If You Can’t Cover It Up, Blame It On The Other Side!


This is not an Onion parody, it’s from Media Matters:

The Anti-Choice Monster

Kermit Gosnell, currently on trial for murder, appears to be a monster. There are no adjectives strong enough to describe the horrors that a grand jury says took place at the Women’s Medical Society.

In recent weeks, anti-choice media figures have been agitating for more coverage of the Gosnell trial in the mainstream press, hoping to inject into public discourse the idea that all clinics performing abortions are the monstrous dens depicted in stark detail in the grand jury report.

I agree – the Gosnell trial does deserve more coverage. Not as a stain on abortion providers but as an indictment of the outcome if the anti-choice movement achieves its goals. Far from the practices of well-established medical facilities, the Women’s Medical Society was the modern-day back alley, like those in the pre-Roe era where desperate women were butchered.


As the anti-choice movement seeks to close the last remaining clinics in North Dakota, Mississippi, Kansas, and Arkansas, the ultimate result of its action will be to drive women into the hands of more Kermit Gosnells.

The fact the right refuses to face is that, as the grand jury explicitly stated, “the real key to the business model, though, was this: Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere.”

Those who will be taken advantage of are not the wealthy who can afford to travel to an alternative state where they can receive care, but the low-income who feel trapped by their circumstance. Remove legal and safe options, and women like the victims the right purports to be speaking for will turn to the Kermit Gosnells of the world. And it’s the policies of the anti-choice movement that will drive them there.

They can’t defend Gosnell (there is no defense) and they failed in their attempts to sweep his horrific crimes under the rug, so now they are blaming everything on the people who oppose abortion! The problem is that Gosnell’s clinic was not a “back-alley” operation. It was licensed and listed in the Yellow Pages.

The pro-choice groups missed their chance to get out in front of this. They should have been the loudest voices demanding tighter regulation of abortion clinics and accountability for all the government officials who dropped the ball over the years.

I am pro-choice, but I believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The abortions performed by Dr. Gosnell were not safe, many of them were not legal and they were not rare. Let’s fix the problem, not the blame.

About Myiq2xu

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Abortion, Kermit Gosnell, Vile Progs and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to If You Can’t Cover It Up, Blame It On The Other Side!

  1. myiq2xu says:

    Ace demolishes Amanda Marcotte:

    Here’s Amanda Marcotte, in a tweet, just making things up:

    Pro-choicers support quality women’s health care, and are the enemies of those who force women into underground clinics like Gosnell’s.

    The claim she’s making is based on the typical rhetoric that if you ban abortions, women will be driven to “back-alley” abortionists and many will die due to incompetent surgery.

    Trouble is, that rhetoric is about a hypothetical situation in which abortion is outlawed. Abortion is not outlawed in America — nor in Pennsylvania. Gosnell’s clinic was not “underground;” it was, by appearances, a government-permitted abortion mill.

    In fact, despite performing illegal late-term abortions, it still got no inspections or negative sanctions from the state — specifically, the Grand Jury report stated, due to pro-choice politics, which demanded that, contrary to the law, no abortion clinic should have any inspections or scrutiny.

    So what could she mean about “underground”? She might mean that Pennsylvania outlawed very late-term abortions. And thus women had to go to Gosnell’s dingy, bloody house of horrors to get them.

    So what she might mean is… the crimes that Gosnell is accused of should not have been crimes at all, because live-delivering nine-month babies and then snipping their spinal cords on the operating table should have been legal.

    In which case we understand Marcotte’s only concern here: That these abortions should have been performed in a cleaner, nicer, more professional setting, as legal abortions might be conducted. Because she’d have them be legal.

    In this version of things, the only problem with Gosnell is that he didn’t keep things clean and let one woman die to a botched abortion. The seven babies killed on the table? They simply should have been euthanized in more sanitary conditions, in a nicer room, with better lighting and a better staff– a better staff, because they’d be working in a legal operation, and thus Gosnell wouldn’t have to hire sketchy scrubs to do the butchering.

    So Amanda Marcotte thinks the only problem with this venue was its aesthetics and professionalism — if they were butchering live-delivered children in a cleaner venue, she’d have no problem.

    • elliesmom says:

      He’s right. I don’t think she would have any problem with it. If the anti-abortion crowd wins this national debate, and I think over time they will, it will be because women like Marcotte refused to see there was a line that most people who are pro-choice do not want crossed. If the only way to keep people from going too far is to stop legal abortions all together, a lot of people will say, “OK, then no abortions.” I know I would be more OK with abortion becoming illegal again than to have practices like this state sanctioned, and I also know I’m not alone.

      • votermom says:

        Yeah, I’m kind of at that point -no elective surgical abortions. Health of the mother exemption only. Try your luck with plan B if it’s an oopsie.
        It’s turned into an evil industry.

      • wmcb says:

        If the anti-abortion crowd wins this national debate, and I think over time they will, it will be because women like Marcotte refused to see there was a line that most people who are pro-choice do not want crossed.

        THIS X 100000000000000000000000000000.

        Prochoicers are really shooting themselves in the foot here. If you shove Americans into a choice between accepting “Shut up! Abortion is grand. It’s not a human being til you take it home. Pay for my convenience abortions.” vs. more and more restrictions, guess which way they will fall? Most people, women included, are NOT pro-abortion, even if they are pro-choice.. And the strident left is becoming more and more pro-abortion (it’s just a minor health care issue, no biggie.) If those are the only two choices left, people are going to side pro-life.

        • angienc (D) says:

          I myself am half-way to the pro-life side right now and the Marcottes of the left are the ones driving me there.

          • myiq2xu says:

            The Vile Progs have driven me a long way from where I was 5 years ago.

          • angienc (D) says:

            I’d say we are the ones who are the same — the vile progs are the ones redefining things. They *are* the same ones who supported GBW and Obama, after all.

  2. yttik22 says:

    It’s kind of interesting, there was a time when abortion really was safe, legal, and rare. That was back in the day when we had midwives, and women healers, long before we had politicians exploiting the issue and butting in where they didn’t belong. It’s really only in the last 60 years or so that abortion has become such an issue and such an industry. Prior to that there wasn’t much interest in either banning it or making it accessible. It was pretty much viewed as women’s business and conducted under the radar.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Just thinking about that. Pre-Roe v. Wade, it was called a D&C. I think all Roe did was decriminalize docters who performed and women who had them. I don’t think it was meant to set up a business model for PP ?

      • Mary says:

        I don’t think it was, either.

        In fact, my assumption (maybe I’m naive) was that most of us who were early-on pro-choice had in mind a decision made in the first trimester, and rarely. Not necessarily used as birth control, and definitely not when the child was last trimester, unless it was life or death for the mother.

        I suspect, like ellie said, most Americans feel the same way.

      • wmcb says:

        What is interesting is that back in the day, when women were fighting for legality, there were those who said “You want to make abortion a good thing, a common thing, a for any reason whatsoever big nothing thing. And of course those objections were poo-pooed with how NO ONE wanted tons of abortions all day long, it was still going to be a rare emergency real need kind of thing. How silly that anyone would even think that they wanted anything at all other than decriminalization! What morons.

        And you know what? Many on the left are now taking just the stance that they entirely DENIED having as their agenda when the fight was going on.

        This stuff bleeds over. This is the kind of shit that gives credence to the conspiracy theorists, to the idiots who mutter about “the gay agenda” and sex ed and NAMBLA and teaching fisting to 5th graders and bestiality all being in one pot. Because too often, the objections and accusations that are laughed at as “insane” later become the actual position of the left – after they spent YEARS denying they had any such intentions.

        Note: I don’t believe the conspiracy theorists. But my point is that as often as the left makes the whole Trojan Horse thing their modus operandi, when they seem to flat out lie about their end goals so often, it’s no wonder the conspiracy theorists exist.

  3. foxyladi14 says:

    Quote of the day ๐Ÿ™‚

  4. 49erDweet says:

    There will always be car thieves and stolen cars. I say it’s all Exxon’s fault. Let’s tax Exxon to death. That will show those greedy guys!

  5. DeniseVB says:

    I’m glad someone straightened out Amanda. She’s not a very good voice for the pro-choice movement, much as the far right wing of the pro-lifers. I saw many on twitter claiming to be for choice and still be sickened by the Gosnell clinic.

    The real horror is wondering how many Gosnell clinics are being operated in the US ? Kermit got away with it for 18 years thanks to all the Amandas out there. Who knew about him and when did they know it? Even the liberal Business Insider blamed corrupt politics.

    I know we covered a lot of this downstairs, but Amanda disapproved Virginia requiring health inspections for the 22 clinics in our state and the operators are threatening to shut them down! Too expensive they say! And that’s just bring them up to code ๐Ÿ˜ฆ Now who’s at war with women? Especially those poor, minority young women we’re supposed to be there for ? That clinic wasn’t for Women’s Reproductive Rights anymore than Hitler was creating his perfect race. Sorry, didn’t mean to invoke Hitler, but I did see a docu on his baby factories and newborns going down a conveyor belt and being “sorted” out.

  6. hearing the looney left defend this problem makes me want to abandon my prochoice stance. The problem was in the GOVERNMENT AGENCIES’ LACK OF OVERSIGHT FUNCTION allowing this to happen, not because of the anti-abortion movement. Sheeesh…….

  7. myiq2xu says:

  8. DeniseVB says:

    ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

  9. wmcb says:

    I’m seeing some round-about justification that less access (i.e. abortions are too expensive for the poor) is what produces Gosnells. See, places like this clinic only exist because the “good” clinics are too expensive. I don’t buy it.

    Fact: birth control is not difficult to obtain or use, which takes care of 90% of the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Fact: Legal abortion is already giving women a second bite at the apple, a mulligan for an “oops”, if you will. I am really really sorry for those women who cannot afford an abortion, but an abortion is an elective procedure, unless medically necessary. Most insurance does not cover elective procedures. Medicaid does not cover elective procedures.

    There is no reason why insurance companies or Medicaid should be made to cover an elective procedure, just because it happens to be one that is peculiar to women. No, pregnancy is not a “health condition” that just “happens” to women out of the blue – other than in extremely rare circumstances like rape. Every woman who ever got pregnant, outside those exceptions, made a choice. A choice that carries risks. And while I am pro-choice, and indeed had an early abortion myself once, it was my decision, paid out of my pocket. I am pro CHOICE. I am not pro other people being made to pay for my choices. Keep early abortion legal. Whether or not you can afford one really isn’t my problem, or anyone else’s.

    This is why I hate the word “access”. Because too often what it means is: “I have a right for other people to pay for what I want.” No, cupcake, you don’t. I want early abortion kept legal and safe. I feel ZERO compunction to make sure it is easy, affordable, or readily available.

    If you feel differently, as many do, then get busy creating some foundations and charities that fund abortion clinics for poor women. Have at it. But it is not a “right” to have that provided for you. It might be a good thing, but there is a difference between a good thing and a RIGHT. And I’m really tired of being told that pro-choice = “access”. It does not. There are lots and lots of things that I think people have every right to do if they so choose. I’m not in favor of paying for any of those other choices either.

    And BTW, word to the wise: if the left continues to conflate having a right to do things with having a right to me paying for it for them, they are going to lose a fuckload of rights when no one wants to stand with them.

    • driguana says:

      Good points and it once again, for me, raises the whole question of what exactly is a “right” and how is it determined. You may recall at the RNC it was said that a “right” comes from God and the Constitution. At the DNC they determined that a “right” comes from the government. I think it’s a really good question when you start to consider all of the debatable “rights”…right to work, women’s rights, the right to strike, the right to vote…so on and so forth.

      • myiq2xu says:

        There is a difference between you having a right to do something and me being forced to pay for it. You have freedom of speech but that imposes no obligation on me to listen.

        • Underwhelmed says:

          And that would be it, in a nutshell. But good luck getting the Vile Progs to comprehend it. Or the notion that free speech means I get to say what you don’t agree with.

    • myiq2xu says:

      Men are financially responsible for their choices when it comes to sex.

      • Only if it’s enforced. And it often isn’t. So same story, different side.

      • wmcb says:

        Yes. And women are as well, but they are also physically (for 9 months) responsible. It’s this disparity that makes me pro-choice. I see a fairness in allowing women and (smallish) extra window of choice to undo a mistake, since hers is the greater burden.

        As I said, second bite at the apple. That does not translate, for me, into unlimited availability, easy as getting a manicure, and paid for.

    • fembotsforobama says:

      Good points. But didn’t Gosnell charge these women a heavy price/took advantage of them (i.e., gouge them to increase his own coffers) to pay for their illegal abortions? So how does that argument about not having enough money come into play in this scenario?

    • angienc (D) says:

      Vaginal rejuvenation surgery is an elective procedure that is peculiar to women. Maybe we should start demanding *access* to those too by screaming #WaronWomen or something.

  10. yttik22 says:

    This Gosnell trial has really made me understand why I was so opposed to the morning after pill being made available over the counter. Although far safer than an abortion, we seem to not really care about women’s health, about solving the problems that created an unwanted pregnancy. Instead, we seem to want to get rid of the symptom, get rid of the evidence, as quickly as possible. The long term health of women and girls is nearly irrelevant. Nobody seemed to even care if Gosnell’s clinic was sanitary or safe, but also absolutely nobody thought to ask why so many women were in need of an abortion so late in their pregnancy. What took them so long to make a decision, why were they so desperate? Domestic violence, rape, drug addiction, prostitution, mental illness? These are all dangerous health issues that are not solved with abortion.

    At least when you have a medical provider and/or a parent (in the case of kids,) the underlying issues can be addressed, as well as some education about personal safety and contraception.

  11. myiq2xu says:

    Cubs just tied it up.

    • myiq2xu says:

      • Erica says:

        And the other thing wrong with him is that he is, literally, a criminal hack. There is no way that the disgusting conditions, practices, and outcomes in his office have anything to do with the legality or accessibility of abortion in this country. If you want a safe, EARLY abortion, you can find it. Many of the women in his clinic were there specifically for late abortions, for whatever reason. I would guess that some or many of them had been turned down elsewhere and knew that what they were seeking was dangerous and out of the norm. He took advantage of their desire to terminate a pregnancy under conditions that most doctors would not touch with a 10 foot pole. And he apparently didn’t care if he did so in filthy environment, with incompetent patient management (at best) and infanticide (calling it what it is, at least with the details I have now).

        The whole case is disgusting to me. He is a disgrace to the medical profession. It is astounding that he was not shut down long ago. I am a garden variety pediatrician and our office is micromanged by county, state, and insurance organizations all the time. . They dictate so much of what we do, it feels like a miracle that I am allowed to be in a room with a patient without frigging supervision. I really don’t understand at all why he could persist in his criminal behavior without getting busted, but maybe the 200K plus in cash he had laying around his home means he could easily pay off people to look the other way. I suspect there is much more to this story along those lines, and there is no way the media can spin it to look good, and maybe that’s why they are ignoring the story.

        And the other thing is, not addressing women’s real core problems in this country: poverty, lack of income parity, respect for women’s right to make their own decisions about health and childbearing, generalized misogyny, job opportunity or lack thereof, and a false debate that focuses on paid birth control as the major thing women care about makes this kind of situation more likely.

        • wmcb says:

          HONK! Having been hubbies office manager, and also knowing other docs who run outpatient surgery centers, etc, this bullshit of “Oooooh, abortion clinics are facing onerous regulation that they simply can’t comply with…” rings false to me.

          I know firsthand the extent to which the state is up in your business if you are just family practice, much less doing surgeries and procedures. Fecking tattoo parlors and veterinarians have more oversight than a lot of these places.

          Sorry, but if you are insisting that providing abortions a healthcare service, a medical procedure just like any other, then you have to meet the same standards as the place down the street doing Lasik, or the guy doing liposuction or bunion repair. It’s like they want to call it routine healthcare when it’s convenient, but whine that they are a special case when it comes to regs and oversight.

          • myiq2xu says:

            No one should be able to effectively “regulate” abortion out of existence. But abortion clinics need to be held to the same high standards as other medical offices.

        • myiq2xu says:

          This story would be outrageous if he was doing lipo and tummy tucks from a filthy sewer like his clinic.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Spot on.

  12. myiq2xu says:

    Documentary on Gosnell:

    • swanspirit says:

      Who ever the people or agency that were responsible for “inspecting ” this clinic were being paid off .

    • Mary says:

      Ok, wait….we KNEW all this in 2011?

      And the Obot Democratic Party stayed quiet about this outrage?
      Jessie Jackson Jr didn’t organize a demonstration? Sandra Fluke wasn’t marching out on the street? NAACP didn’t demand change?

  13. myiq2xu says:
  14. And here is the real reason that so many on the left are uncomfortable with this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-board-adopts-strict-abortion-clinic-rules/2013/04/12/fb60d3ca-a35f-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

    This really puts moderates like me, who have no qualms with first term abortions, between a rock and a hard place. I support legal, safe, and early abortion. I support good, ethical health care for women’s reproduction, thus I want well-regulated clinics. What should be my allies on the pro-choice side see that as an attack on “access.” At the same time, the right will take advantage of this issue to regulate clinics to within an inch of their lives. So it CAN be an attack on access. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Watching both sides making hay about this today just shows once again how women’s reproductive health is merely a political football to both sides. They don’t actually care about sensible, rational approaches to women’s reproductive health.

    If the right had just stopped at the argument that the mainstream media blackout was symptomatic of media ideological bias, that would have been fine. But nooooo, they want to push it on late-term abortions and make faulty analogies about guns vs abortions.

    If the left had just said, “mea culpa” and accepted that the Gosnell story outrages them too, that would have been enough. But noooo, as soon as they recognized they were losing a rhetorical argument, the big guns had to come out just so they could win the argument.

    Neither side gives a shit about the actual poor women who suffer when so much goes so wrong for so long, or the live babies who were murdered because we don’t have any policy at all on how we should approach these situations (and we really should). They just want to exploit those women and babies to beat up the other side.

    A pox on both their houses. More women in power is the only solution. At least they will know how it feels, even if they get corrupted along the way.

    • SHV says:

      “RICHMOND โ€” The Virginia Board of Health voted Friday to require abortion clinics to meet strict, hospital-style building codes that operators say could put many of them out of business.”
      Requiring hospital-style building codes is likely a politically motivated attack on access. Clinics that provide surgical abortions should be held to the same standards as other out-patient surgical centers. I am not motivated enough to research Va building and health codes but Hospital codes are likely much more stringent/expensive than for out-patient facilities.

      • I agree. But the right wants to over-regulate and the left wants not enough.

        • SHV says:

          It’s ultimately about money…somehow this will be turned into Rethugs want to return to back alley abortions. “It’s URGENT send money”..

          After the “Virginia want to rape women with ultrasound probes” hoo..ha, my e-mail box was flooded with money requests for weeks. There are no real “abortion rights” groups anymore, it’s just another “cause” for the vile-progs.

        • votermom says:

          Good point – I am so turning that into a tweet

        • votermom says:

        • fembotsforobama says:

          Agreed 100%. And now we have this horror story. This gives the right major ammunition against the pro-choicers. See, those feminists really don’t care about you as a person rhetoric is flowing. Gosnell is bad enough but now there’s an actual Planned Parenthood clinic involved. It is heartbreaking to hear how these women were treated. I’m starting to wonder where is my financial support going (and where has it been all these years?) since the hygiene of the facility was not the number one priority?

          BTW, isn’t there special earmarks for PP in Obamacare?

        • Underwhelmed says:

          No, for the most part the right wants to end the killing of babies in utero.

    • votermom says:

      But nooooo, they want to push it on late-term abortions and make faulty analogies about guns vs abortions.

      But it is about late-term abortions. Gosnell was delivering breathing babies and killing them post-partum – way beyond the 24 week PA deadline.

      • Yes, I know. But there are instances where a late-term abortion is appropriate, if the mother’s life is in danger. And late-terms are relatively rare, except at clinics like Gosnell’s where they are operating outside the law. The right disingenuously conflates the two, and uses late term abortions like some kind of logo for their pro-life movement. They use images like the ones included in this post to make it look like this is what abortion is, when it’s not. They exploit just as much as the left does, and there’s no way around that.

    • wmcb says:

      Yep. It’s all about winning. Actually it’s about beating the other side even more than winning, IMO. Total politics. Meanwhile, most women are out here just wanting some sanity and reality – regardless of whether prolife or prochoice or in betweenish.

    • 1000% on the money lola!!!!

  15. driguana says:

    In case you missed this one…Gosnell referred to as “an elegant man”…yikes….

  16. HELENK says:

    Iowa Hawk

    “Teddible business, this Gosnell thing.” “Rather. Completely unhelpful.” “Quite so. Agitates the natives. Tea?” #InsideTheMediaRoom

  17. HELENK says:


    I read this yesterday about a 15 year old girl working at gosnell;s clinic. this just blew my mind. apparently her mother worked there too.
    who hires a 15 year old to kill babies?

  18. votermom says:

    Sharyl Attkisson Reportedly Leaving CBS News

    • DeniseVB says:

      I didn’t recognize her name, lead reporter on Fast and Furious and Benghazi, whoa, bet the WH did not like her, cough, cough.

      • Erica says:

        She was all over Benghazi, so it figures she was at risk. Will be interesting to see if she talks about the details someday.

      • leslie says:

        I’m not surprised they (CBS News) chose to “allow her to leave before her contract expires”. They simply had to wait until Benghazi and F&F noise died down a bit.

  19. wmcb says:

    OT, but this is one of the best pieces I’ve read on the stupidity and the downside of casual sex being so very “empowering” for women. Written by a conservatarian man, no less. But it’s the kind of thing I say to daughters and nieces. The social norm of women not sleeping with any man in sight developed for a reason, and part of that reason was that women have more to lose than men do, and I ain’t just talking pregnancy. Sorry, but men and women are not interchangable. We are equal, yes. But different. We all decry the double standard re: sex, but did it ever occur to anyone to ask why that standard developed? Could it have partially been as much for the protection of women as it was due to just the evil patriarchy?

    No, I am not advocating going back to the days of “men can fuck whatever they want, but women are sluts if not pure.” That’s oppressive and dumb. All I am saying is that maybe we need to recognize that “proving I can do that” is not the same thing as “this is good and healthy for me.” And that saying no can be every bit as empowering (and often more so) than saying yes. Women need to be more SELFISH in a real sense, rather than just trying to compete with and prove something to men in the stupidity arena. There is massive power in that.


    • Mary says:

      The “Hook Up Generation.”

      Wow. So true. I have 4 nieces, and have watched their development in struggling through what’s “cool” with their peers vs what seems old and boring with their mothers and aunts, and then turning back, finally, to what’s good for them individually.

      Now—I’m no prude—didn’t marry til I was 28, wasn’t a frigid virgin on my wedding day (neither was my husband a virgin)–but the “freedom” to hook up just cuz, without relationships doesn’t empower young women, even if they think it does.

      Massive power in being more selfish in terms of expectations of an actual relationship, even if unmarried? Yes, yes, and yes.

      I’m laughing at myself now—-didn’t our own mothers and aunts tell us “They won’t buy the cow if they can get the milk free?”

      Not that I wanted to even sell the cow as a much younger woman, but at least a relationship? Yes, indeed.

    • Underwhelmed says:

      But also, in the end, who wins when girls/women are told that sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, no conditions, no consequences, is the true meaning of equality? Unscrupulous men, that’s who. It’s the antithesis of equality, and feminism.

  20. SHV says:

    ” Iโ€™m starting to wonder where is my financial support going (and where has it been all these years?) since the hygiene of the facility was not the number one priority?

    BTW, isnโ€™t there special earmarks for PP in Obamacare?”
    Public funding for PP began in 1970 with Richard Nixon and the “Title X Family Planning Program”. I have donated to PP for decades but like NARA, NOW, etc., a “vile prog” agenda is now their reason for existence, not health and welfare of women.

    A few years ago, a friend who is a single professional women in her 30s had a failure of the “pill” and called me about where to get abortion services. I had no specific knowledge but recommended the PP clinic. She went there and was not happy about the general level of sanitation and didn’t want them sticking a probe in her vagina that maybe wasn’t clean. She walked out. Fortunately there was one private provider in the state and she was early enough for the “pills”. Worked out OK for her. After that experience, I can now appreciate the problem of access and for a lot of women without resources, it is a huge problem.

    • Mary says:

      Nixon Smixon.

      Are there special earmarks for PP in Obamacare? YES

      All part of the political “War on Women,” ya know.

      I wanna hear Sandra Fluke’s response to this story.

  21. HELENK says:


    now this is KARMA in the extra extra large dose

  22. myiq2xu says:

    • Mary says:

      Aw, STFU, Kevin.

    • wmcb says:

      With no abortion angle? Yeah. Let’s see, if a doc was going to women’s homes *the day after* some of those pics, and performing the exact same snipping procedure, this would be getting buttloads more coverage than now. People would be horrified – wall to wall international coverage of shocking infanticide.

      So, is that less of a human being being murdered in cold blood 24 hours prior? Would a 24 hour window make those little persons magically not a conscious viable baby?

      • Underwhelmed says:

        But it’s all about the relativism. If the baby is wanted, then hospitals move heaven and earth to save it if there’s a threat to its safety while still in utero. If the baby isn’t wanted, well then, kill it. It’s no big deal. It’s all about what the woman wants, not the unique life of that child – which only gets life status depending on what the woman wants. I find that repugnant in the extreme. So no, it’s not less of a human being 24 hours earlier. They just want you to think that it is.

    • votermom says:

  23. HELENK says:

    God will be smiling and laughing today

    Jonathan Winters for comedy

    Maria Tallchief for the dance

    • 49erDweet says:

      The thing is we can be completely at peace about the NK threat. With Billy Backtrack running everything, and all his brilliant and experienced advisers set in place, we can be completely assured no matter what he does or doesn’t do, it will be the wrong thing! Absolutely the worst possible thing we could have done! But it will already be set in motion – or completed – so we have no recourse but to live with it. So why worry about it? We have no control., We’ve been seduced without the wooing. Hope not many of us live in Philadelphia.

  24. votermom says:

    Here come the excuses

  25. myiq2xu says:


    @AmandaMarcotte’s account is protected.

  26. t says:

    This was more like a back alley operation than not. The guy had people posing as doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists. His practice was illegal, whether he had a shingle out or not. And he was hiding his illegality. That is the back alley part of it.

    People were screaming to the authorities about his illegality and the authorities were doing nothing. I have to believe that part of the reason for the low level of coverage was because the city, county, state government were possibly culpable. If it were my state, families would sue and win. And we’re talking Pennsylvania here, home of Happy Valley. The government is corrupt. Money may have even changed hands between the, uh, “doctor” and the authorities.

  27. SHV says:

    “Abortion is icky, but not so icky that youโ€™ll oppose it?”
    The vile progs trivialize anyone who has a different opinion and eventually “facts” will bite them in the ass. 5-6 years ago when I would post on what later turned into vile prog blogs, I would point out, what I called the blastocyst meme wasn’t a accurate description of abortion. Also using that imagine to ridicule the fundies for wanting to give citizenship to a “small group of cells” was eventually going to damage “choice”.

    Well extremes like Gosenell, when they eventually hit the MSM are going to make people question that “it’s just a blastocyst” rational for ignoring the “ick factor”.

    • wmcb says:

      Bingo. Common sense tells anyone that a blastocyst is not the same thing as a 4 or 5 month fetus. But the left has spent so long INSISTING that all abortion is equal, that there is no moral difference between eliminating a clump of cells and eliminating something recognizably human, with a functioning brain and likely conscious self-awareness, that it’s hard for them to backtrack now..

      Because they have simply refused to have the discussion about “at what point is this a human being, with some rights that have to be considered in the balance?”, they have boxed themselves in. They have, in an effort to cede no ground whatsoever, made their position untenable and repulsive – especially with the advances in medical knowledge and early full color ultrasounds, etc.

      This is also why there are lots of women out there who are ANGRY and felt lied to. Because they were told “it’s just a clump of cells”, then they later see an ultrasound at the same gestation and realize that looks an awful fucking lot like a BABY. And no, they were not told. They were told something quite different.

      As I keep reiterating, I am pro-choice in early stages, and even in later stages when there is real need. But I am sick to death of this whitewashing and lying that goes on. At the deliberate failure to give women genuine information about fetal development, etc, so they can make an *informed* choice. I’m sorry, but “it might make some feel guilty” is not reason enough to send women into medical procedures ignorant. Abortion is a valid choice, but it should not be a blind choice. And frankly, the left has pushed for years to make it just that. As if God forbid a woman get some info and decide NOT to abort. They act as if that would be a bad thing – they really do.

      Lying to people (it’s just a featureless clump of cells) only works until they find out the truth. Once they do, the backlash can be vicious, and often causes them to disbelieve even the *true* things you are saying. This is the corner the left has painted themselves into, with their “small group of cells” bullshit.

      • Underwhelmed says:

        BUt it is a bad thing. Any woman presented with the facts and choosing not to abort is a threat to the pro abortion under all circumstances crowd. Because it undermines their claim that only abortion can save a woman from the inconvenience of an unplanned/unwanted baby. The pro lifers who point out inconvenient facts like, you could give the child up for adoption, or, your circumstances might change so you welcome the child, those voices must be silenced at all costs. Because their stance undermines the radical abortion supporters’ power to control what women do with their own bodies. And as we’ve seen over and over, anything — or anyone – that threatens the narrative must be destroyed.

        • myiq2xu says:

          Most pro-choice arguments are based on the premise that the fetus is not a living human being and the only issue is the right of the mother to control her own body. That is why you often hear pro-choicers frame abortion restrictions as an attempt to control women. (To be fair, in some cases they may be right.)

          But if we operate under the premise that the fetus is a human being that doesn’t mean we have to outlaw abortion. We can treat it as a necessary evil. Then the question becomes under what circumstances should abortion be permitted?

          Roe v. Wade is exactly what conservatives have called it – “legislating from the bench”. SCOTUS crafted abortion policy and made it into law. And I believe it is a good law. It balances the rights of the mother with the rights of the fetus, initially treating the fetus as a non-person that over time accrues the full rights of personhood.

        • Underwhelmed says:

          If we start from the premise that an unborn baby is still a human being, then the argument for its legal killing is framed in the same way as the taking of any human life ie the fact that its existence is inconvenient does not permit you to kill it. But if it’s truly a case of life and death, for the mother, or extreme emotional endagerment, then the killing is tragic but justifiable.

          The sad fact is that no matter how much we deplore it, abortion is always on the table somehow, someway. It has been since the dawn of human history. That cannot be escaped. But what must be addressed is the current attitude which says the ending of a human life in utero is of no more consequence than the blowing of one’s nose. Therefore it is incumbent upon us as sentient, civilised human beings to do everything within our power to make abortion unneccessary – either by aggressive contraceptive education/availability or a robust adoption policy/drive. But when the pro abortion crowd do everything in their power to strangle the conversation, what we’re left with is the road that leads us inevitably to not only Gosnell, but the cowards and moral bankrupts who won’t even face the truth of what’s happening, and who attempt to erase it from society’s sight and conscience.

          If we as a society truly have reached a point where it’s more abhorrent to suggest judicious celibacy, or accepting the consequences of free sexual activity responsibly, than it is to continue killing thousands and thousand of babies in utero, and attempting to erase the Gosnells from view, then we are lost.

  28. myiq2xu says:

    • That was in incredibly stupid article that conflated constraints on individuals seeking abortion with regulations on clinics and doctors. Posting it with their comment was like talking out of both sides of their mouths.

  29. yttik22 says:

    The abortion debate reminds me of the gun debate, just so pointless and ridiculous if your goal is to actually solve problems. Because of Gosnell, we’ll now see several states banning abortion after 20 weeks, when in fact what Gosnell was doing was already illegal. Just like our gun regulations are allegedly going to prevent criminals who already use illegal guns from killing anyone with them.

    What we have is plenty of regulations, policies, funding, entire agencies dedicated to oversight, that are failing miserably to enforce the policies and laws we already have.

    • myiq2xu says:

      In both cases there are two very polarized sides and then a bunch of people in the middle.

    • driguana says:

      Yes, it should always be about problem solving but never is. Politicians are not interested in problem solving, they are interested in politics and power.

  30. myiq2xu says:
  31. HELENK says:


    they must know it is a bad bill. If it was a good bill there would be time to read it before passing.

    obamacare redeux

Comments are closed.