« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Another Senseless, Preventable Death Lies At The Door of Planned Parenthood

From the Life News website:

A young woman has died after having a second-trimester abortion at a Chicago-area Planned Parenthood clinic. Tonya Reaves, 24, died late Friday night, according to a local CBS television station, of hemorrhage, with a cervical dilation and evacuation, according to the medical examiner’s office following an autopsy after the abortion that claimed her life.

CBS Chicago said Reaves died after the abortion she had at 18 S. Michigan Avenue Planned Parenthood facility. The woman was transported from the Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood abortion clinic to Northwestern Memorial Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 11:20 P.M.

An autopsy conducted Saturday determined that she died from hemorrhage following a Dilation and Evacuation abortion. The D&E abortion method is one employed in pregnancies that have advanced beyond the first trimester. In involves opening the cervix and removing the pre-born baby by dismembering him or her. The Loop Health Center Planned Parenthood advertises abortions up to 18 weeks.

My heartfelt prayers and condolences go out to the family members, including this young lady’s one-year-old son and her twin sister.  I genuinely hope that they will consider following through with requests for an investigation into any acts of negligence on the part of Planned Parenthood.

I’ve documented in other diaries (here, here, here, here and here) how Planned Parenthood has basically been allowed to consider it’s actions as being above the law and why the organization is being permitted to get away with doing this.

For this diary, I think it is important to take a look at what the actions of the Obama administration have been during the course of the past three years.  The following information from the Family Research Council provides an excellent overview:

Mexico City Policy: January 23, 2009 – In one of his first executive actions, President Obama lifted the ban on U.S. funding for international health groups that perform abortions, promote legalizing the procedure, or provide counseling about terminating pregnancies.

Embryonic Stem Cell Announcement: March 9, 2009 – President Obama signed an Executive Order to lift restrictions on human embryonic stem cell experimentation.

Conscience Rule: March 10, 2009 – Obama administration published its proposal to rescind and eliminate the conscience-protecting regulations passed by the Bush administration in January 2009.

Plan B access expanded to 17 year-olds: April 22, 2009 – FDA accepted rather than appealed a federal judge’s order that lifted Bush administration restrictions limiting over-the-counter sales of “Plan B” to women 18 and older. One of “Plan B’s” way of acting is to prevent implantation of a newly conceived embryo, i.e., “Plan B” can kill unborn children.

NIH unveils new human embryonic stem cell experimentation funding guidelines: July 7, 2009 – The new Guidelines provide an incentive for continued destruction of human embryos, to provide new hESC lines for federal taxpayer funding.

Abortion/Reproductive Rights language changes in international meetings: March, 2009  – Overall international organization language changes, in particular on definition of reproductive rights and reproductive health. Began to be evident at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) in March, 2009 and continued through until present.

President’s Budget eliminates abstinence education funding: May, 2009 – President Obama eliminates Community-Based Abstinence Education funding from his budget, replaced by a variety of comprehensive sexuality education programs. At present, he never includes in his annual budget funding for abstinence education, creating a ratio of 24:1 for government funding of comprehensive sex education to abstinence education (a small amount was reinstituted by Congress).

D.C. abortion funding: December 17, 2009 – For the first time in 13 years, funding for abortions is restored in the District of Columbia. President Obama makes this happen by signing Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 into law.

Plan B in Military Hospitals: Feb 8, 2010 – The Obama administration issued a new order for the U.S. military requiring all military hospitals and health centers to stock the morning after pill which can kill unborn children by preventing implantation.

NIH proposes further broadening the definition of “embryonic stem cell”: February 19, 2010 – The National Institutes of Health proposed to allow federal taxpayer funding of more human embryonic stem cell lines, providing incentive for further destruction of human embryos.

Healthcare law: March 23, 2010– President Obama signs “Obamacare” into law.  He also signs an Executive Order (EO) said to ban taxpayer funding of abortion.  In fact, an Executive Order cannot circumvent the text of legislation; the Obama health care plan allows for taxpayer funding of abortion. Later, in a media interview, Rahm Emmanuel, Mr. Obama’s former Chief of Staff, admitted that the EO did nothing to prevent abortion in Obamacare.

FDA panel approval of Ella: June 17, 2010 – FDA panel approves the use of Ella, labeled as an Emergency Contraceptive, but which is identical in chemical and operational modes to the abortion drug, RU-486.

Obama Administration approves Ella: August 13, 2010- Late on a Friday evening in August, in a move designed to avoid press attention, the Obama administration announces approval of Ella. The drug is labeled as an emergency contraceptive, but it can kill the unborn by preventing implantation as well as destroying a baby postimplantation.

Obama Administration weakens conscience protection: February 18, 2011 – The Obama Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) releases revised conscience protections for healthcare workers which significantly weaken protections of conscience for pro-life workers.

President Obama refuses to cut taxpayer funding to abortion-giant Planned Parenthood: April 11, 2011 – The President is willing to decrease family planning money but he will not budge on Planned Parenthood funding, even if it means he must shut down the government.

Obama Administration issues “Women’s Preventive Services” rule (part of Obamacare) which includes abortion drugs: August 1, 2011 – The administration includes Ella, Plan B, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), and “the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives” in the list of items that all insurance companies must cover. They issue a very narrowly defined religious exemption, which will essentially only apply for churches.

HHS denies United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) anti-trafficking grant because they will not refer for abortion: Septmeber, 2011 – HHS gives a competitive grant to programs that scored lower than the USCCB because this group would not refer for abortions.

Obama administration bypasses New Hampshire’s de-funding of abortion giant Planned Parenthood: June, 2011 – New Hampshire voted to de-fund abortion giant Planned Parenthood. In October the Obama administration bypassed this decision by directly awarding a $1 million grant to Planned Parenthood. The state filed a formal protest with HHS.

Obama administration denies Medicaid funding to Texas because the state defunded abortion giant Planned Parenthood: March, 2012 – HHS announces it would not be reissuing its family planning extension waiver for the Texas Women’s Health Program (part of Medicaid) because the state de-funded Planned Parenthood.

Obamacare forces insurance agencies to include drugs that cause abortion: January 20, 2012 – Obama administration solidifies August 1 ruling. Still included are drugs that can cause abortion. And the ruling still provides only the narrowest of religious exemptions.

Obama “compromise” February 10, 2012 – After a national outcry from protesters across the political spectrum, the president announces his “compromise” on the women’s preventive services. In truth, he changes nothing in the actual regulation. In March HHS issues another rule requesting feedback on how to facilitate compromise.

Obamacare regulation issued that forces people to pay for abortion: March 16, 2012:  – In its regulation on abortion exchanges, the Obama administration issues a rule where insurance plans that cover abortion will include an abortion surcharge and a secrecy clause.

President Obama appears in Planned Parenthood promotional video from the White House: March 29, 2012. In a video message recorded for Planned Parenthood’s Action Fund, the president promotes the organization. Last year, PPFA was responsible for the abortion of 340,000 unborn children. He does this in the White House, in the Red Room.

Personnel is Policy: January 2009-present – The president strategically placed abortion activists throughout his administration. Examples include naming the stridently proabortion Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Sec. of Health and Human Services and Senator Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State.

Less well-known players include Ellen Moran, former director of Emily’s List, as the White House Communications Director, and Tina Tchen, former director for NOW, to lead his Women’s Council.

Most recently, in April 2012 the Obama Health and Human Services (HHS) hired former Planned Parenthood spokesperson, Tait Sye, as the Asst. Secretary for Public Affairs for HHS.

Judicial Nominations: January 2009-present- President Obama has nominated many ardent pro-abortion judges to the circuit courts. One of these, Andrew Hurwitz, boasts of having drafted the infamous Roe v. Wade ruling. He named Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. She urged President Clinton to veto the ban on the Partial Birth Abortion.

*Note: this is not an exhaustive list. (emphasis mine)

 

Did you notice the very last comment…this is NOT an exhaustive list?  That single comment alone speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

President Obama obviously supports a pro-abortion position, which most of us who have been paying attention were well of prior to this time.  The abortion industry is a very lucrative business.  And it’s just a “ball of cells”, right?  /sarc

States that have attempted to implement legislation either defunding Planned Parenthood or requiring the organization to adhere to standard practices within the health care industry have been met with retaliation from the Obama administration via threats of having all access to Medicaid funding denied to the state.

In light of the decision that was made by SCOTUS as it pertains to Medicaid expansion, I find myself asking the following question:

Is it possible that a door of opportunity has now opened whereby states could consider taking actions and implementing regulatory measures on a state-by-state basis that would hold Planned Parenthood legally and morally responsible for any and all acts of negligence without fear of retribution from the federal government led by the Obama administration?

Is it possible that the ruling made by SCOTUS accords this potential by means of precedent?

If that is true, leaders of state government should renew their efforts to ensure that citizens within their respective states are protected to the full extent of the law from the actions of an organization that has, at best, proven itself to be far more concerned with income and eugenic activities of the abortion industry itself rather than protecting and preserving a person’s right to life.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    -nt.

    • sparkynsvtp

      It is called Vicarious learning and it has been around since two hunters discovered a sabertooth tiger. One thought it was a nice kittycat and woke it, the other learned vicariously that tigers don’t make nice pets.

      You don’t have to be so stupid as to try every bad thing. I think King Salomon had something to say to that 3000 years ago.

  • Ausonius

    The usual frowning and disgusted 30-and-40-something women populate an ad from BIG BRObama claiming Romney’s positions are extreme “and out of touch.” It has been running for over a week here in Ohio.

    No response yet from Romney’s side.

    Here we have just more proof that deciding to have an abortion is much more serious than deciding e.g. on having a mole removed by a dermatologist. Adjectives like “safe” and “simple” are always used to describe the “procedure” by the pro-infanticide crowd.

    Obama believes in infanticide: his record in Illinois proves it. Partial birth abortion in the latest months has his support:

    From the Washington Post (!) in April 2008:

    “But Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

    See:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html

  • thethinman

    Twenty four – and going to Planned Parenthood – no personal responsibility for getting pregnant and then having her child murdered so she can continue to “dance with the devil”. For those that morn – my sincerest condolences for your loss – but in this life – you sometimes get where you are heading quicker than others.

  • 4dees

    How many people are aware that the Susan G. Komen Foundation (Walk for the Cure, pink ribbons, pink athletic gear for pro teams, etc.) donates many $$$$ annually to Planned Parenthood? They say it is for mammograms, but when you check into the Planned Parenthood offices, you will discover that they do NOT perform mammograms on site. Isn’t it ironic that a group like the Komen Foundation who says they are in the business of “saving lives” is actually giving big bucks annually to a group like Planned Parenthood that is in the business of murdering babies?

    • merrie7137

      Yeah, this was a big deal in the press when Komen tried to stop giving PP money. What kind of sick country do we live in when a cancer charity loses a PR battle with an abortion house?

  • paco12348

    If an abortion had resulted in death after being done in a back alley it would be a criminal offense. With Planned Parenthood it’s an “oh, well”! It’s no wonder America is in such disfavor with the Almighty. We have a sacrificial alter for the unborn.

  • rosegrower

    The fact that Planned Parenthood performed a second-trimester abortion shows that they are nothing more than an abortion factory and had no regard for the life of this young woman. Most responsible medical professionals would have cautioned against aborting this late in the game and would have had emergency protocols in place if she insisted on going through with the procedure. These butchers obviously cared more about squeezing one more reimbursement out of the government and looked at the patient as a commodity. This foreshadows the reality of treatment under Obama(care)tax and should serve as a warning to those who believe that Obama(care)tax will give them concierge medical care.

    • greyeagle

      This happens more than anyone knows at Planned Parenthood. Some of the Doctors working at these facilities are NOT even licensed in the state where the facility is located. One case in point, I t was in a northern state. The Doctor was taking a patient from one state and doing surgery in another, which was against the law and got caught. This is a dangerous procedure and permanent damage can occur. Liberals never mention this of course. I am in the medical field and have been many years.

  • kevdev

    As strongly opposed as I am to the murder of these innocent little lives, one might be able to reason a positive from it. Abortion is one way to reduce the gene pool of those people who’s lifestyle condones it.

  • From ME to You

    In fact if they even give a whisper I’d be amazed.
    Can’t rile the feminists you know!

    Photobucket

  • AzHat

    I see statements to this effect often, and am curious if this is correct:

    “Embryonic Stem Cell Announcement: March 9, 2009 ? President Obama signed an Executive Order to lift restrictions on human embryonic stem cell experimentation.”

    This implies (states?) that there were federal “restrictions” on human embryonic stem cell experimentation. Is this correct? I always thought that there were restrictions on “federal funding” of human embryonic stem cell experimentation.

    It goes directly to the “Science vs. non-Science” argument I have often with Liberals.

    On a barely related note, I have a theory that incidents like the Aurora, CO shooting are becoming more common, not due to more guns, but due to less respect for life. Seems to have picked up speed since early 1973 or so.

    • acat

      Do you believe there are more hurricanes now than there were in, say, 1945 … or do you believe there’s more coverage?

      Do you believe there are more tornadoes now than there were in, say, 1962 .. or do you believe there’s more coverage?

      Prior to .. just to be arbitrary .. 1972 .. the media have been increasingly shrill and sensationalistic, and after some harsh lessons in the following decade regarding counter-suits for fraud and slander, they’ve tended to latch on to events that can’t fight back .. i.e. disasters, natural and man-made.

      Mew

      • AzHat

        Hurricanes and tornadoes don’t target people. There likely were more of them in the past, but… “If a tree falls in the forest…”

        Media coverage has certainly increased on all types of disasters, especially when they involve people.

        My point is that I believe society (and therefore its’ members) do not value life as much as they did in, say the ’50′s. Of course, I’m not a journalist, or a federally granted sociologist so I don’t have the time to go prove my point with mounds of statistics. So, I just spout them on the Internet looking for someone to agree or disagree ;)

        I also believe that guns have been demonized in society’s collective mind over a similar period by an anti-gun media. They used to be just tools, now they’re “evil”.

        There are also many more of us since the ’50′s, also contributing to a higher level of stress…

        At any rate, thanks for following me around today! You can tell how busy I am, huh?

        • acat

          if you look at the literature of the periods following.

          I am not disagreeing with your conclusion, just pointing out that this is not a unique situation.

          Mew

          • AzHat

            Again, if only I had a fat, juicy government grant!

          • AzHat

            It’s key to mass genocide (or infanticide).

            I seem to recall, there was a bit of that in the world wars.

    • lineholder

      Yes, there are “restrictions” that supposedly prevent exchange of funds for fetal tissue harvesting. I deliberately used the word “supposedly” because there is a loophole in the Gift Act that does allow this to occur. Money can exchange hands for services associated with fetal tissue harvesting, such as preparation, storage, transfer, etc. These fees can be rather large in and of themselves.

      This is a realm of activity that goes on behind the scenes, where NIH funds research facilities (via taxpayer funds) and research drives demands for abortions.

      Planned Parenthood is basically THE leader of the abortion industry. They have a vested economic interest in promoting abortions that they would rather hide from the general public. The organization has been claiming that adhering to basic standards of practice that other health care providers are required by law to adhere to for the sake of patient safety would “deny women access to health care services”. No, it wouldn’t. Planned Parenthood simply doesn’t want to be held accountable according to the law and they don’t want to invest the funds required to meet those regulatory requirements.

      Another factor is that PP is seeking self-accreditation status in many states, which means that they will be providing their own oversight. Given what their reluctance has been to implement even basic measures that provide for patient safety…the most likely outcome is that we’ll be seeing more preventable deaths such as the death of Ms. Reaves

      And from both sides of the spectrum, both on the abortion side and on the fetal-tissue harvesting side, this is being supported by taxpayer funds.

      • AzHat

        Thanks for the clarification. Sorta. It’s kinda hard for me to keep up with, like taxes.

        I always thought that the “Embryonic Stem-cell Research” debate was being fought on an uneven playing field. That being that this is about criminalizing ALL “Stem-cell Research”. And, if you ask your average guy on the street he would probably confirm my suspicion.

        “Those damm conservatives want to kill Michael J. Fox by outlawing stem cell research”.

        This starting point makes for some difficult ground to defend. Especially when the media (and others) would conveniently leave out “Embryonic”, not to mention “federal funding of”.

        • lineholder

          There’s new evidence out that indicates that embryonic/fetal tissue research isn’t nearly as productive scientifically as people once believed it would be. The left isn’t going to acknowledge that this evidence exists though.

          But you’re right…trying to defend against those kinds of accusations and claims can be difficult to do.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/07/climate-change-where-you-d-least-expect-it

            In a perverse way this is skillful strategic thinking.

          • lineholder

            But when they distort the outcomes for the sake of deceiving the public so that their chances of succeeding in promoting their own agenda are increased, and they do this by means of taxpayer funding….decreasing our freedoms in the process…

            I don’t know how we can ever succeed in doing it, but we very badly need to get back to a basic foundation of pursuing science for the sake of science rather than the sake of politics. And get government out of it as much as we can!!!

          • AzHat

            n/t

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

            The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present ? and is gravely to be regarded.

            Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

            (Eisenhower’s Farewell Address)

          • lineholder

            As far as I’m concerned, you can threadjack all you like with quotes like this one, LOL!

            Yes, vigilance is always necessary! I think that necessity for vigilance is something that got lost for a while in this country of ours. I’m glad to see it coming back.

          • AzHat

            Yet another “Science/non-Science” issue where “they” have defined the playing field. Global Warming Climate Change.

            They’ll keep expanding that list until it covers every outcome of every issue. And, of course, the only solution they’ll propose is more government control. Maybe this time it’ll work. It’s certainly “due”.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I think of it as a negative externality of the search engine. There are ways to get attention through gaming the search terms that lead to an unfair advantage.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Number of known deaths by illegal abortion, 1972: 58.
    Number of known deaths by legal abortion, 1982: 58.

    The narrative of the back-alley abortion as a gruesome slaughterhouse has long been shown to be a myth, and yet, it’s still used as some sort of bogeyman shoved in the face of those that seek to overturn Roe V. Wade: The Modern Abortion Debate has never been about “women’s health”, it is mostly about narcissism, hedonism, empty shame and guilt.

    The fact is, the numbers of women who die, or who are disfigured and injured from abortion has remained fairly constant through the years, without regard to it’s legal status. In fact, an argument can be made that MORE women die now simply because more abortions are performed.

    After all, the womb, as all women are painfully aware, is a very vascular place. God seems to warn us to tread lightly in such places.

  • PowerToThePeople

    but I find no sympathy in my soul for the woman who decided to murder her baby and ended up paying the ultimate price for her choice. Does not diminish any of the disgusting behavior PP is responsible for, but PP did not make her walk in with the intent of killing a human. I grieve for her family, not for her.

  • godiva

    If I ever need and/or require an abortion I sure wouldn’t as h…k have it performed by an inferior medical service such as “Planned Parenthood!”

    What the circumstances were for this 24-year old mother of extant twins has not been given here and I do not consider it appropriate to “judge” her or her circumstances.

    I do, however, have enough knowledge of “Planned Parenthood,” their incompetent medical expertise, and the disinformation they freely disseminate to a willing and gullible public.

    ?And now despise me if you dare!? [Elizabeth Bennett to Fitzwilliam Darcy, ?Pride and Prejudice? by Jane Austen]

    Godiva

    • lineholder

      It’s a huge distortion of the truth for Planned Parenthood to even remotely convey that what they do is either “noble” or “honorable” by providing a “necessary service” to women (particularly minority women) when the attitude and mindset the organization has is that they don’t even care enough about the lives of the women they supposedly “treat” to ensure that appropriate standards are followed when it comes to providing services.

      Via provision of substandard care, they are preying on the vulnerabilities of minorities, and doing so at taxpayer expense, at the cost of human lives, both of the child and (in case like Ms. Reaves) the life of the mother.

  • Pingback: Cinderella Zartman

  • Pingback: Claretta Weekley

  • Pingback: Jenifer Baiotto

  • Pingback: Stan Benzee

  • Pingback: Lane Reindeau

  • Pingback: buy edu links

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond

  • Pingback: Scottie Coursey

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Investment Opportunities

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: distilling vodka

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: แทงบอล

  • Pingback: πρόσβαση στο διαδίκτυο

  • Pingback: distilling rum

  • Pingback: randki za darmo

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randka przez internet

  • Pingback: MMA guide

  • Pingback: whisky wine

  • Pingback: Upgrade

  • Pingback: Why Not Try These Out

  • Pingback: check this out

  • Pingback: You Can Look Here

  • Pingback: this hyperlink

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives breast enhancement pills

  • Pingback: igra karos online

  • Pingback: working from home jobs uk

  • Pingback: madamelux

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Kaylee Chaidez

  • Pingback: Rayna Milosevic

  • Pingback: Ruben Vossen

  • Pingback: Bipolar Help Hotline | Is Bipolar Hereditary

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: loans & bad credit

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: looking up cell phone numbers

  • Pingback: Chase Schriber

  • Pingback: Heide Lenoue

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: Coretta Barlow

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: Zella Asher

  • Pingback: Shellie Spitler

  • Pingback: Dominick Lipphardt

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: green coffee extract for weight loss

  • Pingback: distilling equipment

  • Pingback: http://wwww.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Car Forum

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: executive jacket

  • Pingback: payday loan topeka

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: bmx bikes

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: portal randkowy