Cheryl Sullenger

California set to enact dangerous experiment allowing non-physicians to perform abortions

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger
Image

Analysis

Sacramento, CA (OperationRescue.org) - In California, a bill known as AB154 sits on the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown awaiting his signature. This bill would dramatically expand surgical abortions in California by allowing nurse practitioners (NPs), certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and physician assistants (PAs) to conduct surgical “aspiration” or suction abortions of the kind generally used in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The legislation was introduced by Assemblywomen Toni Adkins, the former administrator of a failed abortion business in San Diego. Adkins has long attempted to dangerously expand abortion services, once opening an abortion clinic in a predominately Hispanic neighborhood (using an abortionist that would later lose his medical license after killing a woman during a botched 20-week abortion) that soon closed due to financial mismanagement and lack of business. Apparently not one to learn from failure, Adkins is now expanding abortion in an ever-decreasing market, through the use of non-physicians.

Adkin’s legislation is the result of a study conducted at the University of California San Francisco by the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health in association with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) for the purpose of proving that non-physician abortion are safe. The study recruited NPs, CNMs, and PAs for training in surgical abortions under a state waiver that exempted participants from the law that banned non-physicians from performing abortions.

Radical abortion advocates

Participants in the study, like Adkins, all have histories of radical abortion activism.

The two of the three primary investigators in this experimental program are not even licensed physicians. Tracy Weitz, PhD, Director of ANSIRH, obtained her doctoral degree in medical sociology. Her goal is to find “creative ways” to expand abortion. She is also seeking ways to expand access to the more risky late-term abortions.

Diana Taylor, PhD, is a nurse practitioner. She has long been a proponent of doing away with laws that prevent “advance practice clinicians” from conducting surgical abortions. She currently serves as a board member for Clinicians for Choice, an affiliate of the National Abortion Federation.

The third primary investigator on the non-physician abortion study was Dr. Phillip Darney, an ObGyn who serves as director of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health. Darney is a radical abortion activist and proponent of lowering the standard of care for abortionists so they do not have to abide by the higher obstetrical standards. He testified on behalf of late-term abortionist Shelley Sella, who was charged by the New Mexico Medical Board for negligence involving a 35-week abortion on a high-risk woman with a history of previous cesarean section delivery that resulted in a ruptured uterus. Darney’s testimony that abortionists should be exempt from obstetrical standards, which were admittedly violated by Sella, helped clear Sella of the charges against her.

Safety questioned

The study’s results were published in the American Journal of Public Health on January 17, 2013, declaring that the rate of complications from non-physician abortions were essentially equivalent to the rate of complications from physician abortions.

“Abortionists, particularly in California, tend to be among some of the worst in the nation. To compare non-physician safety to the horrific track record of that motley crowd is a frightening prospect,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, who worked for years in California to expose dangerous abortionists and bring them to justice.

Click "like" if you want to end abortion!

For example, one abortionist, Andrew Rutland, was a licensed physician who had his medical license revoked in 2002 after his negligence was found responsible for the death of two babies during delivery. His license was restored in 2007. The disgraced Rutland found employment in the abortion industry where (predictably) he killed a woman during a botched abortion in a dirty, ill-equipped acupuncture office. He surrendered his license rather than face Board accusations that his negligent treatment qualified as a homicide.

Unsafe track-record of licensed abortionists

Rutland is not an anomaly. Over the past decade or so, one California abortionist after another has been subjected to disciplinary action or license removal for shoddy abortions and/or criminal conduct.

• Abortionist Laurence Reich was convicted of raping and molesting his female patients in the 1980s. With his license restored in the 1990’s Reich went to work at an abortion clinic where he had unrestricted access to vulnerable women. Once again, he was caught sexually abusing his abortion patients and surrendered his license in 2007, yet when his clinic was raided by police a year later, they found Reich still at work doing abortions.

W. Constantine Mitchell was convicted of billing and insurance fraud in the 1980s. Later, Mitchell was found covering up for Rutland’s shoddy practices under the guise of a “supervising physician.” Mitchell allowed Rutland to engage in abortions outside his presence in violation of a medical board order. He continues to do abortions in California.

Phillip Rand was an elderly abortionist in Southern California who botched a 20-week abortion in Orange County in 2004 then abandoned the patient in his haste to get to another San Diego County abortion clinic where more abortion patients waited. The patient died. Rand, who was 83 at the time, was forced to surrendered his medical license.

Nolan Jones suffered multiple disciplinary actions for a series of badly botched abortions and finally had his medical license revoked in 2009 for falsifying medical records to cover up his shoddy practices and for violating his terms of probation.

George Dalton Flanigan III, was placed on probation in 2007 for gross negligence and incompetence, and for failing to report a felony Medi-Cal fraud conviction. His license was restored in 2012 and he now continues to conduct his abortion business without restriction.

Feliciano Rios, a Chula Vista abortionist, pled guilty to felony perjury and insurance fraud in July, 2009. He was later busted a few months later for illegal possession of firearms. Rios continues to operate an abortion clinic.

Nicholas Braemer surrendered his license in 2000 after the California Medical Board filed a petition against him for two seriously botched abortions that landed patients in the hospital, and for aiding in the unlicensed practice of medicine.

Bruce Steir killed Sharon Hamptlon during a botched abortion at his abortion clinic in Moreno Valley. So horrific were her injuries that Steir was eventually convicted of manslaughter and served time in prison for her death.

Suresh Gandotra killed Magdalena Ortega Rodriguez during a horrifically botched abortion at 30 weeks gestation. Gandotra fled the country to evade murder charges. There is still a valid no-bail arrest warrant on the charge of murder for Gandotra in San Diego County.

These are only a few of the long list of California abortionists who have been caught subjecting women to negligence and incompetence. They were all licensed physicians with years of training and experience. They have provided a very low standard to which non-physicians are to be compared.

No reporting requirements

Given the history of abortion abuses in California and the lack of reporting laws, there is no way to know the complication frequency for non-physicians, who are suddenly empowered to do surgical abortions.

“Abortionists simply do not self-report abortion complications. Anyone who thinks they do is completely naive about what actually goes on inside abortion clinics today,” said Newman. “In fact, our experience shows that they do everything they can to conceal complications.”

The new California law is guaranteed to be signed by Gov. Brown, a staunch abortion supporter. This ill-advised measure will subject women to a social experiment by radical abortion proponents to see if they can survive a lower standard of care over an extended period of time. The dangers to women are compounded by the fact that there is no way to quantify the success or failure of this social experiment because there is no mechanism in place to monitor the complications once the law in enacted.

Massive complications predicted

And there will be complications – we predict very bad ones – because the non-physicians lack the training to treat women who do suffer common abortion complications, such as a torn cervix or a perforated uterus. The non-physicians will not be able to attend to their hospitalized patients and fix their mistakes because they lack the skill and authority to do so. This will create a lack of continuity of care that will pose serious, life-threatening delays in treatment.

Women suffering such complications will simply be packed off to a local hospital – if they are lucky – where emergency room staff will be forced to figure out what went wrong and try to clean up the mess. This is already standard procedure for most licensed physicians that engage in abortion practices, and we can only expect the same or worse from non-physicians.

Adkin’s new social experiment of abortion expansion runs counter to the national trend to hold abortionists to greater accountability and oversight. Abortion clinics operated by licensed physicians are closing at an unprecedented rate due to a lack of business and a failure to comply with minimum health and safety standards and other laws. California’s reckless new law that lowers the standard of care to unacceptable levels inevitably will doom vulnerable women injury and death. We predict it will be a complete failure.

Read Text of AB154

Reprinted with permission from Operation Rescue


Advertisement
Featured Image
Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus

‘It’s a miracle’: Newborn girl survives two days after being abandoned in a field

Thaddeus Baklinski Thaddeus Baklinski Follow Thaddeus
By Thaddeus Baklinski

The survival of a baby who was abandoned by her mother and left in a field for two days has been described as "a miracle" by the doctor attending the newborn girl.

"She had been left alone naked, and weighed less than a kilogram, in part because she was so severely dehydrated," said Doctor Barbara Chomik at the hospital in the northern Polish city of Elblag, according to a report from Central European News.

"It is a miracle that she survived under those conditions for so long. It is simply a miracle," Dr. Chomik said.

The report said that the child's mother, Jolanta Czarnecka, 30, of Ilawa in northeastern Poland, had concealed her pregnancy from friends and fellow workers, and had given birth in a field during a lunch break, then returned to work.

When blood was noticed on her clothing, the woman at first claimed she had accidentally given birth in the toilet and the baby had gone down the drain.

However, when investigation found no evidence supporting her claims, Czarnecka admitted to having given birth to the child in a nearby field and leaving her there.

When searchers found the child, two days after her birth, the little girl was dehydrated and covered with insects.

Czarnecka is facing charges of attempted murder for allegedly abandoning her child.

Czarnecka, who has entered a not guilty plea to the charges against her, could be sentenced to five years in prison if she is convicted.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Because nothing says love quite like a whip and restraints, right? Shutterstock
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

To the Christians who think 50 Shades is all sorts of awesome: Please, stop and THINK

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

It’s pretty depressing when you realize that, in 2014, many people seem to think that destruction of human dignity is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

I suppose when I write a column about a book that just sold its 100 millionth copy I shouldn’t be surprised when I get a bit of a kickback. But I have to say—I wasn’t expecting hundreds of commenters, many saying they were Christian, to come out loudly defending the porn novel 50 Shades of Grey, often tastelessly interspersed with details from their own sex lives.

People squawked that we “shouldn’t judge” those who practice bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM), and informed me that “no one gets hurt” and that it “isn’t abuse” and said that it was “just fantasy” (as if we have a separate brain and body for fantasy).

Meanwhile, not a single commenter addressed one of the main arguments I laid out—that with boys watching violent porn and girls being socialized to accept violence and torture inside of a sexual relationship, we have created a toxic situation in which people very much are being hurt.

In response to the defenders of this trash, let me make just a few points.

  1. Not all consent is equal.

People keep trumpeting this stupid idea that just because someone consents to something or allows something to happen, it isn’t abusive.

But if someone consents to being beaten up, punched, slapped, whipped, called disgusting and degrading names, and have other things done to them that I will choose not to describe here, does that make it any less abusive? It makes it legal (perhaps, but it certainly doesn’t make it any less disgusting or violent.

Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey? If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

Anyone who works with victims of domestic and sexual assault will tell you that just because someone permits something to happen or doesn’t extricate themselves from a situation doesn’t mean it isn’t, in fact, abuse. Only when it comes to sex are people starting to make this argument, so that they can cling to their fetishes and justify their turn-ons. Those women who defend the book because they think it spiced up their sex life are being incredibly selfish and negligent, refusing to think about how this book could affect other women in different situations, as well as young and impressionable girls.

In the words of renowned porn researcher and sociologist Dr. Gail Dines:

In his book on batterers, Lundy Bancroft provides a list of potentially dangerous signs to watch out for from boyfriends. Needless to say, Christian [Grey of 50 Shades of Grey] is the poster boy of the list, not only with his jealous, controlling, stalking, sexually sadistic behavior, but his hypersensitivity to what he perceives as any slight against him, his whirlwind romancing of a younger, less powerful woman, and his Jekyll-and-Hyde mood swings. Any one of these is potentially dangerous, but a man who exhibits them all is lethal.

The most likely real-world ending of Fifty Shades of Grey is fifty shades of black and blue. The awful truth in the real world is that women who partner with a Christian Grey often end up hightailing it to a battered women's shelter with traumatized kids in tow. The less fortunate end up in graveyards.

  1. 50 Shades of Grey normalizes intimate partner violence…

…and sickeningly, even portrays it as romantic and erotic. Amy Bonomi, Lauren Altenburger, and Nicole Walton published an article on the impact of 50 Shades last year in the Journal of Women’s Health. Their conclusions are intuitive and horrifying:

While intimate partner violence (IPV) affects 25% of women and impairs health, current societal conditions—including the normalization of abuse in popular culture such as novels, film, and music—create the context to support such violence.

Emotional abuse is present in nearly every interaction, including: stalking (Christian deliberately follows Anastasia and appears in unusual places, uses a phone and computer to track Anastasia’s whereabouts, and delivers expensive gifts); intimidation (Christian uses intimidating verbal and nonverbal behaviors, such as routinely commanding Anastasia to eat and threatening to punish her); and isolation (Christian limits Anastasia’s social contact). Sexual violence is pervasive—including using alcohol to compromise Anastasia’s consent, as well as intimidation (Christian initiates sexual encounters when genuinely angry, dismisses Anastasia’s requests for boundaries, and threatens her). Anastasia experiences reactions typical of abused women, including: constant perceived threat (“my stomach churns from his threats”); altered identity (describes herself as a “pale, haunted ghost”); and stressful managing (engages in behaviors to “keep the peace,” such as withholding information about her social whereabouts to avoid Christian’s anger). Anastasia becomes disempowered and entrapped in the relationship as her behaviors become mechanized in response to Christian’s abuse.

Our analysis identified patterns in Fifty Shades that reflect pervasive intimate partner violence—one of the biggest problems of our time. Further, our analysis adds to a growing body of literature noting dangerous violence standards being perpetuated in popular culture.

  1. Really? Sadism?

I notice that commenters rarely break down what the acronym “BDSM” actually stands for: bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism. If they did, they could no longer make the repulsive claim that “love” or “intimacy” have anything to do with it.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

The definition of sadism is “enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain, especially sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone…a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others.”

As one of my colleagues noted, we used to send sadists to a therapist or to prison, not to the bedroom. And 100 million copies of this porn novel have been unleashed on our society informing people that getting off on hurting someone is romantic and erotic. It is a brutal irony that people who scream about water-boarding terrorists are watching and experimenting with sexual practices far more brutal. As one porn researcher noted, some online BDSM porn promotes practices and behaviors that would be considered unlawful under the Geneva Convention if they were taking place in a wartime context.

It seems the Sexual Revolutionaries have gone from promoting “safe sex” to “safe words”—just in case the pain gets too rough. And none of them seem to be volunteering information on just how a woman is supposed to employ a safe word with a gag or bondage headgear on.

But who cares, right? Just one more casualty on our culture’s new Sexual Frontier.

  1. “It’s just fiction and fantasy and has no effect on the real world!”

That’s total garbage and they know it. I’ve met multiple girls who were abused like this inside of relationships. Hotels are offering “50 Shades of Grey” packages replete with the helicopter and private suites for the proceedings. According to the New York Post, sales of rope exploded tenfold after the release of the book. Babeland reported that visits to the bondage section of their website spiked 81%, with an almost 30% increase in the sale of things like riding crops and handcuffs.

I could go on, but I won’t. As Babeland co-founder Claire Cavanah noted, “It’s like a juggernaut. You’d be surprised to see how very ordinary these people are who are coming in. The book is just an explosion of permission for them to try something new in the bedroom.”

  1. What does this book and the BDSM movement say about the value of women and girls?

I’d like the defenders of this book to try stop thinking with their nether-regions for just a moment and ask themselves a few simple questions: What does sadism and sexual torture (consensual or not) say to our culture about the value of girls? What does it say to boys about how they should treat girls? The youth of today are inundated with porn and sexually violent material—is nobody—nobody—at all worried about the impact this has on them? On the girls who are being abused by boys who think this is normal behavior—and think it is normal themselves?

Dr. Gail Dines relates that when speaking to groups of women who loved the book, they all grow deathly silent when she asks them two simple questions: Would you want your daughter to be in a relationship with Christian Grey? Would you want your son to turn into Christian Grey?

If the answer is yes to either of those, someone should call social services.

__

This book and the sadism it promotes are an assault on human dignity, and most of all an assault on the worth and value of girls and women. Please consider the impact you will have on your daughters and the vulnerable and confused people around you when you read and promote this book. Anastasia Steele is, thankfully, a fictional character. But real girls are facing these expectations and demands from a culture that elevates a sexual sadist to the level of a romantic hero. Ask yourselves if you want their “love” and “intimacy” to include sadism and domination, or real respect.

Because you can’t have both.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Ryan T. Anderson

,

New York Times reporter: ‘Anti-LGBT’ people ‘deserve’ incivility

Ryan T. Anderson
By Ryan Anderson

As I recounted Monday at The Daily Signal, The New York Times reporter Josh Barro thinks some people are “unworthy of respect.” Yesterday Barro doubled-down and tweeted back at me that “some people are deserving of incivility.” He argued that I am such a person because of my views about marriage policy. You can see the entire exchange on my twitter page.

What Josh Barro says or does doesn’t really affect me. I’m not a victim, and I’ll keep doing what I do. But incivility, accepted and entrenched, is toxic to a political community. Indeed, civility is essential for political life in a pluralistic society.

It also has deep roots.

The Hebrew Bible tells us that all people are made in the image and likeness of God and have a profound and inherent dignity. Sound philosophy comes to a similar conclusion: as rational beings capable of freedom and love, all human beings have intrinsic and inestimable worth. And so we should always treat people with respect and dignity—we should honor their basic humanity. We should always engage with civility—even when we sharply disagree with them. Faith and reason, the natural law and the divine law, both point to the same conclusion.

Just as I think the best of theology and philosophy point to the conclusion that we should always treat people with respect, so I think they show that marriage is the union of a man and a woman—and that redefining marriage will undermine the political common good.

The work that I’ve done for the past few years for The Heritage Foundation has been at the service of explaining why I think this to be the case. Bookish by nature, I thought the best contribution I could make to public life was to help us think about marriage. So while my early work after college was in philosophy and bioethics, and my graduate coursework was in the history of political philosophy, I put my dissertation about economic and social justice on hold so I could devote myself to this debate at this crucial time.

Along with my co-authors, a classmate of mine from Princeton and a professor of ours there, we set out to write a book making what we considered the best philosophical argument for what marriage is and why it matters. Our book seemed to help the Supreme Court think about the issue, as Justice Samuel Alito cited it twice. The reason I’ve written various and sundry policy papers for Heritage, and traveled across the country speaking on college campuses, and appeared on numerous news shows (including, of course, Piers Morgan) is that I know the only way forward in our national debate about marriage is to make the arguments in as reasonable and civil a spirit as possible.

Some people, like Barro, want to do everything they can to shut down this discussion. They want to demonize those who hold contrary viewpoints. They want to equate us with racists and claim we are unworthy of respect and ought to be treated with incivility. This is how bullies behave. In all of recorded history, ours is the first time where we can have open and honest conversations about same-sex attraction and marriage. This discussion is just beginning. It is nowhere near being over.

All our fellow citizens, including those identifying as LGBT, should enjoy the full panoply of civil rights—the free exercise of religion, freedoms of speech and press, the right to own property and enter into contracts, the right to vote and have a fair trial, and every other freedom to live as they choose, consistent with the common good.

Government redefinition of marriage, however, is not a civil right—nor will redefining marriage serve the common good. Indeed, redefining marriage will have negative consequences.

We make our arguments, in many fora, as transparently as possible. We welcome counterarguments. And we strive to treat all people with the dignity and respect they deserve as we carry on this conversation.

One of the most unfortunate parts of my exchange with Barro last night was his reaction toward those who identify as LGBT and aspire to lives of chastity. They freely choose to live by their conviction that sex is reserved for the marital bond of a husband and wife. Some of them also seek professional help in dealing with and perhaps even diminishing (not repressing) their same-sex sexual desires.

I have written in their defense and against government coercion that would prevent them from receiving the help they desire, as New Jersey and California have done. Barro describes my support for their freedom as “sowing misery…doing a bad thing to people…making the world worse.”

There really is anti-LGBT bigotry in the world. But Barro does a disservice to his cause when he lumps in reasonable debates about marriage policy and the pastoral care that some same-sex attracted persons voluntarily seek out as, in his words, “anti-LGBT.” If we can’t draw a line between real bigotry and reasonable disagreement, we’re not helping anyone.

This debate isn’t about restricting anyone’s personal freedom. However it goes, people will remain free to live their romantic lives as they choose. So too people who experience same-sex attraction but aspire to chastity should be free to lead their lives in line with their beliefs, and to seek out the help they desire. We can have a civil conversation about which course of action is best—but let’s leave aside the extremism.

Barro asks, “Why shouldn’t I call you names?” My answer is simple: you should not practice the disdain and contempt you claim to abhor.

All my life, I’ve been educated at left-leaning institutions. Most of my friends disagree with me about these issues. But they’re still friends. And their feedback has made me a better person.

My final tweet to Barro is where I still remain committed: “people on all sides of LGBT debates and marriage debates need to find a way to discuss these issues without demonizing anyone.”

Reprinted with permission from the Daily Signal, where you can find Ryan Anderson's Twitter exchange with Barro.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook