Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Abortion Facility Closed in Cleveland, Ohio

Another abortion facility is in trouble--this time in Cleveland, Ohio.


State officials forced an abortion business in Cleveland to close after inspectors found numerous health and safety violations. They found more than a dozen problems at the Center for Women's Health on the city's east side, which prompted officials to reject the center's request for a new state license.

In June, the Ohio Department of Health said CWH did not have a local transfer agreement that would allow it to bring women to a local hospital in cases of botched abortions and other medical emergencies.

The state also said the abortion business failed to meet basic standards for medical care.

Roy Croy, a state health department official who works to oversee ambulatory and surgical care facilities told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, "[There were] six to seven patients where there was no record that their temperature or blood pressure had been taken before the [abortion]. These are things that should be done before you start surgery," he said.

Although other abortion facilities in Cleveland do more abortions, the Center for Women's Health is one of the few to do abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy when women's health issues and complications from the abortion are at their peak.

Read the rest here.

No blood pressure readings? No body temperature records? Doctors’ offices routinely perform such simple tasks for visits involving nothing more serious than a common cold. What kind of moron would fail to engage in such simple practices before a surgery?

Many abortion facilities are not well-regulated and don't want to be--which is strange for an industry that touts "safe" as one of its redeeming qualities and that preaches about how much they care about women's health. Of course, it is a business and can be quite a money making operation. Like any business, greed can take over and encourage corner-cutting. Thank goodness state health department officials discovered this clinic was in violation of basic health practices before anything serious occurred--at least that's my impression.

This particular abortion mill in Cleveland, Ohio, the Center for Women's Health, also performs abortions after twenty weeks of gestation. Approximately two-thirds of babies born at twenty-three weeks do survive. To the left is a picture of a baby at five months gestation. (Source) The reader may draw his own conclusions about whether the person in the photo looks like a human or a clump of cells at this stage of development.

A related story is here.


At 9/13/2006 2:52 PM, Blogger Christopher Taylor said...

Well, the baby looks like both a human and a clump of cells, really. I look like a clump of cells from a certain perspective - all humans are made up of aggregate cells. That's why the "unviable tissue" and "clump of cells" lines are absurd. Babies are simply more vulnerable than I am, but we both need shelter and food. It's just the degree of vulnerability and helplessness that's in question - and the more helpless and vulnerable someone is the more we need to protect them, not the more valid it is to kill them out of convenience. Baby boomers growing older and more feeble need to ponder that point more carefully. The future they create is the future they will suffer from.

At 9/13/2006 3:22 PM, Anonymous Andy said...

In the interest of fairness, the vast majority of people who support abortion rights do not support sketchy clinics like this one, and most of them don't support unlimited abortion of any kind. The trouble is that people are not shown alternatives on the national stage.

I know a number of women that do not believe in abortion legislation simply because they do not believe it is the governments responsibility. They don't actually even believe in the abortions themselves.

At 9/13/2006 6:10 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

I guess it's one's perspective. I believe abortion is murder. Therefore, if the government has the responsibility to legislate that people can't kill each other (a man can't defend killing another man just because it was his "choice" and the other man's life was inconvenient to his own) and if the government has the responsibility to legislate that it is wrong for a man to rape a woman (you rightfully thought the laws were horrible in Pakistan, for example), then the government has every right to legislate against abortion if it is in fact taking an innocent life.

At 9/14/2006 5:41 PM, Anonymous Andy said...

Oh yeah, I know exactly what you're saying. The belief demands it. The problem is no one person can really decide for another where the line is between "just plain life" for lack of a better word and "really human life." I doubt we'll ever have the means to determine that in a non-subjective manner.

My point is simply this. People on the left have a pretty sizeable disrespect for pro-lifers, and run out various offensive examples to "prove" their point.

You're playing the same game here on a lesser level, because the tone of your posts says, "this is what it means to be anything but 100% pro-life in the traditional manner", when in fact this is just a clinic gone wrong that virtually anyone would want to stop. Abortion laws aren't really even in play on this one.

Consider also this latest collegiate gunman. Anti-gun activists are going to use this for months or even years to support their cause, and I bet that is going to make you angry, and for good reason. It's the same game with different examples.

Discussing major overreaches like this one can be a tough thing. It's important to talk about them so that they can be fixed, but I think there has to be some effort made to distance the extreme examples from the core argument at the same time.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home