DA: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors

StacyJ

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,840
Points
0
This is truly horrific!!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110119/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_clinic_investigation\

DA: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors


Associated Press – 1 hr 27 mins ago
PHILADELPHIA – A doctor whose abortion clinic was described as a filthy, foul-smelling "house of horrors" that was overlooked by regulators for years was charged Wednesday with murder, accused of delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was also charged with murder in the death of a woman who suffered an overdose of painkillers while awaiting an abortion.

In a nearly 300-page grand jury report filled with ghastly, stomach-turning detail, prosecutors said Pennsylvania regulators ignored complaints of barbaric conditions at Gosnell's clinic, which catered to poor, immigrant and minority women in the city's impoverished West Philadelphia section.

Prosecutors called the case a "complete regulatory collapse."

"Pennsylvania is not a Third World country," the district attorney's office declared in the report. "There were several oversight agencies that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago."

Gosnell, 69, was arrested and charged with eight counts of murder in all. Nine of Gosnell's employees — including his wife, a cosmetologist who authorities say performed abortions — also were charged.

Prosecutors said Gosnell made millions of dollars over three decades performing thousands of dangerous abortions, many of them illegal late-term procedures. His clinic had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, a family physician not certified in obstetrics or gynecology, prosecutors said.

At least two women died from the procedures, while scores more suffered perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, authorities said.

Under Pennsylvania law, abortions are illegal after 24 weeks of pregnancy, or just under six months, and most doctors won't perform them after 20 weeks because of the risks, prosecutors said.

In a typical late-term abortion, the fetus is dismembered in the uterus and then removed in pieces. That is more common than the procedure opponents call "partial-birth abortion," in which the fetus is partially extracted before being destroyed. Prosecutors said Gosnell instead delivered many of the babies alive.

He "induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord," District Attorney Seth Williams said.

Gosnell referred to it as "snipping," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors estimated Gosnell ended hundreds of pregnancies by cutting the spinal cords, but they said they couldn't prosecute more cases because he destroyed files.

"These killings became so routine that no one could put an exact number on them," the grand jury report said. "They were considered 'standard procedure.'"

Defense attorney William J. Brennan, who represented Gosnell during the investigation, said: "Obviously, these allegations are very, very serious."

The grand jury report came out a day after new Republican Gov. Tom Corbett took office. Spokesman Kevin Harley pledged that Corbett's administration, through his new health secretary, would do more to oversee such clinics.

"What needs to be done is regulators, whether on the local or state or federal level, need to properly regulate, inspect and do their jobs," Harley said. "The safety of our citizens should be first and foremost."

Authorities raided Gosnell's clinic early last year in search of drug violations and stumbled upon "a house of horrors," Williams said. Bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses "were scattered throughout the building," the district attorney said. "There were jars, lining shelves, with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose."

Prosecutors said the place reeked of cat urine because of the animals that were allowed to roam freely, furniture and blankets were stained with blood, instruments were not properly sterilized, and disposable medical supplies were used over and over.

Gosnell didn't advertise, but word got around. Women came from across the city, state and region for illegal late-term abortions, authorities said. They paid $325 for first-trimester abortions and $1,600 to $3,000 for abortions up to 30 weeks. The clinic took in $10,000 to $15,000 a day, authorities said.

"People knew near and far that if you needed a late-term abortion you could go see Dr. Gosnell," Williams said.

White women from the suburbs were ushered into a separate, slightly cleaner area because Gosnell believed they were more likely to file complaints, Williams said.

Few if any of the sedated patients knew their babies had been delivered alive and then killed, prosecutors said. Many were first-time mothers who were told they were 24 weeks pregnant, even if they were much further along, authorities said.

Prosecutors said Gosnell falsified the ultrasound examinations that determine how far along a pregnancy is, teaching his staff to hold the probe in such a way that the fetus would look smaller.

Gosnell sometimes joked about the babies, saying one was so large he could "walk me to the bus stop," according to the report.

State regulators ignored complaints about Gosnell and the 46 lawsuits filed against him, and made just five annual inspections, most satisfactory, since the clinic opened in 1979, authorities said. The inspections stopped completely in 1993 because of what prosecutors said was the pro-abortion rights attitude that set in after Democratic Gov. Robert Casey, an abortion foe, left office.

Williams accused state Health Department officials of "utter disregard" for the safety of women undergoing abortion, and said the testimony of agency officials "enraged" the grand jury. But he said he could find no criminal offenses with which they could be charged, in part because too much time has elapsed.

"These officials were far more protective of themselves when they testified before the grand jury. Even (Health Department) lawyers, including the chief counsel, brought private attorneys with them — presumably at government expense," the report said.

The state's reluctance to investigate, under several administrations, may stem partly from the sensitivity of the abortion debate, Williams said. Nonetheless, he called Gosnell's conduct a clear case of murder.

"A doctor who with scissors cuts into the necks, severing the spinal cords of living, breathing babies who would survive with proper medical attention commits murder under the law," he said. "Regardless of one's feelings about abortion, whatever one's beliefs, that is the law."

Four clinic employees were also charged with murder, and five more, including Gosnell's wife, Pearl, with conspiracy, drug and other crimes. All were in custody. Gosnell's wife performed extremely late-term abortions on Sundays, the report said.

One of the murder charges against Gosnell involves a woman seeking an abortion, Karnamaya Mongar, who authorities said died in 2009 because she was given too much of the painkiller Demerol and other drugs.

Gosnell wasn't at the clinic at the time. His staff administered the drugs repeatedly as they waited for him to arrive at night, as was his custom, the grand jury found.

Mongar and her husband, Ash, had fled their native Bhutan and spent nearly 20 years in camps in Nepal. They had three children. A man who answered the phone Wednesday at a listing for Ash Mongar in Virginia did not speak English, while their daughter did not immediately return a message.

The malpractice suits filed against Gosnell include one over the death of a 22-year-old Philadelphia woman, a mother of two, who died of a bloodstream infection and a perforated uterus in 2000. Gosnell sometimes sewed up such injuries without telling the women about the complications, prosecutors said.

Gosnell earned his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and is board certified in family practice. He started, but did not finish, a residency in obstetrics-gynecology, authorities said.

Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore said: "He does not know how to do an abortion. Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do."

___
 
I only managed to read a lil bit & couldn't read
anymore. Karma will get him.
 
He doubtlessly made a ton of money with these "underground abortions." Theoretically brilliant as a business scheme, albeit morally repulsive, yet practically idiotic...did he really think he could go on forever doing these late-term abortions without getting caught? (Perhaps he thought he could blackmail the women entering his "facility" with the illegality of the service they requested of him?) He also had the nerve to keep the evidence abundant, which tells us he was in it for more than just the money--there must have been some sort of psychological thrill in conducting the abortions in the manner he did, slicing the babies with scissors, et cetera. Not only that, but he was probably arrogant enough to believe he would never get caught (hence the collection of damning evidence such as fetuses and feet), since he thought most of his clients to be resource-less idiots, as proven by the shoddy conditions under which he operated. (Although he was more afraid of white suburban women--but obviously not enough to totally desist.) Indeed, the brutal methods he chose to perform the abortions tell us he derived some sort of sadistic enjoyment from them. Apparently his wife was in on it too--how deep or how far was she in it, though? Was she attracted to the large sums of money flowing in from the illegal abortions, or was she, like her husband, also in it for the torturous/sadistic nature of the procedures themselves? This, of course, would tell us the degree to which she was guilty of these offences. Perhaps she was afraid of her husband? (I find that unlikely.)

Whatever the outcome, this is sure to be a very politically charged trial, and will make controversial news for weeks to come.

What do others think, besides the obvious "how awful?"
 
I'm Pro choice in the matter of abortion.....but what this guy did.....was barbaric!
 
A person, who doesn't want children should not have children in the first place or use strong precaution. Some don't use any. If the 'father' forces her to resort to this - this being a barbaric thing also -, she should leave that person. Abortion is murder - not talking about the (involuntary) miscarriage. The worst crime is a mother choosing to end the life of her offspring because of her own irresponsibility/immaturity. Nobody in this life has the right to take the life of the innocent, be they embryos or faetuses. That's the most cruel thing to be done - acting upon the life of the most vulnerable and defenseless, who have yet no means to oppose the unthinkable. If the mother, or rather, mere carrier, thinks she can't be one at any costs, then she should at least deliver that innocent being (into the world) and give them to adoption.

To think others too are in favor of such crimes - choosing between keeping or aborting a baby, meaning killing lives - is unsettling. Disturbing, really.

....
 
Last edited:
A person, who doesn't want children should not have children in the first place or use strong precaution. Some don't use any. If the 'father' forces her to resort to this - this being a barbaric thing also -, she should leave that person. Abortion is murder - not talking about the (involuntary) miscarriage. The worst crime is a mother choosing to end the life of her offspring because of her own irresponsibility/immaturity. Nobody in this life has the right to take the life of the innocent, be they embryos or faetuses. That's the most cruel thing to be done - acting upon the life of the most vulnerable and defenseless, who have yet no means to oppose the unthinkable. If the mother, or rather, mere carrier, thinks she can't be one at any costs, then she should at least deliver that innocent being (into the world) and give them to adoption.

To think others too are in favor of such crimes is unsettling. Disturbing, really.

....

I agree. Abortion seems to remove the consequence, and then what sort of message are you sending. I think they should stick it out, or else get their tubes tied along with that abortion so it doesn't happen in future. The notable exception, of course, is if the woman was raped--then she should be able to abort the child with no consequence to her, since that wouldn't be her fault.
 
The notable exception, of course, is if the woman was raped--then she should be able to abort the child with no consequence to her, since that wouldn't be her fault.

That wouldn't be the poor being's fault inside of her either. How can it not be a consequence, a grave one, still, when an innocent life is taken? Whether they were created by means of a great person's semen or a killer's. The human is separated by the animal by means of conscience. Saying "I'm gonna abort this baby, as I was raped and won't bare the seed of a criminal in me" is a human thing to say, when abused, it's understandable. One would feel dirty and worthless, and God knows what else. But the action still remains a horrid crime, and the best the poor woman can do is carry the birth somehow, and see a psychotherapist of some sort to help her deal with her ordeal. Support on behalf of family and friends would be vital. Then her thoughts would get clearer in time and she could make the more rational decision to give the child for adoption, instead of having him/her aborted, thus killed. ... Having a guilty conscience soon afterwards could follow, and if it doesn't, it's understandable, but still wrong. It's still an unfair thing, as that unfortunate child never asked for having a rapist as a dad in the 1st place, and, as any normal child, they would long to be with their real mother, the one who carried him/her in the womb for months, instead of in some orphan institution or in the care of some strangers. ... But better this than having a life taken.
 
Last edited:
A person, who doesn't want children should not have children in the first place or use strong precaution. Some don't use any.
unfortunatly we dont live in eutopia though
 
Abortion is a personal matter, everyone has to deal with their respective conscience, after having an abortion, it's not up to you people or politicians to decide.
Personally, I am against abortion but I do believe that everyone has the right to make a decision. This matter however is plain barbaric.
 
That wouldn't be the poor being's fault inside of her either. How can it not be a consequence, a grave one, still, when an innocent life is taken? Whether they were created by means of a great person's semen or a killer's. The human is separated by the animal by means of conscience. Saying "I'm gonna abort this baby, as I was raped and won't bare the seed of a criminal in me" is a human thing to say, when abused, it's understandable. One would feel dirty and worthless, and God knows what else. But the action still remains a horrid crime, and the best the poor woman can do is carry the birth somehow, and see a psychotherapist of some sort to help her deal with her ordeal. Support on behalf of family and friends would be vital. Then her thoughts would get clearer in time and she could make the more rational decision to give the child for adoption, instead of having him/her aborted, thus killed. ... Having a guilty conscience soon afterwards could follow, and if it doesn't, it's understandable, but still wrong. It's still an unfair thing, as that unfortunate child never asked for having a rapist as a dad in the 1st place, and, as any normal child, they would long to be with their real mother, the one who carried him/her in the womb for months, instead of in some orphan institution or in the care of some strangers. ... But better this than having a life taken.

I don't know. I don't really look at things through moral grounds. I oppose abortion in general simply because I think it would facilitate irresponsible behaviour on part mostly of teenage girls who think it cool to sleep around and not use protection when they copulate. I think they deserve to face the consequences of their actions, or deserve to have a consequence of some sort for being, well, irresponsible idiots.

Someone who was raped, however, didn't have the choice to reject the sex--that's what rape implies, after all. I would be far more sympathetic to that abortion, since the woman didn't ask to have a child, and was probably not prepared for one, et cetera (as opposed to consensual unprotected sex, where you pretty much get what you bargained for.)

This is where you and I differ-- I don't think there's anything morally repulsive about abortion. If done within the time frames where it is legally permissible to do so, the fetus can be annihilated without it feeling any pain. The problem with the doctor in the OP was that he was conducting these abortions in very late term--in the seventh or eight month of pregnancy, when the baby would have a further developed nervous system, et cetera, which would enable it to feel the pain that a less mature fetus would not have the capacity to feel. That's what made his type of "abortions" unacceptable, if you can even call them thus--since he did force birth and then kill the baby, thus not aborting it in the technical sense of the term, but rather murdering it with a pair of scissors.

As to the prospective life, well, that's one thing that's more speculative than anything else. I can tell you that, given the choice, whether to be born or aborted, and knowing what I know now, I would have chosen for my mother to abort me.
 
why :( one answer MONEY

I dunno. That certainly seems to be part of it. Yet the methods used and the things he kept with him seem to suggest that he enjoyed what he was doing, so it's not just the money, but probably also some sadistic pleasure in the crime. He didn't seem like he was banking on getting caught, either, since he was pretty sloppy about hiding the evidence. In fact, he seemed keen on keeping the evidence in his fridge, in containers, etc. What he kept were fetuses and feet, for some reason. That must be important, somehow.
 
I don't know. I don't really look at things through moral grounds.


I understand what you mean, but abortion remains an immoral action... to me, to others, too, don't know. The foetus, that thing, whatever it is, is the seed of life and no one has the right to play God with life... But, I suppose, we'll agree to disagree on this too, don't know..


I can tell you that, given the choice, whether to be born or aborted, and knowing what I know now, I would have chosen for my mother to abort me.

I'm so sorry you feel that way... You've oftentimes expressed your repulsion toward your parents, but, please, don't say you wish you weren't born. I don't know your situation with them, but you're smart, well-read and could do many great things with your brain. .. If you ever feel the need to confide in anyone, PM me, please... Your latest sentence got me shaken up. Take care...
 
I understand what you mean, but abortion remains an immoral action... to me, to others, too, don't know. The foetus, that thing, whatever it is, is the seed of life and no one has the right to play God with life... But, I suppose, we'll agree to disagree on this too, don't know..

I would say you're not alone in viewing it as immoral. Well, it is what it is, and it all depends upon one's definition of life. That's why it remains a heated issue, especially among those whose theological beliefs would guide them to think of life as originating at the moment of the fetus' formation. Scientifically, though, the argument would be that it wouldn't be unethical to abort the fetus if it doesn't have a developed central nervous system. Still, I can see merit in your argument, and thus the reason why people go back and forth between which stance to take.


Alma said:
I'm so sorry you feel that way... You've oftentimes expressed your repulsion toward your parents, but, please, don't say you wish you weren't born. I don't know your situation with them, but you're smart, well-read and could do many great things with your brain. .. If you ever feel the need to confide in anyone, PM me, please... Your latest sentence got me shaken up. Take care...

Well, life is essentially empty and unfulfilling, like a friend of mine would put it. It seems to be existence without meaning or actual point--just going through the motions of it. So, it's not so much that it's depressing or whatever else, because it isn't. It's simply nonsensical and unnecessary effort to me, and I'm pretty lazy, so that is why I say I would have chosen that. I'm here, though, so may as well stick around and find happiness in things that provide it.
 
I hate abortion !
and i will never say that it's someones right to kill the baby !
no one, even the mother and father has right to kill the baby,
of course what this doctor did is terrible,
but for me more terrible is what the "mothers" do,
they are paying for the murder of their babies...
I can't understand this...

2wlvo1f.jpg
 
I hate abortion !
and i will never say that it's someones right to kill the baby !
no one, even the mother and father has right to kill the baby,
of course what this doctor did is terrible,
but for me more terrible is what the "mothers" do,
they are paying for the murder of their babies...
I can't understand this...

2wlvo1f.jpg

The rationale is paying to get rid of something you "weren't prepared to have." To me, that's quite a shoddy reason to get an abortion, since the sure certain way to avoid pregnancy is to simply abstain from having sex altogether,but then again, most of the people seeking abortions are young adult women or teenage girls who think themselves grown-up enough to have sex, and go about it stupidly. Since no one dies from lack of sexual relations, I fail to sympathize with their choices and general circumstance. If they cared about their future that much, they would abstain from having sex altogether, that's the sure-fire way to avoid pregnancy lol. Or, if they're really set on doing that, there's reasonable ways to go about it, like using protection, birth control, the morning after pill, and other preventive methods (including techniques used lol.) So, my sympathy for women (more often, girls, really) who end up with an unwanted pregnancy is pretty much non-existent. The obvious caveat is if she was raped (and I mean legitimately raped, not the whole we were both drunk out of our minds "rape", which I find unfairly favours the woman, and seems to excuse her general recklessness.) The only exception is if a date rape drug was used, then, of course, that would be without her knowledge/consent and completely legitimate rape.

In any case, abortion seems to be more often used as a method for idiots to literally obliterate the consequences of their actions, and less often a legitimate and reasonable act (i.e. terminating a pregnancy which was the result of a rape, or one in which the woman's life would be put in serious danger if it was allowed to continue, and there are cases where that holds true.) So, I guess you could say I'm anti-abortion, but not on the moral/religious grounds that most anti-abortion people seem to have as their rationale. For me, it seems to be used as a way to facilitate the lives of stupid, reckless, and irresponsible people, and I think that should be stopped. If they want to give the thing up for adoption afterwards, that's entirely their schpiel, but not before going through the horrible pains of childbirth, so a lesson is learned.
 
I agree with your view too... Blunt, a bit radical in places, ^^ but to the point. But, to be perfectly honest, true... Abortion is often viewed as radical action, so why not abstain from having sex? But many would answer 'Wow, that's radical'.. So, it's in a way, selfish on behalf of some and hypocritical.

Being irresponsible or not cautious enough (again, excluding miscarriages and rape) doesn't absolve you from guilt or diminishes the gravity of resorting to aborting the fruit of your...wanderings, period. It is You who wandered and sought to have fun, not that being in your womb who never asked to appear or to be born in the 1st place. That accident is called a life still, and you should have considered strong protection if you didn't want to have a child, yet you couldn't abstain from having sex. .... I may have inherently touched upon the moral/religious side of this issue, but it's very rational and very human to be defending the innocent voiceless. Is this really tough-sounding? .. No to many. Yes to many. People need to learn to be more responsible with their lives and the lives of others they are affecting, especially directly, before calling this approach or that in one way...
 
Last edited:
I agree with your view too... Blunt, a bit radical in places, ^^ but to the point. But, to be perfectly honest, true... Abortion is often viewed as radical action, so why not abstain from having sex? But many would answer 'Wow, that's radical'.. So, it's in a way, selfish on behalf of some and hypocritical.

Being irresponsible or not cautious enough (again, excluding miscarriages and rape) doesn't absolve you from guilt or diminishes the gravity of resorting to aborting the fruit of your...wanderings, period. It is You who wandered and sought to have fun, not that being in your womb who never asked to appear or to be born in the 1st place. That accident is called a life still, and you should have considered strong protection if you didn't want to have a child, yet you couldn't abstain from having sex. .... I may have inherently touched upon the moral/religious side of this issue, but it's very rational and very human to be defending the innocent voiceless. Is this really tough-sounding? .. No to many. Yes to many. People need to learn to be more responsible with their lives and the lives of others they are affecting, especially directly, before calling this approach or that in one way...

I totally agree. Having sex is not a necessity. Thus far, no one has died from a lack of sex. I wasn't specifically referring to you when I told the other poster that most people tend to oppose abortion based on moral/religious grounds. That just seems to be the core of most anti-abortionists' arguments, and I remarked on it, that's all.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree. Having sex is not a necessity. Thus far, no one has died from a lack of sex. I wasn't specifically referring to you when I told the other poster that most people tend to oppose abortion based on moral/religious grounds. That just seems to be the core of most anti-abortionists' arguments, and I remarked on it, that's all.


I know, no worries. ^

And I agree with that sex is not a necessity, at least it pales when it comes to... morals? To responsibility, to having a brain, a conscience. Again, out of lack of better words, but it does pale and it should be merely a want, at most, instead of a Need.
 
I know, no worries. ^

And I agree with that sex is not a necessity, at least it pales when it comes to... morals? To responsibility, to having a brain, a conscience. Again, out of lack of better words, but it does pale and it should be merely a want, at most, instead of a Need.

I dunno. I'm pretty amoral, and I abstain simply because I don't think it's very convenient to have something like that at this point in time. I don't see anything wrong with a man or woman who wants to sleep around--I just think it's inviting a few unnecessary annoyances, such as VD, serious STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. So, when you look at it, the consequences far outweigh the benefits. It seems a stupid thing to do. Not right, not wrong, but stupid.
 
I don't see anything wrong with a man or woman who wants to sleep around--I just think it's inviting a few unnecessary annoyances, such as VD, serious STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. So, when you look at it, the consequences far outweigh the benefits.


True..
 
I don't want to read the article..
This is SICK.. I am speechless.. This man dosen't deserve to live.. He is a very bad person :cry: ....
 
Back
Top