Kansas City, MO — Missouri abortionists argued during a day-long hearing in Federal Court on Monday, that they should be allowed to maintain unsafe conditions at their abortion offices.
Missouri enacted legislation earlier this year that would require abortion clinics to meet minimum safety standards. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri and a Missouri abortionist are challenging the law, claiming that it would be too costly to renovate their facilities in order to comply with the new safety standards, forcing all but one Missouri abortion mill to close.
Abortionist Allen Palmer brought in an architect who told the court that it would take $1.1 million to bring Palmer’s abortion facility up to the new codes.
“One could build a palatial mansion in Missouri for $1.1 million,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If Palmer’s mill is that big of a dump that it would require that much money to meet minimum safety standards, he shouldn’t be operating.”
“These abortionists want to maintain unsafe conditions in order to save money,” said Newman. “That really tells you where their priorities are, and it is not with the health and safety of women. Abortionists want special treatment and exemption from the same laws that every other medical professional must follow. It is because they know if they have to be accountable, they would not be able to continue their shady practices or maintain their profit margins.”
Newman knows first hand what unregulated abortion clinics look like. Last year, Operation Rescue bought and closed Central Women’s Services in Wichita, Kansas, an abortion mill that had never been inspected in its 23-year existence. They discovered appallingly filthy and unsafe conditions, which were documented on video. (Click here to view what an uninspected and unregulated abortion clinic looks like.)
“We don’t support clinic regulations as an end of the matter, but if laws like this can close these horrific abortion mills, we are all for them,” said Newman. “Every human life has value and worth, and while we work toward the goal of total abolition, we recognize that the babies who are scheduled to die today need every protection they can get.”
U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith is scheduled to issue a ruling on the standards law by September 24. In the meantime, a temporary injunction is blocking the law from being enforced.
You can’t make this stuff up! It’d be laughable if it weren’t real! Just goes to show the incredibly insane depth to which American culture has devolved.
Really, Planned Parenthood actually has a good point here. After all, why should a facility in business to kill people have to be safe?
But the truth won’t be denied. And it’s glaringly obvious in the hypocricy of Planned Parenthood. They claim to be health care providers, yet they cry foul and sue when laws stipulate they maintain a level of cleanliness like real health care providers.
So what are you, Planned Parenthood? Health care providers or mass murderers?
The answer is obvious.
Why on earth would any rational person even imagine that people who deliberately, premeditatedly, and cold-bloodedly murder innocent as many innocent children as they can get their greedy, bloody and predatory hands on give the remotest merry damn about human safety???!!!
Planned Parenthood, especially, has not only material gain in mind, but they want to reduce the population as much as they can anyway; so what if they kill the mom along with her baby? It’s a true Hitlary- style “two for one, blue plate special” to them, except for the bad publicity and possible legal hassles that may ensue.
I have heard of women complain of cold, callous, cruel treatment at the hands of these monsters and I can understand that; but what I cannot understand is that some of them actually seem surprised by it; Why, why, why, did they expect anything else? Ladies, for your own sakes, wake up and smell the danger! You would not knowingly allow a serial killer into your home, would you? Well, it isn’t any safer to allow one into your body.
ABORTION IS MURDER, AND IT POISONS EVERY LIFE IT TOUCHES.
Speaking of health care, protect yourself; an ounce of prevention (chastity or childbirth) is well worth your life and the life of your child.
As long as there is a market for something, there will providers. The greater the demand, the higher the cost.
Maybe we need to direct our attention to the education of young girls about exactly what abortion is. The mentality today is play now, pay later, and the repercussions are more than what is expected and the reality of an unplanned pregnancy leads women to take desperate measures which if they had actually been taught the actual process of abortion as they are supposedly taught reproduction they would be more hesitant to seek one. It is just plain ignorance which motivates any girl in that direction. Later is when the regrets come and the only one who benefits is the abortionist and his keepers who have the cash in their pocket. They definitely have no regard for the woman’s health Protect Yourself, An Ounce of Prevention is a start. We need to motivate young girls to seek out information about what abortion actually is while they are at an age of seeking out info about sexuality, and while Planned Parenthood is focusing on this age group.
First all, why are ANY ABORTION MILLS any where UNREGULATED?!!!!
The people of Missouri, Kansas and all states with abortion clinics have a perfect opportunity to rally and organize class action lawsuits against these abortion mills who put the lives of the public in physical and emotional danger everyday!
Every medical clinic is required by state and federal laws to comply with safety regulations or be closed down. Since when is any healthcare facilitiy able to argue that the EXPENSE of being compliant was TOO COSTLY to them and that THEY should be excused from complying with legislative health laws?
This is anarchy if abortionists are given preferential treatment to ignore the laws that every other health-related facility is obligated to comply with!
WHERE are ALL the malpractice lawyers to defend the RIGHTS of women and girls that have been harmed by these unscruplous and uncompliant clinics!
WHERE are the Health and Safety officials and the attorney general whose JOBS are to PROTECT the PUBLIC from these fraudalent operators? Legal action must be filed against state agencies and officials who refuse to cite, prosecute, and shut-down to the fullest extend of the law ANY non-compliant abortion mill.
Has the IRS audited any of these abortion mills to make sure they are paying their payroll and income taxes? Do these clinics comply with the federal Americans Disability Act (ADA) regulations? What about compliance with FULL informed consent rules?
It’s very likely that if abortionists and their clinics are non-compliant in the health safety area, they are most likely non-compliant with their taxes, ADA and INFORMED consent requirements too! (ADA advocates have been extremely successful bringing compliance and/or lawsuits at great expense to non-compliant businesses in many states.)
Becoming compliant will be very costly for these mills. As a result, they will fight any way to skirt the laws. However, keeping these mills in court will be effective in raising their operating expenses to a point that their profits go bye bye.
What goes around, comes around. Money put abortionists in business, and money will put them out of business by means of the growing lawsuits they will have to defend unsuccessfully. NO money is enough to defend the indefensible!
Finally, Kansas and other states should consider starting a petition to recall any state official who refuses to uphold state laws AS INTENDED by their state legislators if all other reasonable avenues are exhausted.
It’s not about women’s rights or women’s health and safety, it’s about all about MONEY and POWER for the abortionists and their supporters PERIOD.
WAKE UP America!
Good post, Mary, though I think the larger question is, “why are any abortion mills anywhere?”…period!
But speaking of abortion dangers, would you look at the time?! It’s getting nigh on October, Breast Cancer Awareness month! Who knows what the most preventable cause of Breast Cancer is? Check out the evidence at AbortionBreastCancer.com…and find out why PP doesn’t want that word going out, either! Hint: “Thar’s gold in them thar ills”…
Aw shucks, I think I’ll just go ahead and post some of the 28 studies linking induced abortion with breast cancer:
There was a higher rate of both spontaneous and induced abortions among breast cancer patients; increased risk ranged from 100 percent to 400 percent among the different subgroups. — M. Segi, I. Fukushima; M. Kurihara; “An Epidemiological Study of Cancer in Japan,” GANN, Vol. 48 (1957)
“There was a significant excess of [cancer] cases reporting one or more abortions.” — S. Yuasa and B. McMahon, “Lactation and Reproductive Histories of Breast-Cancer Patients in Tokyo, Japan,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 42 (1970)
Women with one or more abortions had a cancer risk 50 percent higher than that of women who have not had an abortion; with two or more abortions, the risk rose to 100 percent. — T.M. Lin; K.P. Chen; B. McMahon, “Epidemiologica Characteristics of Cancer in the Breast in Taiwan,” Cancer, Vol. 27 (1970)
Thirty-seven percent of patients who developed breast cancer after menopause have had at least one abortion,
while only 27 percent of women with other cancers reported having had an abortion. — K. Stavarky and S. Emmons,
“Breast Cancer in Pre-Menopausal and Post-Menopausal Women,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 53 (1974)
The rate of breast cancer among women in Finland increased with the number of abortions. — I. Soini, “Risk Factors of Breast Cancer in Finland,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 6 (1977)
Women whose pregnancies lasted four months or less showed a statistically significant increase in breast cancer.
— N.W. Choi; G.R. Howe; A.B. Miller; V. Matthews; R.W. Morgan; L. Munan; J.D. Burch; J. Feather; M. Jain; A. Kelly, “An Epidemiologic Study of Breast Cancer,” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 107 (1978)
A case-controlled study in the North Caucasus, Soviet Union, found an increased risk of 240 percent in women with three or more induced abortions. With one or two induced abortions, the increase in risk was 100 percent. —V.V. Dvoirin and A.B. Medvedev, “The Role of Reproductive History in Breast Cancer Causation,” Methods and Results of Studies of Breast Cancer Epidemiology, Tallinn, Estonia (in Russian) (1978)
“Pregnancies of less than four to five months duration may be associated with an increased risk.” — J.L.Kelsey, “A Review of the Epidemiology of Human Breast Cancer,” Epidemiology Review, Vol 1 (1979)
First-trimester abortion of first pregnancies led to increased risk of 140 percent among women under 32 years of age. — M.C. Pike; B.E. Henderson; J.T. Casagrande; I Rosario; G.E.Gray; “Oral Contraceptive Use and Early Abortion as Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Young Women,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 43 (1981)
Women with one abortion had twice as many recurrences of cancer as those with none; women with two or more abortions had three times as many recurrences of cancer. — H.E. Ownby; S. Martino; L.D. Roi; L. Howard; J. Russo; S. Brooks; M.J. Brennan, “Interrupted Pregnancy as One Indicator of Poor Prognosis in t1, T2, No, Mo Primary Breast Cancer,” Breast Cancer Resources and Treatment, Vol. 3 (1983)
The risk of developing breast cancer was 52 percent higher among women with an induced abortion than for women who had no abortions. — T. Hirohata, T. Shigematsu, A.M.Y. Nomura, “Occurrence of Breast Cancer in Relation to Diet and Reproductive History: A Case-Control Study in Fukuoka, Japan,” National Cancer Institutute, Vol. 69 (1985)
Abortion before a first live birth, after adjusting for other known risk factors, increased the risk of developing breast cancer by 250 percent. — O.C. Hadjimichael, C.A. Boyle, J.W. Meigs, “Abortion Before First Live Birth and Risk of Breast Cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 53 (1986)
The termination of a first pregnancy before 28 weeks increased the risk of cancer by 43 percent; two or more abortions before the first full pregnancy increased the risk by 73 percent; one induced abortion with no live births increased the risk by 285 percent. — M. Ewertz; S.W. Duffy, “Risk of Breast Cancer in Relation to Reproductive Factors in Denmark,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 58 (1988)
Among women who developed breast cancer while pregnant: those who carried pregnancy to term had a 20 % survival rate; women who miscarried received more aggressive treatment and had a 42 % survival rate; but every woman who chose abortion died. — R.M. Clark and T. Chua, “Breast Cancer and Pregnancy: The Ultimate Challenge,” Clinical Oncology of the Royal College of Radiology, Vol. 1 (1989)
The abortion of a first pregnancy led to an increased risk of 90 %, and repeated abortions heightened the risk by 300 %. — H.L. Howe; R.T. Senie; H. Bzduch; P. Herzfeld, “Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Under 40,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 18 (1989)
Women who had an abortion before a live birth had an 88 % greater risk of breast cancer than did women who had a live birth before an abortion. — B.M. Lindefors-Harris; G. Eglund; O. Meirik; L.E. Rutqvist; K. Wiklund, “Risk of Cancer of the Breast After Legal Abortion During First Trimester: A Swedish Register Study,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 299 (1989)
Aborting a first pregnancy led to more aggressive cancer tumors. — H. Olsson; J. Ranstam; B. Baldetorp; S.B. Ewers; M. Ferno; D. Killander; H. Sigurdsson, “Proliferation and DNA Ploidy in Malignant Breast Tumors in Relation to Early Oral Contraceptive Use and Early Abortions,” Cancer, Vol. 67 (1991)
Breast cancers of women who aborted their first pregnancy showed many times the normal rate of INT2—a specific gene associated with breast cancer. — H. Olsson; A. Borg; M. Ferno; J. Ranstam; H. Sigurdsson, “Her-2/neu and INT2 Proto-Oncogene Amplification in Malignant Breast Tumors in Relation to Reproductive Factors and Exposure to Exogenous Hormones,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 83 (1991)
Pro-aborts will be especially interested in fellow “choicer” Dr. Janet Daling’s watershed findings on this…so hurry on over to abortionbreastcancer.com, and learn more that “PP” and their bedfellow the Susan Komen Foundation (aka “they”) don’t want you to know!
It still boggles my mind that animal hospitals are under stricter scrutiny for safety and cleanliness than abortion clinics.
What is WRONG with this picture?
What’s wrong with this picture, Mike?
It’s drawn by the Sebeliuses, Morrisons, Pelosis, Obamas, Clintons… and the indifferent voter living next door– all agents of the culture of death.
Mike, it’s because in abortion clinics you don’t cut into the patients.
Surgical licensing should be for clinics where the doctors cut the patients.
Somg, they don’t cut them, but they sure do rip open that cervix.