Born-Alive Baby Dies in Abortion Clinic

[desflood]

Complaint Filed on Behalf of Mother Whose Born-Alive Baby Died at Abortion Clinic
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
April 28, 2005

(1st Add: Provides details on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.)

(CNSNews.com) - A conservative legal group has filed two complaints against a Florida abortion clinic claiming the clinic refused to help a mother whose baby was born alive, despite a law that protects babies "accidentally" born during abortion procedures from being killed or left to die.

The mother, Angele, had gone to the EPOC clinic in Orlando, Fla., to get an abortion. After the first day of the procedure, she was required to return to the clinic the following day for an induced abortion. When her baby was born alive, the woman screamed for help, but the clinic workers refused to help her, according to the Liberty Counsel.

Angele was forced to watch her son Rowan die, and during the incident, no doctors were present at the abortion clinic, the legal group said.

The Health and Human Services recently announced it would take steps to improve compliance with the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act after receiving "testimony that some infants who had been born alive after unsuccessful abortions were left to die."

According to the law, "born alive" means "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion."

"We are hopeful that these complaints will lead to immediate change in the form of discipline against the doctors and revocation of the abortion license for the clinic. But we are also hopeful that these complaints will serve as the catalyst for long-term change," said Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel.

Complaints were filed with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration. The complaint filed with the Florida Department of Health names Dr. Harry Perper, who performed the procedure the first day but was not on hand the second day, as well as Dr. James Pendergraft, who owns and supervises the clinic.

The complaint also details several violations of Florida laws: the complete absence of a doctor during an abortion procedure, causing a death certificate to improperly state that the baby was still-born, and a complete lack of post-operative care.

The complaint filed with the Agency for Health Care Administration lists the same violations of state law as the claim filed with the Florida Department of Health, but it focuses on unsanitary conditions at the clinic.

The clinic "delivery room" had dried blood on the floor and the walls, and Angele saw a used, bloody cotton ball on the floor, the complaint said.

After the procedure, Angele was rushed out the door with no follow-up care, and she did not receive a rhogam shot, which was medically necessary for her given her blood type, the legal group said.

"Abortion clinics are the least regulated medical facilities in the state of Florida. That needs to change. It is a travesty that tattoo parlors are more heavily regulated than abortion clinics," said Staver.

"These doctors need to be held accountable for their actions, and we intend to pursue these complaints to that end. Part of promoting a culture of life in America means holding abortion doctors and clinics accountable when they violate the law," he concluded.

[travis2]

Sick.

[The Ressurrected One]

Sick.
And illegal. Let's hope they're made an example of.

When her baby was born alive, the woman screamed for help, but the clinic workers refused to help her, according to the Liberty Counsel.
I don't see how anyone can read that and still be pro-abortion (or, in the case of Manny, pro-choice).

[Kori Ellis]

One weird thing about this story is this ....


Angele was forced to watch her son Rowan die, and during the incident, no doctors were present at the abortion clinic, the legal group said.

If she was having an abortion, why would she name the baby?

[Clandestino]

One weird thing about this story is this ....



If she was having an abortion, why would she name the baby?

maybe she named him after the abortion... very weird indeed...

[Spurminator]

If true, then this wasn't an abortion, so I don't really think it's even a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue.

Of course, CNS doesn't really provide any response from the clinic's perspective.

[desflood]

One weird thing about this story is this ....



If she was having an abortion, why would she name the baby?
People who have stillborns name their babies postmortem. She obviously had a big change of heart once she saw that what she was getting rid of was a baby, not just some lump of tissue, and it's entirely possible she named her son after he died. I don't think it's that unusual.

[Kori Ellis]

People who have stillborns name their babies postmortem. She obviously had a big change of heart once she saw that what she was getting rid of was a baby, not just some lump of tissue, and it's entirely possible she named her son after he died. I don't think it's that unusual.

Sure, people name their stillborns because they were intending on having the baby. I cannot imagine that she decided to name a baby before she aborted it. So yes, she named it afterward. Maybe I'm nuts but that seems extremely unusual to me. I think there's something weird to this story besides the obvious. Perhaps they had to name it because they had to file a death certificate. But it's weird.

[The Ressurrected One]

One weird thing about this story is this...
If she was having an abortion, why would she name the baby?
Because it survived the "procedure."

"If true, then this wasn't an abortion,..."
Really, what was it then? Do you have any idea how many abortions result in a still living fetus?

"...so I don't really think it's even a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue."
That's convenient.

"Of course, CNS doesn't really provide any response from the clinic's perspective.
Yeah, I agree, it would have been better had they printed the clinc's "no comment."

[The Ressurrected One]

Sure, people name their stillborns because they were intending on having the baby. I cannot imagine that she decided to name a baby before she aborted it. So yes, she named it afterward. Maybe I'm nuts but that seems extremely unusual to me. I think there's something weird to this story besides the obvious. Perhaps they had to name it because they had to file a death certificate. But it's weird.
Well, Kori, I'm betting the mother didn't have the vaguest notion it would be delivered kicking and breathing and alive.

The baby deserved a name and a burial. It also deserves justice.

[Spurminator]

Really, what was it then? Do you have any idea how many abortions result in a still living fetus?

I wouldn't define it as an abortion unless the fetus was dead (or unavoidably on the brink of death), but that's semantics. You know what I meant. I think that if the mother changes her mind at any time while the fetus is alive, the fetus should be treated as any sick patient brought to an emergency room on the brink of death.

In most cases, though, I would imagine there's nothing the clinic can do to save the child. If these clinics could regularly save fetuses removed from the womb that early, you would see it happening more often.


Yeah, I agree, it would have been better had they printed the clinc's "no comment."

Yes, it would have, because then we'd know they actually contacted the clinic for their point of view, instead of writing up a one-sided agenda-driven article. Basic journalism. And they should know that seeing as they're owned by an alledged "media watchdog group" that looks for the slightest instances of biased stories in the news.

I'd be curious to hear if anything COULD have been done, and I'd also like to hear what the mother and her conservative legal team thinks SHOULD have been done... for example, should the fetus have been re-inserted into her womb?

This article offers nothing but emotional manipulation and very few hard facts. We'll just have to wait and find out if this goes anywhere.

[The Ressurrected One]

I wouldn't define it as an abortion unless the fetus was dead (or unavoidably on the brink of death), but that's semantics.
Sounds to me like you may be describing a murder.

You know what I meant. I think that if the mother changes her mind at any time while the fetus is alive, the fetus should be treated as any sick patient brought to an emergency room on the brink of death.
But, isn't is just a piece of tissue? At what point does it become a life worth saving -- when the mother says so? Wow! That's a new twist to the abortion debate -- "Mothers are God, get to determine whether extracted tissue is human or not!" I can see the headlines now.

In most cases, though, I would imagine there's nothing the clinic can do to save the child.
In most cases? Just how many cases of aborted children squirming and tryingn to breathe are you willing to tolerate in defense of "choice?"

If these clinics could regularly save fetuses removed from the womb that early, you would see it happening more often.
That's both naive and disheartening.

You honestly believe a clinic dedicated to abortions, probably staffed by strong pro-abortionist employees and doctors is going to accurately report the number of aborted babies they've let just die in a sink?

They know such information would sink the "pro-choice" movement...and, quite frankly, so does everyone in this forum.


Yes, it would have, because then we'd know they actually contacted the clinic for their point of view, instead of writing up a one-sided agenda-driven article. Basic journalism. And they should know that seeing as they're owned by an alledged "media watchdog group" that looks for the slightest instances of biased stories in the news.
You have a point here. I'd love to hear the clinic's side of the story.

I'd be curious to hear if anything COULD have been done,...
Yes, the baby could have been left in the womb.

and I'd also like to hear what the mother and her conservative legal team thinks SHOULD have been done... for example, should the fetus have been re-inserted into her womb?
How 'bout have never been removed. I'm not relieving the mother of her culpability here but, it's well known -- and this is a prime example -- that pregnant women are rarely told of the chance a baby could survive the procedure. If so, they might make a different choice.

This article offers nothing but emotional manipulation and very few hard facts. We'll just have to wait and find out if this goes anywhere.
Enough facts to warrant investigation. And, I agree on your second statement.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, I think this story is bogus. Besides CNS News, a shady right-wing news source at best ( shades of the Gannon run Talon News perhaps?), a google search for other sources of this story don't exist. Seems that the writer tried to styme research of this story by not revealing the mothers full name thus the, 'The mother, Angele'.

A google search of the name Angele, EPOC clinic in Orlando, and Florida Department of Health and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration turned up nothing impertenant. Kinda strange for a story that the right could use to attack women right to choice.

[Spurminator]

Sounds to me like you may be describing a murder.

I would describe it the same way I would describe a hospital allowing someone without Health Insurance to die. But that's a whole other discussion.


But, isn't is just a piece of tissue? At what point does it become a life worth saving -- when the mother says so? Wow! That's a new twist to the abortion debate -- "Mothers are God, get to determine whether extracted tissue is human or not!" I can see the headlines now.

I don't believe it's just a tissue and never have. I've never used the scientific argument of human vs. non-human because I believe they're human, and even if they aren't, they will eventually be.

My argument has always been from the perspective of the government's involvement in forcing a mother to see her pregnancy to its fruition. My argument would be the same whether we're talking about an embryo or a 5-year-old child that somehow finds its way into a mother's womb.


You honestly believe a clinic dedicated to abortions, probably staffed by strong pro-abortionist employees and doctors is going to accurately report the number of aborted babies they've let just die in a sink?

They know such information would sink the "pro-choice" movement...and, quite frankly, so does everyone in this forum.

Your have a convenient view of "pro abortionists" that seems to imply that they are in the business to kill babies. The purpose is to end pregnancies, and right now we are not scientifically advanced enough to reliably end pregnancies early while also saving the babies. If we could, you can bet abortion doctors would be on board.

And if you need a sinister reason to help you imagine this scenario, think of the capital they could gain by providing abortion services and fetal health care.


How 'bout have never been removed.

Ah, so they're suing the clinic for performing an abortion. This is going to go really well for them.


I'm not relieving the mother of her culpability here but, it's well known -- and this is a prime example -- that pregnant women are rarely told of the chance a baby could survive the procedure. If so, they might make a different choice.

No disagreement here. They should be counseled more thoroughly than women who are counceled before having cosmetic surgery done.

[Shelly]

Did I miss something? Was she having a late term abortion? How far along was she?

[The Ressurrected One]

Did I miss something? Was she having a late term abortion? How far along was she?
From what I can tell, it was just your everyday run of the mill abortion. You know if they'd pick those little puppies apart in-utero, like they used to, we wouldn't have them coming out trying to breathe and struggling to live.

[desflood]

From what I read in the original article on the website, the baby was 23 weeks.

[desflood]

Sorry, 22 weeks.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44027

[The Ressurrected One]

Here's another article with pictures of Rowan

Warning, not for the faint of heart

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43962

I find it incredible that a woman could know a 22 week baby looks like that and could still go ahead with the procedure...

[NeoConIV]

I find it incredible that a woman could know a 22 week baby looks like that and could still go ahead with the procedure...
Nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing.

[The Ressurrected One]

Nothing surprises me anymore. Nothing.
I intentionally avoided the word surprise...

[NeoConIV]

I intentionally avoided the word surprise...
Good point.

[Nbadan]

:lol

You two are nuts. WorldNetDaily and the Christian News Service are not legitimate news sources. Either the rest of the main-stream media has collectively decided to avoid this story or more than likely, it's not real!.

Independent Reproductive planning centers like P.P. will not do an abortion after the first trimester. Too many lawsuits. A mothers health must be in danger for a private physician to do a abortion after the first 16 weeks for many of the same reasons.

[Kori Ellis]

Independent Reproductive planning centers like P.P. will not do an abortion after the first trimester.

Planned Parenthood does abortion up to 24 weeks.

[Nbadan]

Planned Parenthood does abortion up to 24 weeks.

Technically, your right, but in some states after the first trimester a independent second physician must also be present to care for any viable fetus and can only be waivable if the mothers heath is in danger...


In Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (476 U.S. 747 (1986)), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state may require that a second physician be present at the abortion of a viable fetus to care for it should it be born alive, but that requirement must be waivable in a medical emergency.

Meanwhile, the same immature adolecents who Righties blame for not taking more personal control over their life situations are 30% more likely to wait until after the first 13 weeks to seek an abortion...


Adolescents are more likely than older women to obtain abortions later in pregnancy. Adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions performed after the first trimester (CDC, 2003).

Among women under age 15, nearly one in four abortions are performed at 13 or more weeks' gestation (CDC, 2003).

The very youngest women, those under age 15, are more likely than others to obtain abortions at 21 or more week's gestation (CDC, 2003).

Common reasons why adolescents delay abortion until after the first trimester include fear of parents' reaction, denial of pregnancy, and prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner (Paul et al., 1999). In addition, adolescents may have irregular periods (Friedman et al., 1998), making it difficult for them to detect pregnancy. Also, as previously noted, state laws requiring parental consent or court-authorized bypass for minors often cause delays.

Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml)

In some states, like I mentioned before, the definition for when a fetus is viable has become so muddled that most doctors won't touch a fetus after the first 13 weeks of first trimester.

[desflood]

Follow-up.

Autopsy Contradicts Woman's Botched Abortion Claim

POSTED: 12:04 pm EDT April 29, 2005
UPDATED: 5:01 pm EDT April 29, 2005

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Channel 9 has uncovered new details about a woman's claim that a local abortion clinic botched a late term abortion. She says the infant was born and later died.

EPOC Clinic

Friday afternoon, the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office announced that they reconsidered this case and did perform an autopsy. They found the baby, who the mother named Rowin, was not born alive.

"These allegations are nothing more than an attempt to attack those medical professionals and the staff who perform medical termination services," commented EPOC clinic spokesperson Marti MacKenzie.

Friday, the clinic at the center of the controversy defended itself against allegations that an aborted baby was born alive and allowed to die, suggesting the woman who made the claim lied.


This image is taken from a pre-recorded interview with the woman making the claims.

"I can't get into the motive of why anyone is saying anything, but Doctor Pendergraft says it absolutely never happened," said MacKenzie.

Thursday, attorneys for the woman making the claim released a pre-recorded interview with her. She claims staffers at the EPOC Clinic did nothing to help her child after she believed he was born alive and she had a sudden change of heart.

"I saw my son, Rowin, move. Of course, my heart stopped and I screamed very loudly," the woman said in the interview.

A clinic spokesperson said they could not comment on specifics of the case.

The Medical Examiner's Office said they performed an autopsy, but did not perform toxicology tests. An official complaint filed with the state claims a doctor failed to administer a drug called digoxin, which would have killed the unborn child before delivery.

"It is very easy, through a toxicology report, to find out if that drug is in Rowin," said pro-life activist Rev. Patrick Mahoney.

The fact that no toxicology screening was done may be the one thing that keeps this dispute from ending now. The woman's attorney has suggested hiring a private pathologist to perform the toxicology. They have not said yet if that's what they plan to do now.

[Nbadan]

Friday afternoon, the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office announced that they reconsidered this case and did perform an autopsy. They found the baby, who the mother named Rowin, was not born alive.

I would not be surprised if this lady made the whole thing up. Nobody names a fetus they plan on aborting. Clearly, she was not of sane mind when she made the decision to continue with the procedure. Perhaps a phychological evaluation of the patient is in order.

[desflood]

Believe it or not, Dan, there is a bit of emotion involved in such a thing. She probably saw what she had really done (too late, of course) and became hysterical. I was under the impression that patients are supposed to be evaluated before an abortion?

[Nbadan]

Believe it or not, Dan, there is a bit of emotion involved in such a thing. She probably saw what she had really done (too late, of course) and became hysterical. I was under the impression that patients are supposed to be evaluated before an abortion?

I'll leave it up to the attending phycians to decide whether or not this was a viable fetus, and so far all indications are that it was not. Toxicology tests not withstanding. Of course abortion is very emotional, but its not like anyone druged her or forced her to have this abortion. She made the decision of her own free will. If she had any doubts about her decision it was already too late.

[The Ressurrected One]

I notice the article doesn't state how they know the baby wasn't born alive and, at 22 weeks, why wouldn't they do toxicology to verify the woman's claim that digoxin wasn't used?

Frankly, I see the article attempting to exonerate the clinic as more suspicious than the originals...

[ChumpDumper]

I notice the article doesn't state how they know the baby wasn't born aliveAll one has to do is check the lungs. Even you could figure that one out. OK, maybe not.

[The Ressurrected One]

All one has to do is check the lungs. Even you could figure that one out. OK, maybe not.
Just because the baby wasn't able to take its first breath doesn't mean it didn't emerge trying to breathe, moving, and struggling -- with a pulse.

My daughter didn't breathe for almost two minutes due to a blocked trachea...if she'd died, her lungs wouldn't have told you anything either.

Try again?

[ChumpDumper]

They could look at the trechea too, genius.

Are you accusing the ME of a cover-up?

Come out and say it.

[The Ressurrected One]

They could look at the trechea too, genius.

Are you accusing the ME of a cover-up?

Come out and say it.
I'm saying an autopsy wouldn't necessarily show the child emerged from the uterus dead or alive. Particularly if it only lived for a few minutes after birth -- which probably means it wasn't doing any of those things a baby does, post-partum, to stay alive (which by the way is one of the mother's complaints -- that no one would help the baby) and, therefore, might to a medical examiner look like it was born dead.

I'm accusing you of stupidity...you couldn't cover up a grain of sand.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saying an autopsy wouldn't necessarily show the child emerged from the uterus dead or alive.Are you a medical examiner? How many autopsies have you done on fetuses?

[The Ressurrected One]

Are you a medical examiner? How many autopsies have you done on fetuses?
No, but, I've been present at about 20. And, I spent about 7 years in the emergency medical field...

Your qualifications?

[ChumpDumper]

NoThat's all that's needed.

I'm not the one questioning the findings of the ME.

You are.

Tell me the ME's role in this cover up.

Or what he missed.

You sure can tell alot from one sentence in a newspaper article can't you -- it's like you examined the fetus yourself.

[The Ressurrected One]

That's all that's needed.

I'm not the one questioning the findings of the ME.

You are.

Tell me the ME's role in this cover up.
I'm telling you they didn't say how the ME knew it was born dead. That was my question.

That's a very difficult call particularly on an infant that died so soon after birth (unless, as you said it drew a breath)...and, yes Virginia, there are ME's that have agendas. Abortion has polarized the entire country.

Another thing. The mother was present at the event and, barring some revelation that she is lying, said the baby moved. It's plausible. The ME wasn't there.

[Das Texan]

there seems to be a hell of a lot of missing pieces in this story.


maybe once all the pieces are put together we will get the real answer to what the hell actually happened.


but mothers dont name kids they plan on aborting, that much is pretty much well known fact.

[The Ressurrected One]

there seems to be a hell of a lot of missing pieces in this story.

maybe once all the pieces are put together we will get the real answer to what the hell actually happened.

but mothers dont name kids they plan on aborting, that much is pretty much well known fact.
Mothers don't get abortions planning on seeing them writhe and struggle to live, either. I'm sure, if it happened the way she said, it was horribly traumatic and might just cause some guilt. Enough to name the baby and give it a proper burial, I suspect.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm telling you they didn't say how the ME knew it was born dead.So you filled it with your conspiracy theory to fit your agenda.
Another thing. The mother was present at the event and, barring some revelation that she is lying, said the baby moved. It's plausible.It's clear whom you believe and whom you do not. I'm completely content to wait it out.

[The Ressurrected One]

So you filled it with your conspiracy theory to fit your agenda.It's clear whom you believe and whom you do not. I'm completely content to wait it out.
No, given the uncertainty with which I know such determinations are made, it is irresponsible journalism not to say how the medical examiner knew the infant was born dead in direct conflict with the mother's story.

I'm complaining about the journalist, not the ME.

Okay, our contentment is irrelevant. We're not driving the story...so, yes, we'll just have to wait. But, as far as you being content with waiting, a few posts ago, you seemed ready to accept the ME's determination at face value and totally discount the mother's account. That's not very patient, is it?

[ChumpDumper]

No, given the uncertainty with which I know such determinations are made, it is irresponsible journalism not to say how the medical examiner knew the infant was born dead in direct conflict with the mother's story.I don't think that at all. The ME's autopsy contradicts the mother's story, that's the point and quite likely all that could really be said give the time and space constraints of newspaper articles. It could be the only information that was released at the time.

Stories develop. Give it time.

[The Ressurrected One]

I don't think that at all. The ME's autopsy contradicts the mother's story, that's the point and quite likely all that could really be said give the time and space constraints of newspaper articles. It could be the only information that was released at the time.

Stories develop. Give it time.
And, the mother's account contradicts the ME. Who was present at the event?

Really? That's all that could be said? The reporter couldn't have asked the ME, "But sir, the mother claims the baby was alive at birth, how can you be certain it was born dead?"

Seems a reasonable question given the circumstances. Maybe the question was asked and the reporter didn't like the answer.

[The Ressurrected One]

As an example of selective reporting - from another post:

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html) — specifically noting a comment by former senior State Department counterterrorism official Larry Johnson — quoted:

"They [The administration and Bush State Department] are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing."

Now, let's look at Larry Johnson's (yes, the same Larry Johnson) blog (http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/04/goodby_patterns.html) from April 14, 2005:


"It is tough to argue we are winning the war on terrorism when the numbers in the official Government report will show the largest number of incidents ever recorded since the State Department started reporting on terrorist incidents. In the Secretary's defense, however, the sharp jump in numbers has more to do with a change in methodololgy of counting rather that an actual surge in Islamic extremist activity. In fact, if you take time to parse the numbers, the actual scope of terrorism by Islamic extremists in 2004 appeared to decline relative to the attacks during 2003 (except for Iraq)."

Did the Washington post conveniently, deliberately, or accidentally omit Mr. Johnson's qualification? Could the medical examiner, in the subject of this thread, similarly been taken out of context? Just a question.

[ChumpDumper]

you seemed ready to accept the ME's determination at face value and totally discount the mother's account.Wrong. I accept that it contradicts the mother's story. That's it. As more information is known, I'll consider that too.

You can't find my saying anywhere that the mother is full of crap. I personally don't think something like this could be staged if true, and I would be for outlawing abortion if I knew every kid born was guaranteed a fair shot at a real life and women wouldn't be going back to coathangers if that came to pass.

[The Ressurrected One]

All one has to do is check the lungs. Even you could figure that one out. OK, maybe not.
One would assume the ME did check the lungs. Given that, this post seems to suggest you buy the ME's version over the mother's.

[ChumpDumper]

One would assume the ME did check the lungs. Given that, this post seems to suggest you buy the ME's version over the mother's.And you buy the mother's, right? I said I haven't drawn any hard and fast conclusions. You obviouisly have.

[The Ressurrected One]

And you buy the mother's, right? I said I haven't drawn any hard and fast conclusions. You obviouisly have.
I see no reason to not believe the mother. She described the incident in plausible detail. Presuming she's never witnessed this before, it was well scripted if falsified.

All we have to counter is an unqualified statement from the ME.

Pardon me if I'm not convinced.

But, if they qualify the medical examiner's statement in an equally plausible manner, yeah, I could be persuaded. Right now, I'm believing the mother.

[The Ressurrected One]

I looked again at the article that started this debate over the ME's findings. They didn't even quote the medical examiners office...the reporter characterized their statement.


Friday afternoon, the Orange County Medical Examiner's Office announced that they reconsidered this case and did perform an autopsy. They found the baby, who the mother named Rowin, was not born alive.

Notice there's nothing in quotes. If they announced, wouldn't it have been more effective to re-print the announcement? And, considering the paragraph is followed by a quoted statement, attacking the mother, makes this suspect.

[The Ressurrected One]

"These allegations are nothing more than an attempt to attack those medical professionals and the staff who perform medical termination services," commented EPOC clinic spokesperson Marti MacKenzie.

And from the same article:

A clinic spokesperson said they could not comment on specifics of the case.
What's up with that?

[ChumpDumper]

Notice there's nothing in quotes. If they announced, wouldn't it have been more effective to re-print the announcement?Why? Why reprint an entire statement when one sentence will do for the space contstraints imposed on you? Besides, shortening that entire statement to one sentence gives you all that space at the end to declare the issue still in dispute because of the absence of toxicolgy tests. A truly biased reporter wouldn't have left the door open.

[The Ressurrected One]

yeah, you can see they are on the defensive. if they are found to not have given this drug, they will be facing murder charges.

abortion, especially late term, will become extinct.
You're right, there is a lot at stake here.

[ChumpDumper]

Dose that make this a medical negligence issue or an abortion rights issue?

[Bandit2981]

it makes it a CAPITAL MURDER ISSUE
yeah? who are you going to execute?

[ChumpDumper]

it makes it a CAPITAL MURDER ISSUENah, negligent homicide at best -- and that's if it ever went to trial. If every fact were true they'd be lucky to get a manslaughter plea.

[The Ressurrected One]

Nah, negligent homicide at best -- and that's if it ever went to trial. If every fact were true they'd be lucky to get a manslaughter plea.
I agree...unless, abortion becomes illegal. Then, it's murder. Probably not capital murder, but intentional murder.

[ChumpDumper]

unless, abortion becomes illegalCan't charge them for something they did before the law changed.

[The Ressurrected One]

Can't charge them for something they did before the law changed.
I wasn't talking about this specific case.

[ChumpDumper]

We were.

[The Ressurrected One]

We were.
Oh well, I'm not constrained by your limited view.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey if you want to make every scared teenage girl with a coathanger a felon, be my guest. Outlawing abortion would be the catalyst for a revival of the Democratic Party. Tread lightly.

[The Ressurrected One]

Hey if you want to make every scared teenage girl with a coathanger a felon, be my guest. Outlawing abortion would be the catalyst for a revival of the Democratic Party. Tread lightly.
A chance I'm willing to take...more babies would be born alive.

This is along the lines of all the other Democratic politics of fear. Coathangers...oooooo!

So, you don't think illegal abortions will join the 21st century and maybe use the abortion pill and other more advanced ways of killing babies? Just because it's made illegal doesn't mean the lawbreakers will have to resort to antiquated methods of killing their babies...I'm sure there'll be "altruistic" abortionists on the black market.

[ChumpDumper]

more babies would be born alive.Then what?

[The Ressurrected One]

Then what?
The American conscience will be clear.