Cheryl Sullenger

New docs reveal horrific details of botched 35-Week abortion in New Mexico disciplinary case

Cheryl Sullenger
By Cheryl Sullenger
Image
Image

ALBUQUERQUE, NM, January 31, 2013, (Operation Rescue) -- New documents, including transcripts of a Medical Board disciplinary hearing held in November, 2012, indicate that late-term abortionist Shelley Sella committed four acts of gross negligence during a 35-week abortion on a woman with a history of previous Cesarean Section that resulted in a ruptured uterus.

The documents were released recently by the New Mexico Medical Board in response to an open records request made by Tara Shaver of Project Defending Life. Both Mrs. Shaver and Operation Rescue had filed the original complaints with the NMMB after receiving a 911 recording of a medical emergency that took place at Southwestern Women’s Options, a late-term abortion clinic in Albuquerque, on May 12, 2012. The records also show that it is the position of Sella and her attorney, Joseph Goldberg, that the complaints should not have been considered by the Board due to the fact that pro-life activists filed them.

The NMMB plans to issue a formal “Decision and Order” on the case against Sella on February 7, 2013. Possible discipline ranges from public censure to license revocation.

Also on the agenda is the appointment of a Task Force to amend Board regulations on Complaint Procedures.

“The New Mexico Medical Board should be thanking us for filing these complaints, not devising ways to cut us out of the complaint process based on our deeply held convictions,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “We have uncovered an extremely dangerous abortion practice taking place on a weekly basis that is seriously endangering the lives and health of women. Instead of criticizing us for bringing this to the attention of the Board, they should be grateful that we uncovered the violations during dangerous late-term abortions that fall well below the standard of care.”

Gross negligence

After hearing two days of testimony from Sella and two expert witnesses before Hearing Officer David K. Thompson, Administrative Prosecutor Daniel Rubin has recommended that Sella be disciplined for “gross negligence” for breaching the standard of care during her treatment of a patient referred to as “ML”. Those four breaches included:

  • Administering Misoprostol, a uterine contracting agent, during a “trial of labor after cesarean” or TOLAC.
  • Sent M.L. to a hotel where she could not be monitored after administering misoprostol.
  • Administered Misoprostol and Pitocin, another uterine contracting agent, simultaneously.
  • Attempted to abort ML’s fetus in a clinic rather than a hospital.

“The Respondent [Sella] was well aware of the risks of uterine rupture associated with her treatment of M.L., but willfully ignored such risks,” wrote Rubin in his Closing Arguments and Proposed Finding of Fact, dated January 4, 2013.

National implications

The case has national implications and could affect ability of abortionists to continue doing risky third trimester abortion in “stand-alone clinics” using a drug that is known to cause unpredictable and often powerful contractions.

Disturbingly, Sella worried, (as if it was unthinkable), that women with previous C-sections “would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term,” should there be an adverse ruling.

“It is possible that this case will set a new standard of care for third-trimester abortions, which those currently doing this barbaric procedure cannot meet. The implications are huge,” said Newman.

Currently, there are no set national standards for third trimester abortions that are currently being done in four “stand alone” clinics throughout the United States. Abortionists that admit to doing the procedures, in addition to Sella and her New Mexico associate Susan Robinson, are Lee Carhart in Germantown, Maryland; Warren Hern in Boulder, Colorado; and Josepha Seletz in Los Angeles, California. Sella told the Board that she is currently training Carmen Landau to do third trimester abortions in Albuquerque.

Misoprostol poses risks of rupture

The case began when ML, a 26-year old woman with a history of a previous cesarean section delivery, traveled to Southwestern Women’s Options, a late-term abortion clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for an abortion of her pre-born baby at 35 weeks gestation. Her New York physician recommended the abortion after the baby was diagnosed with an abnormally large head and brain. The baby’s head was estimated to be the size of a baby at 40 weeks. Sella agreed to do the abortion on the basis of the fetal anomaly and the supposedly distraught mindset of the patient.

Sella argued strenuously that obstetric standards and warnings issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists simply did not apply to abortions. ACOG does not support the trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in a non-hospital setting and prohibits the use of Misprostol to induce or augment labor in women with histories of previous cesarean deliveries.

Misoprostol, also known as Cytotec, was originally developed to treat stomach ulcers but was later discovered to have the unfortunate side effect of initiating uterine contractions in pregnant women. Misoprostol use in abortion is unpredictable and can cause intense uterine contractions.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite the risks, Misoprostol is used in two ways during a third trimester abortion. First it is administered vaginally to “ripen” the cervix and prepare it for the delivery of the dead baby. Secondly, it is administered buccally (between the cheek and jaw) to induce or augment labor.

Women who have had previous C-Section deliveries like ML are at greater risk for uterine rupture during labor. Misoprostol dramatically increases that risk and that is why ACOG considers it to be too dangerous to use on these women.

The Tiller Protocols

Sella claimed that protocols developed by Wichita abortionist George Tiller should be used for the standard of care for third trimester abortions rather than the tougher obstetrical, ACOG standards.

However, Dr. Gerald L. Bullock, an expert for the Board, testified that obstetrical standards are appropriate because there is essentially no difference between the procedure used in a third trimester abortion and an instance of a women in her third trimester whose baby has spontaneously died in the womb. Obstetrical standards are the unquestioned standard in the latter circumstance.

Sella learned to do the third trimester abortion procedure from the late George Tiller. Sella testified that she worked for Tiller at his infamous late-term abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas, from 2002 until his death in 2009. Tiller developed the controversial abortion process and was considered the national authority on third trimester abortions.

Not mentioned in the Sella disciplinary proceedings was the fact that Tiller faced an 11-count petition for illegal late-term abortions brought by the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts that would likely have cost him his medical license, had he lived.

Another Tiller associate that also worked with Sella in Wichita, Ann Kristin Neuhaus, had her medical license revoked last year on a nearly identical petition. Both the Neuhaus and Tiller actions were based on complaints filed by Operation Rescue.

Sella testified that she uses the Tiller protocols in third-trimester abortions as do all other abortionists that do these grisly procedures, which are opposed by nearly 90% of Americans.
The testimony at Sella’s November disciplinary hearing revealed a time-line of events that led to ML’s uterine rupture and subsequent transfer to UNM hospital for emergency surgery. It paints a graphic picture of what can go wrong when abortionists consider themselves exempt from accepted medical standards.

May 10, 2011

On the morning of May 10, 2011, ML arrived at Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) in Albuquerque for her first appointment. ML has been interviewed by a telephone “counselor”– likely an unlicensed and unqualified clinic worker — who took information about her state of mind and medical history – including her history of previous cesarean section – and relayed it to Sella and her associate, Susan Robinson, who also does third-trimester abortions at SWO. The two consulted and agreed that ML was a good candidate for the Induction abortion used at SWO.

On the day of ML’s arrival, Sella initiated “fetal demise” by vaginally injecting Digoxin into ML’s fetus. This drug stops the baby’s heart. After an ultrasound confirmed that the baby was dead, the patient’s cervix was packed with laminaria, which are seaweed sticks that slowly expand and dilate the cervix in preparation for labor and delivery. Sella then administered 100 micrograms of Mispropstol vaginally for the purpose of “softening the cervix.”

Dr. Bullock testified on behalf of the prosecution that the standard dosage of Misoprostol generally used for induction of labor is 50 micrograms, half of the dosage given by Sella when there was no intention of inducing labor. Afterwards, ML was sent to her hotel where no monitoring of her condition occurred. Dr. Bullock considered this a serious breech in the standard of care.

Sella testified that she intended to use the frequent dosing of Misoprostol along with numerous laminaria insertions and removals to prepare ML’s cervix for labor induction on the fourth day. Sella denied that she was inducing labor by administering Misoprostol vaginally on the first day.

To that, Dr. Bullock responded, “Well, yeah, I would agree that she probably intended to soften the cervix, but whether you intend to induce labor or not, that is what it did, and the lady came back in the second day in the late evening in active labor, and you can’t call that spontaneous labor, and you can’t call that spontaneous labor. This was Misoprostol induced labor. If the lady had stayed at home and hadn’t been at the clinic, she would have never gone into labor that day.”

Water breaks

On the second day, May 11, ML returned to the clinic in the morning. Sella changed out her laminaria, gave her another dose of Misprostol, and again sent her back to her hotel with instructions to take yet another dose of the drug at 3:00 pm. ML took the drug as instructed.

At about 5:00 pm that same day, ML returned to the clinic for another laminaria change and Misoprostol dose. However, while Sella was inserting new laminaria, she inadvertently broke her bag of water.

While it is unknown exactly when ML’s contractions began, Dr. Bullock testified that this incident likely stimulated the onset of labor. In fact, there was great debate from expert witnesses about the times and dosages of Mispropstol and other medications administered to ML due to confusing medical records kept by the clinic, including some inaccurately recorded dosage times.

The onset of labor prompted ML report back to the clinic for a third time on May 11, the second day of the process, near the midnight hour. Sella was forced to scrap her plan to begin labor on the fourth day of the abortion and took steps to manage ML’s labor in preparation for an early delivery.

The final day

At shortly after midnight on May 12, Sella checked the progress of ML’s cervical dilation and again administered Misoprostol. At the same time, Sella began to give her patient Pitocin, another uterine stimulant that is not supposed to be used simultaneously with Misoprostol.

It is estimated that the Misoprostol was in ML’s system along with the Pitocin for 3½ hours. Meanwhile, ML was given pain medication, sedated, and placed in the gurney room. She was supposed to sleep through the night in mild labor and be checked for progress again around 7 am. There was never any testimony concerning how well ML actually did through the night or what her pain/comfort level was during this ordeal.

The large size of the baby’s head created an increased risk of uterine rupture, a fact was apparently ignored by Sella, as noted in the Board documents. ML had received a lower transverse incision during the surgical delivery of a previous child. That incision type is supposed to be less likely to rupture that the classical vertical incision, but even so, that did not prevent the Sella’s reckless practices from inflicting harm.

In the morning of May 12, Sella removed the laminaria and checked ML’s cervix. Sella had intended to collapse the skull in order to make it smaller and easier to deliver. However, she could no longer feel the baby’s head as she had expected. She conducted an ultrasound and discovered that the baby was now lying sideways in the womb. At that moment, she suspected that the uterus had ruptured.

Sella had an office worker call 911 and request an emergency transport for ML to UNM. Since Sella has no hospital privileges, she had to call one of three abortionists from the UNM Center for Reproductive Health, a stand-alone abortion clinic affiliated with the UNM Medical Center, to treat ML at the hospital. But those abortionists have problems of their own. Several 911 calls placed from the UNMRHC that have been obtained by Project Defending Life and Operation Rescue indicate a regular pattern of botched abortions at that facility as well.

A 7.5 pound baby?

It took 24 minutes from the time 911 was called for ML to arrive at the emergency room.

Once there, ML was rushed into surgery where her dead baby was removed and her uterus repaired. A unknown hospital physician noted on her chart that the baby weighed 7.5 pounds. Sella vigorously disputed that assessment. She opined that the baby was never weighed and that ultrasound measurements placed the baby’s weight at 5 pounds, 13 ounces. We may never know the truth.

“There is little difference if the baby weighed 7.5 pounds or just under 6 pounds. This was a baby that was the size of many full term babies. The entire revolting discussion on the record attempting to justify this is completely barbaric,” said Newman.

“A thousand wonders”

Dr. Bullock noted that the rupture occurred when the baby’s over-sized head came down and stretched the c-section scar, where the uterus was weak. The head broke through the scar and tore the uterus, forcing the baby – at least partially – into the woman’s abdominal cavity.

“Well, you know, everybody was really lucky this time, because quite often, particularly the way this rupture went, it was a thousand wonders that it didn’t extend another centimeter into the uterine arteries, which would have had a horrendous bleeding episode if that had happened,” he said.

Dr. Bullock described ML’s injuries and the harm done to her:

“Yes, the understood harm is going to be another cesarean, a scar that went caddywhompus, the scar that went crossways…all the way down to the cervix, which will make it more hazardous. In fact, one of the doctors at UNM said that she should not get pregnant again.”

Rules written in blood

The written Closing Argument document submitted by Board prosecutor Daniel Rubin states that no specific national standard exists with respect to late-term abortions and that obstetrical standards should be applied in this case.

“In other words, these late-term abortionists just make things up as they go along,” noted Newman. “According to Sella’s own testimony as well as her expert witness, Phillip Darney – himself an admitted late-term abortionist – all third-trimester abortionists are engaging in horrifically dangerous procedures with drugs that should not even be used in settings where there is no access to immediate emergency care. Yet, they continue to insist that the higher obstetrical standards should not apply to them. But each one of those rules in written in blood. ACOG and other standards prohibit the conduct that Sella engaged in because at some point, someone died from similar circumstances.”

Defense expert’s vested interest

Darney is the head of the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California San Francisco. This is the same organization that is training non-physicians to do abortions. The training program made news last when a California lawmaker proposed changing the law to allow these non-physicians to do abortions without the supervision of licensed doctors.

Darney had every reason to speak favorably about Sella’s third-trimester abortion protocols. He admits that he does abortions at the Women’s Option Center in San Francisco General Hospital and that some of those abortions are in the third trimester. Darney’s organization also as established a training program through the University of New Mexico that uses Sella and Southwestern Women’s Options as a training facility for abortionists in his program.

Shadowy world of regulatory gaps

In the end, ML’s unfortunate experience has revealed a shadowy world of regulatory gaps where abortionists make up their own rules. In the abortionist’s world, time-tested standards of care simply do not apply. They simply make up their own. This is a world where abortionists can subject women to dangerous practices that would not be tolerated in any other medical discipline, yet expect to be treated like they walk on water.

By filing these complaints, Project Defending Life and Operation Rescue have attempted to close those gaps and return the abortionists to the real world of medical accountability and ethics.

Abortionists often consider themselves a special class that is exempt from the mundane rules that apply to everyone else. That arrogant attitude is fed by liberal politicians and other pro-abortion society-influencers. Earlier this month, Sella was featured along with Robinson, Hern, and Carhart in a film that premiered at the Sundance Film Festival called “After Tiller.” The four third-trimester abortionists were lionized and applauded for their bravery in providing abortions for which few have the stomach.

One has to wonder how much courage it really takes to kill a defenseless baby in the womb and inflict upon vulnerable women dangerous practices that fall well below national standards.

To illustrate this, one can imagine that on one hand, there is a 35-week pregnant woman with a history of c-section that hasn’t felt movement for awhile and is tragically informed that her baby has died in the womb. On the other hand, there are women like ML, who has her 35-week baby killed by an abortionist. At that moment, one might think that both women share a common circumstance, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The first woman will be treated according to the highest standards of medicine in order to protect her life, her health, and her future fertility, while women undergoing abortions are subjected to dangerous practices, prescribed drugs that endangered their lives, and as in ML’s case, robbed their ability to bear children.

“Sella was glowingly presented in her disciplinary hearing as an expert who was ‘well trained’ in third trimester abortions. If this is the best abortionists have to offer, it just isn’t good enough,” said Newman. “We cannot and will not stand idly by while women are abused by the reckless indifference of the abortion cartel. We will continue to hold abortionists accountable for their negligence, just as we have endeavored to do with Sella. As far as the Board’s highly anticipated decision goes concerning her professional fate, we are simply praying for justice.”

 

Documents:

This article originally appeared on Operation Rescue and is reprinted with permission.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

,

61% of Americans don’t want Supreme Court to force gay ‘marriage’ on the states: poll

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- A vast majority of Americans want the government to stay out of their personal affairs when it comes to defining marriage and how they conduct their work lives or businesses, a new survey says. And a great majority also oppose the idea of the Supreme Court forcing the entire country to accept marriage redefinition.

Eighty-one percent of Americans agree with the statement, “Government should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses,” according to a survey commissioned by the Family Research Council (FRC) and the National Religious Broadcasters (NRB).

The poll breakdown also showed that 80 percent of even those who never attend church believe the government should leave people alone in observing their faith when it comes to marriage. While the figures were very high across the board in support of allowing Americans freedom to practice their faith pertaining to marriage, it was highest among Hispanics at 89 percent.

Along with profound opposition to governmental tampering with religious freedom, more than six in 10 Americans also agreed with the statement, “States and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the Supreme Court shouldn’t force all 50 states to redefine marriage.”

That statistic is especially significant given the Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of homosexual “marriage” this summer.

The survey was conducted by WPA Opinion Research, which polled 800 registered voters from February 2-4.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman, the survey also found.

The results fly in the face of the presumption for Americans to concede that the whole country accepts homosexual “marriage,” undoubtedly telling a different story than what the media would have everyone believe, said FRC President Tony Perkins.

"It's clear, based on (this) polling, that Americans have not reached a broad social consensus that marriage should be redefined," Perkins told Baptist Press.

A Fox News poll also found last fall that a more Americans oppose legalization of homosexual “marriage” than support, at 47 percent and 44 percent respectively.

A recent Associated Press poll said most Americans favor not forcing the owners of wedding-related business to go against their religious convictions by compelling them to provide services for homosexual “weddings.”

Perkins also disapproved of any effort by the Supreme Court to impose marriage redefinition nationally.

The court "will be at a point of overreach if they impose a one-size-fits-all definition of marriage on the nation by redefining it," he said.

“What this survey tells us is that the American people won't accept the redefinition of marriage by judicial fiat,” he continued in a statement on the findings.

NRB Jerry President described the survey results as "incredible," and also said it is a "slam dunk" for more than 80 percent of Americans to agree that citizens should be free of governmental interference in the practice of their faith, including in their businesses.

"Government has no right establishing speech codes or business codes on marriage and 81 percent of Americans agree entirely," said Johnson.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

The Center for Arizona Policy also welcomed the survey results, further expressing importance of listening to the will of the people.

“It’s clear that marriage matters to voters,” the group’s President Cathi Herrod said in a statement. “Furthermore, the freedom of belief and the freedom to vote for a cause are of the utmost importance.”

“The Supreme Court should not silence the will of the voters,” she said. “What’s more, the government should not penalize people for believing that marriage is between a man and a woman.” 

Herrod decried religious discrimination with the recent examples where Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired from his job and Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman is being sued by the state’s attorney general and the ACLU.

“What should be simple matters of disagreement has turned into government coercion,” said Herrod. “Instead of respecting differences of opinion, the government is now being used to stifle differing beliefs.”

Perkins was confident that Americans will not stand by for the redefinition of marriage to be imposed by the nation’s high court.

“If it dares to redefine an institution as old as civilization itself,” he said. “Like life, the marriage debate will only intensify as the American people realize that they'll be required to surrender their fundamental right to live and work according to their beliefs.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke was one of the principal authors and supporters of the book defending the Church's teachings on marriage that was allegedly blocked by Cardinal Baldisseri.
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

Synod’s chief organizer seized books by top cardinals defending Church’s marriage teachings: report

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

ROME, February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Allegations have surfaced this week that the lead organizer of the Vatican’s controversial Synod on the Family in October personally intervened to block the distribution of a book distributed by high-ranking cardinals, including Cardinal Raymond Burke, that defended the Church’s teachings on marriage.

Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary for the Synod of Bishops, who became the focus of much criticism from bishops at the Synod for allegedly “manipulating” the process, is reported to have ordered that the books be seized, despite them having been posted through the official Vatican City State postal service.

The highly respected Vaticanist Edward Pentin, writing for NewsMax on Wednesday, said “reliable and high level sources” had confirmed that the book, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” was “intercepted” on the orders of Cardinal Baldisseri on the grounds that it would “interfere with the synod.” Baldisseri was also said to have been “furious” at the attempt to distribute them.

Cardinal Baldisseri reportedly claimed the books were confiscated because they had been distributed “improperly.” Those entrusted with ensuring the books made it into the hands of the Synod bishops, however, insisted that the books had gone through the regular Vatican postal service, and were therefore legally protected material, Pentin reports.       

The book includes a set of essays defending and explaining the Catholic teaching on the indissoluble nature of marriage and was intended by its authors as a means of clarifying the discussion.

The book was organized and authored by a group of the Church’s highest-ranking prelates – including Cardinal Raymond Burke, then-head of the Vatican’s highest court, and Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – who were gravely alarmed not only at the “proposal” by Cardinal Walter Kasper but at its positive reception among bishops and Catholic laity.

Cardinal Kasper had shocked the Catholic world at last year’s consistory of cardinals by his “suggestion” that the Church change its practice of withholding Communion from people in “irregular unions,” and by his claim that the pope had approved the proposal. The so-called “Kasper proposal” has since become the focal point of a nearly open civil war in the Church in which decades-long divisions between the “liberal/progressives” and orthodox prelates has been revealed by the world’s press.

At the Rome launch on October 6 of a different book opposing Kasper’s proposal, Cardinal George Pell, a member of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine, said that changing the practice or teaching of the Church would be “disastrous.”

Pentin writes, “Those responsible for mailing the books meticulously tried to avoid interception, ensuring the copies were sent through the proper channels within the Italian and Vatican postal systems.” Pentin added that his sources had “strongly” refuted the claim by the Synod’s secretariat that the books had been distributed “irregularly,” saying they had used the normal postal service that is governed according to Vatican state and international law and is known in Rome for its superior service to the Italian postal system.

Throughout the Synod, rumors circulated broadly among the assembled corps of journalists that the highly anticipated books had failed to reach the bishops and had in fact been confiscated on the orders of the Synod’s leadership. At the time, although this strange story had spread widely, none of the principal parties involved in the book’s publication or distribution were willing to come forward.

That rule of silence appears to still be in place; today none of the book’s authors or editors were willing to speak with LifeSiteNews “on the record” to confirm what had happened, and attempts to reach the Synod office went unanswered. It is public knowledge, however, that only a handful of bishops had been able to obtain a copy during the Synod itself.

Edward Pentin reported yesterday that the story has not stopped circulating in Rome since the Synod, despite having been dismissed at a December press conference by Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi. “Since then the allegations have become more widely known and have been corroborated at the highest levels of the church,” Pentin writes, saying that his sources believe the seized books were likely destroyed.

It is notable that the accusation could have a potential of a criminal liability for unlawful seizure of posted materials. The Vatican City State postal service is a member of the Universal Postal Union, a body under the auspices of the UN, which regulates the postal service practice of 192 member states. One Vatican source told LifeSiteNews today that a first attempt had been made to stop the books being sent by the Vatican Post Office, but that the postal workers had refused to cooperate, saying that it would be “unethical” to tamper with the mail.

Baldisseri, appointed as a permanent Secretary of the Synod of Bishops by Pope Francis, has become a public spokesman for the Kasper Proposal and he was heavily criticized during the Synod by many of the bishops themselves, who complained that the process was being strictly controlled to produce a particular outcome.

At a conference in Rome last month, Baldisseri told delegates that “dogma can evolve” and that the purpose of the Synod was not merely to restate Catholic teaching. He also confirmed that the documents of the Synod, including the highly contested “mid-term Relatio” that had called for the Church to “accept and value” the “homosexual orientation” had been read and approved for publication by Pope Francis. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Chen Guangcheng contradicts Hillary’s version: Obama admin abandoned him, caved to ‘hooligans’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 26, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Chen Guangcheng, the blind lawyer who exposed the brutality of China's one-child policy, is again questioning the official party line – the Obama administration's account. This time he is contradicting Hillary Clinton's story of his escape from home captivity in a new memoir.

Hillary, who was Secretary of State at the time Chen fled his captors and sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy, has steadfastly denied she lobbied Chen to leave the premises, despite tense negotiations with the Chinese. But Chen writes that he felt so pressured and abandoned by U.S. officials, he was “overcome by sadness and wept.”

Chen so angered Chinese officials by uncovering the corruption and coercion of the nation's forced abortion regime that he was imprisoned for years. After his release, he and his family were held under house arrest inside a garrisoned village.

But on April 22, 2012, Chen scaled the wall and ran, on a broken foot, for miles. After going through a series of safe houses, a car took him to Beijing, where he sought sanctuary in the U.S. Embassy.

Hillary and Chen agree on that much – but the rest of their tales diverge.

Hillary spent chapter five of her memoir, "Hard Choices"  “Beijing: The Dissident” – discussing Chen's plight. The light-selling autobiography claims that Hillary got a call on the yellow phone on April 25, telling her about Chen's plea. “I said, 'Go get him,'” she wrote, adding that it “wasn't a close call.” She later told the Council on Foreign Relations that she authorized some “James Bond-ish kind of activity” for his rescue.

But Chen's escape came just days before Clinton was to arrive in China for a diplomatic visit. Chen and those close to him have always maintained that Chen faced coercion to leave the U.S. Embassy – and that U.S. officials broke their word after he complied.

The State Department passed along threats that, if Chen did not leave the Embassy for a Chinese communist-controlled hospital, his family would face repercussions from government officials. Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, while denying any wrongdoing, admitted that “U.S. interlocutors did make clear that if Chen elected to stay in the embassy, Chinese officials had indicated to us that his family would be returned to Shandong, and they would lose their opportunity to negotiate for reunification.”

But in "Hard Choices," Hillary says U.S. officials were so considerate of Chen that the then-ambassador to China, Gary Locke, and State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh “spent hours sitting with Chen, holding his hand, soothing his fears, and talking about his hopes for the future.”

Hillary maintained, “we had done what Chen said he wanted every step of the way.”

Chen tells a much different tale in his newly published memoir, "The Barefoot Lawyer: A Blind Man's Fight for Justice and Freedom in China," portions of which were published by Canada's National Post.

Chen said he was “pressured to leave” after the State Department accepted an “absurdly inadequate deal” with Chinese officials, essentially trusting them not to harm Guangcheng and his family on their honor.

“I hadn’t expected so many people on both sides would be working so hard to get me to leave, without guaranteeing my rights or my family’s safety,” Chen wrote. “No one seemed to be putting pressure on the Chinese Communist Party; instead they were dumping shipping containers of weight onto my shoulders to get me to do their bidding.”

Ultimately, he left the Embassy, filled with “disappointment and despair.” He said he “was overcome by sadness and wept.”

“What troubled me most at the time was this: when negotiating with a government run by hooligans, the country that most consistently advocated for democracy, freedom, and universal human rights had simply given in,” he said.

Those who were involved with the events as they unfolded agree that Hillary's account is off-base.

“I completely support Chen Guangcheng's account,” Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers told LifeSiteNews. “In sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton's self-glorifying version, the actions of the U.S. government were a great disappointment to Chen and to the human rights community.”

“Why did U.S. officials pressure Chen to leave by May 2?” asked Littlejohn, who met Chen's plane when he finally landed on U.S. soil on May 19. “This was the very day that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to arrive in Beijing for trade talks. To all appearances, the State Department under Hillary Clinton was willing to sacrifice one of the great human rights activists of the world in order to conduct unimpeded trade talks.”

Littlejohn and others familiar with the events have told the same story since it occurred.

“The State Department likes to say now that they played some kind of a heroic role,” Littlejohn told LifeSiteNews in an exclusive video interview at the time. “I would dispute that characterization of their actions.”

Bob Fu, the president of China Aid and a longtime associate of Chen, said at the time that Chen Guangcheng said that “he was under enormous pressure to leave the Embassy. Some people almost made him feel he was being a huge burden to the U.S.”

After Chen left for a hospital, he said the State Department did not keep its promises to protect him.

Chen said U.S. officials were not taking his calls, nor had they accompanied him from the embassy to the hospital, as they promised. “The Embassy kept lobbying me to leave and promised to have people stay with me in the hospital,” where his room was surrounded by at least 10 plainclothes guards, he said. “As soon as I checked into the hospital room, I noticed they were all gone.”

“Nobody from the (U.S.) Embassy is here. I don’t understand why. They promised to be here,” he said.

President Obama refused to comment on the matter on April 30.

Days later, Congressional Republicans called a hearing, where Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, and then-Congressman Frank Wolf pressured the Obama administration to fix the “scandal.” Chen telephoned the May 3 hearing, and Bob Fu translated as Chen spoke to him: “I want to meet with Secretary Clinton. I hope I can get more help from her,” he said. “I really am afraid for my other family members’ lives.”

Chen specifically thanked Congressman Smith and other Congressional leaders in his book.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also criticized the Obama administration's handling of the affair.

“Eventually, as a result of efforts on many fronts, the Chinese authorities had no choice but to allow me, my wife and my children to leave for the United States,” Chen wrote last year. He arrived on U.S. soil on May 19 and is now a fellow at The Witherspoon Institute.

This is not the first time Chen has criticized Hillary's book. He disputed Clinton's assertion that Chinese Communist officials had been “scrupulous” about living up to their commitments in a June 24, 2014, op-ed for The Washington Post.

“Not only has the Chinese government relentlessly persecuted members of my family since my departure, it also never investigated its prior abuses, as it committed to do. And it imprisoned my nephew, who remains in jail today,” he wrote. “Clinton and her staff were keenly aware of the attacks on my family.”

Despite the fact that Chen's account undermines a major part of Hillary Clinton's autobiography – and calls into question her judgment and commitment to human rights – it has made few ripples in the U.S. media. The two primary stories have been in Canada's National Post and the Telegraph of London.

“I bet that most of you have never heard about any of this before,” Moe Lane wrote at RedState.com. “And it’s largely because Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and Chris Smith is a Republican.”

The America Rising PAC, a Republican political action committee, commented, “while Clinton hides from the press potentially through the summer, no one will have a chance to ask her why Chen’s account flatly contradicts her own – a story she directly profited from by including it in her book.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook