beyond me. What do people think abortion is? We diminish the value of life at our own peril. This kind of behavior is just the logical progression of the abortion industry. To believe this clinic was unknown to "authorities" one has to believe there are moral principals guiding them. Clearly that is not the case. This clinic was known to authorities and the responsibility of this deviant behavioral and cultural progression lay at the feet of those who disenfranchise the rights of the unborn. Some still understand unalienable rights are not, thankfully, granted by man.
(
Last edited by Orion27; Feb 9, 2011 at 02:26 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
...what?
Exactly, apparently Canadians are as ignorant of unalienable rights as Philadelphians. "Life", liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ahhhhh yes, the "unalienable" right of life, which exists unless a court of law decides make it alienable and to sentence you to death.
But I was refering to the following, all of which seems perfectly nonsensical:
To believe this clinic was unknown to "authorities" one has to believe there are moral principals guiding them. Clearly that is not the case. This clinic was known to authorities and the responsibility of this deviant behavioral and cultural progression lay at the feet of those who disenfranchise the rights of the unborn.
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status:
Offline
|
|
But I was refering to the following, all of which seems perfectly nonsensical:[/QUOTE]
We know they did know, ( no presumption ). Had they had some moral compunction they would have acted. Ignorance presumes innocence. Had they had moral guidance we presume they would have acted.
[QUOTE=ShortcutToMoncton;4050469]Ahhhhh yes, the "unalienable" right of life, which exists unless a court of law decides make it alienable and to sentence you to death.
I take a similar view when it come to the state's right to impose the death penalty. Courts are fallible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Rick Santorum got Rev Al's panties in a bunch last month with this comment.
Rick Santorum Calls Obama’s Abortion Stance ‘Remarkable For A Black Man' - The Note
ABC News’ Michael Falcone reports:
UPDATED: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 Republican presidential contender, injected race into the debate about abortion rights, saying that President Barack Obama’s stance on the issue is “almost remarkable for a black man.”
In a recent interview with the CNS News, Santorum argued that because of his race, Obama should be able to say definitively that the life of unborn children is protected under the Constitution.
“The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says ‘no,’” Santorum said in a televised interview. “Well if that person -- human life is not a person -- then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, ‘we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
In a statement to ABC News on Thursday, Santorum doubled down on his remarks to CNS.
“For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution," he said in a statement. "Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country.”
Santorum was referring to comments, now more than two years old, that Obama made as a candidate for president in which he said that the question of whether a baby should have human rights was “above my pay grade.”
Obama offered that answer in August 2008 at a forum on religion and politics organized by California pastor Rick Warren.
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Ahhhhh yes, the "unalienable" right of life, which exists unless a court of law decides make it alienable and to sentence you to death.
I take a similar view when it come to the state's right to impose the death penalty. Courts are fallible.
And this extends to the concept of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" too I assume? Courts are fallible and thus should not be entrusted with the power to "alienate" the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness by putting people in jail?
Face it, your Constitution's statement is a pile of shit. It's an inspirational statement with only a moderate basis in reality; nothing more. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" aren't "unalienable" rights. They are rights that are routinely made "alienable" across your nation, and that your nation routinely makes alienable throughout the rest of the world.
/tangent
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
And this extends to the concept of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" too I assume? Courts are fallible and thus should not be entrusted with the power to "alienate" the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness by putting people in jail?
Face it, your Constitution's statement is a pile of shit. It's an inspirational statement with only a moderate basis in reality; nothing more. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" aren't "unalienable" rights. They are rights that are routinely made "alienable" across your nation, and that your nation routinely makes alienable throughout the rest of the world.
/tangent
Meh, it was a novel ideal at first, but you know how that goes when the nanny-staters show up. BTW, The US could never have accomplished this global influence without Canada's help. Give a soldier a pat on the back from me.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
that your nation routinely makes alienable throughout the rest of the world.
If some other parts of the world weren't such gaping s**tholes filled with little more than human vermin, we wouldn't need to.
Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but so are you, and it's fun! Yippie!
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Meh, it was a novel ideal at first, but you know how that goes when the nanny-staters show up.
Nanny-staters? What does this have to do with nanny-staters? What a stupid statement. What, the state's ability to deprive people of their "unalienable" rights hasn't existed from time immemorial, before your Constitution ever existed? And who are the "nanny-staters" - the people calling for abortion to be legalized, or the people calling for their state to make abortion illegal?
I repeat: your Constitution's "unalienable rights" statement is a crock of shit, a feel-good statement that can be pulled out in many situations as long as you don't examine it closely. The fact of the matter is that your rights are those defined by your society and rule of law - nothing more or less.
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Nanny-staters? What does this have to do with nanny-staters? What a stupid statement. What, the state's ability to deprive people of their "unalienable" rights hasn't existed from time immemorial, before your Constitution ever existed? And who are the "nanny-staters" - the people calling for abortion to be legalized, or the people calling for their state to make abortion illegal?
The "nanny-staters" comment was directed more to your broad indictment of "inalienable rights". They become alienable when they are construed as being contrary to the public good; the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. Nanny-staters often forget this difference. I challenge you to find an infringement on rights that did not begin by an intrusion of government into the affairs of man.
For those who believe abortion is the taking of human life, it is consistent logically that their ideal of an inalienable right is not one that includes the termination of another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no matter how profitable.
Each of the above concepts have a rich history and meaning, but the whole of them indicate limited government intrusion into the affairs of man; "pursuit of happiness" being a relationship to property for example as the product of labour. Both extremes of political philosophy may abuse these principles. i.e. The document is marginalized when people insist on ignoring it.
I repeat: your Constitution's "unalienable rights" statement is a crock of shit, a feel-good statement that can be pulled out in many situations as long as you don't examine it closely. The fact of the matter is that your rights are those defined by your society and rule of law - nothing more or less.
The difference of course would be the right to reject the rule of the majority under a Republic; that intrusion into these liberties affords the natural, perfect right to reject the intrusion. States for example, are using this concept to reject Obamacare in that there are certain aspects of this new law they feel would run roughshod over inalienable rights. They have the right to reject this law and are exercising it. Nanny-staters oppose them and there are enough of these statists to pollute the republic with government mandates such as this in the interest of the "public good". You feel these principles are laughable because you've known nothing other than a democracy and the principles of statists. While I too am unfortunately subject to much of the same constraints as you, I know from history and from our founding that this is in conflict with a republican form of government.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
I presume you mean "unalienable"?
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
I presume you mean "unalienable"?
No. I used inalienable which means the exact same thing as unalienable in its modernized form.
|
ebuddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
Entertainment at its best.
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
I repeat: your Constitution's "unalienable rights" statement is a crock of shit, a feel-good statement that can be pulled out in many situations as long as you don't examine it closely.
That line was from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The whole document was just a "feel-good statement that works if you don't examine it too closely," never intended as more. It was a rallying cry, not a rulebook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ebuddy
No. I used inalienable which means the exact same thing as unalienable in its modernized form.
teh funny
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
That line was from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The whole document was just a "feel-good statement that works if you don't examine it too closely," never intended as more. It was a rallying cry, not a rulebook.
Touche.
And, more or less my point.
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Declaration of Independence was intended to be a rallying cry-and a poke in the eye for both Parliament and King George. It helped focus the movement for independence and told Parliament plainly that this wasn't just a bunch of rabble colonists who were babbling in the street, but a movement led by a number of educated people with a strong and unified philosophical foundation. Through the years, we have managed more or less (often, unfortunately, less) to work toward those rallying cry words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Aside from the need to get those in power to rethink what "all men" meant, I think we've done a pretty good job of it.
On with the discussion!
|
Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Governor of PA has began taking action.
Pennsylvania governor fires employees in abortion clinic case - CNN.com
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Calling state oversight of an abortion clinic where at least one mother and seven viable babies died "despicable," Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett fired a half-dozen employees and announced changes Tuesday in two departments.
The Department of Health and the Department of State have primary oversight over such clinics.
"This doesn't even rise to the level of government run amok. It was government not running at all. To call this unacceptable doesn't say enough. It's despicable,'' Corbett said.
Seven employees from the Department of Health, as well as the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, a branch of the Department of State -- are no longer employed by the state, having either resigned or been terminated since the situation came to light, Corbett said in statement.
In addition, four other former employees named in the grand jury investigation had previously resigned.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell is being held without bail on eight murder counts and a host of other charges. Arraignment is set for March 2
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Gosnell's "clinic" had not been inspected in 17 years.
Corbett fires six in connection with abortion-clinic case | Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/16/2011
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Awesome - if their jobs were to inspect clinics, what the hell did they do??
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|