Abortion Clinics Practice Safe Medicine.

Anti abortion zealots have a practice of saying things that are not true about clinics that perform abortions.

I had a personal experience with their dishonesty. When I was a Mayor and a clinic opened in Fargo, ND, there were protestors. The police did what they are supposed to do, keep the street and sidewalk passable for those who want to use them. Protestors wanted to make the street and sidewalk impassible.

Because I had said publically I was in favor of abortion rights, the protestors decided that was the reason police were keeping the sidewalk and street passable. Further, they made up a story that my wife owned the clinic. Even though I offered to allow them to see our personal bank statements and income tax records, they did not take me up and continued to spread this false story.

The same kind of thing continues in every state. A modern version is to claim the clinics are unsafe. Using this falsehood, opponents think they can justify additional laws and regulations which, in turn, raise prices for abortions. Their goal is obviously to raise the cost of abortions, not to protect the health of the women patients.

I know of only one case of a badly run clinic. Otherwise, the record of safety and good medicine is there for all to see. Abortion is a safe option for women who need to end a pregnancy.

Improvement is needed, not in the quality of clinics, but in the ethics and moral standards of protestors.

[A link discussing the quality of care in abortion clinics appears in comments.]

61 Responses

      1. Michael 12:24 Women who had abortions were 3.4 times more likely to commit suicide

        I’m not at all sure we can say that abortion per se was the reason they committed suicide. Births by themselves kill lots of women.

        1. Adam Heckathorn

          This is a classic blunder of the religious and the distinct difference of viewing everything through religious lenses as compared to thinking critically, assuming one thing causes another. The rooster crowed then the sun came up therefore the rooster is responsible for the sun coming up. An actual example of this is Christmas lights. People believed that as the days grew shorter in winter They had to appease the Gods or eventually there would be nothing but darkness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/paganism/holydays/wintersolstice.shtml

    1. Grandma

      A predictable response. I worked at the original Fargo Women’s Health and I can tell you that the clinic was run in accordance with all medical regulations. Where we had problems was with the protestors. They would stand outside screaming “Don’t go in there, we can help you” when women came in for their Pap smear results. They pretended to videotape clients and cars, though we figured out quickly that no videotape machine at that time could run for hours and hours on one battery. They followed workers and clients and guests. They protested at the homes of several clinic employees. All of us who ever answered a phone were instructed on how to report a bomb threat. The clinic provided good health care, from pregnancy tests (some of which were welcomed with a hooray), cancer screenings, to abortion counseling (I remember at least one couple turned down because the counselor said she didn’t think that’s what the couple really wanted) and a clinic collection of funds and baby items for someone who decided to go to term. Every woman who had an abortion left with birth control. And, by the way, as someone who had two natural abortions (miscarriages) I am at no greater risk of suicide (the Lifers used to claim cancer to) than my family history would indicate. So.

    2. Grandma

      A first-trimester fetus is not a “kid,” unless you know lots of kids the size of strawberries.

    1. Adam Heckathorn

      Greg the only reason You use the term “unborn” instead of zygote is Your religious belief. I’ve noticed that even among Christians many among those that acknowledge evolution as a fact also support abortion. the truth is the Human zygote actually progresses through stages where You could not tell it from other creatures in their development. We share genes with all life. In theory with a little gene splicing You could create a human out of many primitive creatures and in point of fact that is what evolution has done.

    2. Gone

      Technically, a zygote is a fetus in the very first stages of development, and birth or being born is not a religious, but a biological process that has significant impact on both the fetus and the mother. So Mr Lindgren, you are wrong on all fronts. The abortion of a fetus causes significant harm to the mother and irreparable harm to the fetus. Thus, there is no such thing as safe abortions. You are ending one life and scarring another the same as a miscarriage scars the mother. It takes months for her to recover a normal hormone balance from not delivering the baby naturally. The only real argument against intelligent design is your existence in this world….

      1. Gone (and other names you have used) 2:20 The abortion of a fetus causes significant harm to the mother

        The mother faces less risk from abortion than from giving birth. What you have written can be found on anti abortion sites but not on sites that do professional research in this area.

        and birth or being born is not a religious, but a biological process

        That the fetus is a human being is believed by one branch of Christianity and not other branches. It is not believed by most of the religions in the world.

        1. Chuck Z

          Yet you can be prosecuted for death to an unborn child. Tell me, Jon. Why does one unborn child have value in the eyes of the law while another does not? Surely you are out protesting these people being charged for killing a non-human?

          1. Chuck Z 2:15 Surely you are out protesting these people being charged for killing a non-human?

            No, I am not protesting that.

            When a fetus is killed, say by an attack on a mother, the attacker is prosecuted. That is because the fetus was part of the mother, the mother was harmed.

          2. Chuck Z

            Who are you trying to kid here, Jon? That isn’t even remotely correct.

            “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.”

            I’ll ask you again. Why does this unborn child suddenly have value, and why aren’t you demanding that the law stops prosecuting the deaths of non-humans?

          3. Chuck Z 3:15 I’ll ask you again. Why does this unborn child suddenly have value, and why aren’t you demanding that the law stops prosecuting the deaths of non-humans
            I concede you have asked a most interesting question.

            The court argued about this very question in a follow up case. There were various dissenting opinions. O’Connor, who also voted for abortion rights, supported Public Law 108-212. She wrote that recognizing the fetus as a human for the purpose of 108-212 did not take away anything from the abortion rights of Roe v Wade. Ten years have gone by and nothing has changed.

            It isn’t stated, but again, the reason both decisions stand is because the mother was harmed in a violent act that killed the fetus. She had an investment that was taken away. The mother’s rights were not violated, but enhanced, by 108-212. In an elective abortion the mother is better off. A law prohibiting abortions takes away rights from the mother.

            Thinking as you do, that its all about defining when a human being first exists, does not get anywhere in understanding why laws are passed or court decisions handed down. The definition of when a human being starts to exist is all about religion. Legislation and court decisions often involve religion but often set it aside to deal with more practice ways of looking at things.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_v._Reproductive_Health_Services

          4. Chuck Z

            You can try to twist the words as many ways and as many times as you wish, but you’re still wrong. The law specifically states that “the child in utero is the victim and recognizes it as a homosapien. You’re wrong. Just admit it and get out there and fight for thise being wrongly convicted according to this law.

          5. Chuck Z 6:09 You can try to twist the words as many ways and as many times as you wish, but you’re still wrong. The law specifically states

            We can both read what the law says. You asked how it can be that killing a fetus in one context is a crime and in another not a crime. I explained why that is how it came to be. I’m not going to waste my time protesting in the street that the two ways of looking at it contradict each other. That happens all the time in court rulings.

            You are wasting your time complaining about it as well. So long as women will be damaged by not having the abortion option there will be abortions. You would spend your time better lobbying government to pay women to not have abortions. There would be fewer abortions.

          6. Chuck Z

            I’ll give you credit, Jon. You know when you’ve been totally demolished in an argument. You simply preface it with , “I’m not gonna waste my time blah, blah, blah…or, I don’t have time, blah, blah, blah….” We’ve seen it numerous times. I give you points for consistency.

          7. Chuch Z I’ll give you credit, Jon. You know when you’ve been totally demolished in an argument. You simply preface it with , “I’m not gonna waste my time blah, blah, blah…or, I don’t have time, blah, blah, blah….” We’ve seen it numerous times.

            My wife and I walked to our favorite neighborhood pub for dinner and I started explaining the conversation you and I are having. I explained the dilemma of when an attacker kills a fetus it is a crime but when a doctor kills one it is not. Before I got very far into it she quickly interrupted and said, “Both those conclusions, (crime and not a crime) increase a woman’s rights.” She reached that simple conclusion before I got to it myself. It was easy for her to see it, easy for me, impossible for you. Differences make this an interesting world–especially the blogging world.

          8. Chuck Z

            Incorrect again. The law has nothing to do with the woman’s right, and it is specifically stated. The attacker is being prosecuted solely for the harm inflicted upon the unborn child, who has now been granted the same rights as any other living, human being.

          9. Chuck Z 5:34 Incorrect again. The law has nothing to do with the woman’s right, and it is specifically stated

            You are technically correct, the law and the ruling based on it do not mention a women’s rights. I’m just saying both the decision to allow abortion and to prosecute those who kill fetuses in acts of violence against women are consistent in their protection a women’s rights. That is why Justice O’Conner voted in favor of prosecuting those who commit violent acts against women whose fetus’ are killed.

      2. Adam Heckathorn

        Gone let’s take a moment to think about Your statements You compare abortion to miscarriage as others have in the past including Me. I don’t understand why You can be so concerned about what happens quite often with women trying to have Babies when it is induced by a medical professional? You believe in an all powerful God Who You assume condemns those getting an abortion yet give that all powerful God a pass when He stands by doing nothing for the naturally miscarried? There is a great deal of similarity between zygotes of many species when they are first forming whether They be reptiles fish or eventually Humans yet no one worries about reptilian zygotes?

      3. Jinx

        The proper stages of development begins with the zygote, then the blastocyst and at 5 1/2 weeks an embryo, 3 mo. is the fetus. These stages are the same for all mammalian species and they all look alike until the embryo begins to differentiate at about 8 weeks. We all have gill slits and look like fish before that. Know your biology!!

      4. Gone 2:20 Technically, a zygote is a fetus in the very first stages of development, and birth or being born is not a religious, but a biological process

        I was delighted to learn abortion is a religious issue, thus not a sin.

  1. Chuck Z

    “I know of only one case of a badly run clinic.”

    Which clinic would that be, Jon? I’m certain that the only reason you know about it is because somebody pointed it out to you. You certainly weren’t searching for poorly run clinics. Which one was it?

      1. Chuck Z

        Predictable. You’ve obviously never searched for unsafe abortion clinics. Out of sight, out of mind.

        1. Chuck Z 11:24 Predictable. You’ve obviously never searched for unsafe abortion clinics. Out of sight, out of mind

          I have, in fact, looked at this. If you study up on the percentage of abortions that have complications due to errors or unsafe practices, they are not higher than most surgical procedures. There are clinics rung up by local officials. These citations are preceded by lots investigations by anti abortion protestors followed up by public campaigns against the clinic.

          I would concede abortions would be better done in hospitals and clinics that do general surgery. The religious right sees to it these hospitals and clinics do not do abortions.

          This strategy, don’t let hospitals do abortions and then complain because small clinic do them, is exactly like the campaign against equal rights for gays. In the case of gays, the religious right says gays can have the same marriage benefits as heterosexuals if the would just get married. Then, they blocked gay marriage.

          It takes a while for the public to catch on the slimy politics of the religious right, but it does come around eventually. In time, abortions will be done in regular hospitals and clinics.

    1. Henry 2:41 Abortion shops do not appear to have to meet the standards of the rest of society.

      “Do not appear…” My link discussed inspections. They do meet the standards set for them.

      1. Henry

        Jon: “They do meet the standards set for them.”

        The picture courtesy of google speaks otherwise. A saggy roof would not work for a print shop let alone a medical facility. Does not meet code.

        1. Henry 3:11 The picture courtesy of google speaks otherwise. A saggy roof would not work for a print shop let alone a medical facility. Does not meet code.

          You have quite a sense of humor. The building in the picture has not had an abortion performed in it for a decade or more. When that building was used, it was inspected by the state and was in compliance. For readers not familiar, abortions in Fargo are performed in a modern building in downtown Fargo.

          1. Henry 3:59 A modern building? Built in 1909? What kind of “modern” procedures do they do in that “modern” building?

            This is fun, indeed. When you posted the picture of the building no longer used for abortions, you wrote, “Do not meet code.”
            I notice you did not use that crucial little sentence this time.

          2. Henry

            I noticed you did not refute the “modern building” being built in 1909.

            The interesting part of this conversation is you originally were chortling how the first mill was up to code.

          3. Henry 2:32 I noticed you did not refute the “modern building” being built in 1909. The interesting part of this conversation is you originally were chortling how the first mill was up to code.

            You are making no sense whatsoever. The first building was up to code when it was used for abortions. The second building was built in 1909 and today meets modern codes.

          4. Henry

            Jon: “The first building was up to code when it was used for abortions.”

            Ok. You betcha. I will ignore the pics and take your word for it on the first mill.

            In regards to the “modern building”, I haven’t looked at it closely and am really not interested. Best not to look too closely. I am sure on your good authority, it is just fine, and a great place to give abortions.

          5. Jinx

            Henry is at it again, playing mind and word games, who can take him seriously. Is he a candidate for lead Chihuahua? yap, yap, yap!

          6. Henry

            Jon: “That it is.”

            To help confirm what we can both agree upon (a great place to give abortions), a review of ownership of the “modern building” points to the following location:
            https://goo.gl/maps/CYRz9
            Notice the high end solar panel array and the high end tile roof. (It must have been a bugger to install the solar array over all those tiles.) Indeed, the giver of abortions has done very well for themselves. The “modern building” and prior has indeed been a great place for them, a great financial model. Hats off. The environment is now also safe.

            Let’s not say much about the receivers of abortion. I do not think we can find agreement on that subject.

    1. Jinx

      Actually, Planned Parenthood abortion services are 2-3 percent of its business. The rest is birth control and sterilization, well woman exams and tests for breast cancer and cervical cancer, testing and treatment for STI’s for both partners (obligation to report all positive results to Dept. of health), HIV screening and report to Dept of Health, Vaccinations and pregnancy testing with ALL options counseling (re: adoption..closed or open, resources for healthy pregnancy including Dr. referral and abortion.

      Abortions are done only in large population centers. Rural clinics DO NOT provide any abortion services at all nor do they provide vasectomy’s or tubal ligation. They are TITLE X clinics and can only provide reproductive health care listed above. Some Title X clinics can provide Colposcopy services (examine and biopsy services for cervical cancer). PP has strict protocols for referrals of any problems that are beyond there health services and their Standards of Medical Pactices are continuously updated. Their cleanliness and sterilization protocols are fastidiously practiced by every staff member.

      I was a PP clinic manager and I KNOW this is the truth.

    1. Henry

      Jinx: “….Joe Mengele….”

      Joe has much more in common with the eugenics/abortion movement than any prolife movement. Why do you distance yourself from him with such close similarities?

        1. Henry

          By no means is Joe my resource. You were recommending reading scientific literature, but were short on specifics. Using your eugenic/abortion bent, I was able to conclude which scientist you would most likely be able to follow and keep your abortion ideals. He was published. He treated human life with the respect one gives a red strawberry. He is a perfect resource for your movement.

          1. Henry

            You do well what abortionists commonly do, that is minimize a human baby down to a “cell”, “strawberry”, “cell mass”, etc. in order to justify cutting them out. Certainly, a baby was equated to a strawberry in your bent of minimization.

    1. Wolfy32

      Simple question. Why, if a person is a human being with human rights at the age of a fertilized egg or even at the point of being a zygote, then why does our global society not measure a human’s age at the age of conception or some point thereafter?

      It is globally accepted that a person’s age is based on their “Birth” into the world. If human life begins before that, then why are is our existence not measured in time prior to birth? Then those that are miscarried could be categorized as having been 2 days old. Right now a 2 day old person that died means it was a 2 day old infant after birth. It doesn’t mean 2 days after conception.

      It would mean a huge change from a society perspective to update all the birth certificates, determine new drinking ages, smoking ages, driving ages, social security benefits, retirement benefits, and so on because everyone would legally be older. However, the bigger question is when all these programs were put in place, why didn’t we go based on conception age instead of the day one was evicted from the womb?

      If we’re truly human at age 2 hours and have human rights at that point. Then our legal ages should all be changed!

      1. Henry

        Wolf: “If we’re truly human at age 2 hours and have human rights at that point. Then our legal ages should all be changed!”

        Right, and by extension of your logic, the cell mass could be killed right before birth. Good thinking. NOT!!!

        1. Wolfy32

          Nice conflation there Henry.. Did I say what you conflated? My point is simply why are we not as a world changing our birthdates to date of conception.

          Does that mean that if we don’t, it’s o.k. to abort at 37 months? I didn’t once say that, I did imply if we aren’t born there’s some question on whether we’re human or not. Obviously that line still needs to be drawn somewhere. At what point is beyond me and my knowledge of human development.

          That should be left to the world of medicine, women, and to some extent the law in terms of enforcing whatever decisions are agreed upon on where we should record are birthday. Is it age zero or age 25 weeks after conception, or 10 weeks or 12 weeks, or 2 days, or 1 day or 3 hours. Someone would need to define when we’re human and when we’re not.

          It won’t be me. But a group of someones far more informed and smarter than myself needs to figure that stuff out.

          1. Henry

            Wolf: “I did imply if we aren’t born there’s some question on whether we’re human or not.”

            With that question, there is no conflation. If not human, the baby can be aborted all the way up until birth. To abort or not to abort is the million dollar question, and the basis of all this dialogue. The classification of “not human” justifies abortion. This is why many on the probort side ignore the medically detectable signs of life with the baby and instead insist relying on the 19th century medical technology of a doctor’s scrawl on a birth certificate.

Comments are closed.