The editorial “braintrust” at the Richmond Times Dispatch has once again come to the aid of the abortion industry in regards to abortion center safety, and once again done so by missing the entire point, misleading about the issue, ignoring the truth, and then – incredibly – blaming the press for not investigating the abortion industry! That’s right. A newspaper editorial staff blaming the press for doing exactly what itself is doing. You just can’t make this stuff up.
First, the editors once again simply parrot the abortion industry’s talking points:
The rules single out abortion clinics, demanding they meet hospital-like standards other outpatient facilities are exempt from — even those that perform procedures with higher rates of complication than abortion, such as colonoscopies and laser eye surgeries. There is little evidence forcing abortion clinics to widen hallways or add parking spaces (just two of the onerous new requirements) would improve patient safety. But they could force some abortion providers to close their doors, which is the real objective of those who support the rules.
As usual, the editors completely ignore the facts about what’s been found inside the walls of abortion centers in Virginia, violations that no one would ever have known about without the health and safety standards they so despise. They refuse to tell their readers about the more than 400 deficiencies, like informing the public that multiple abortion centers have been found to have unsterilized and bloody equipment, blood on patient exam tables, non-medical staff mixing powerful Schedule II narcotics, complete lack of infectious disease policies, and on and on. Or about the “doctors” that operate some of these places. No, instead, they just repeat what the abortion industry has told them to say – widening hallways isn’t necessary. (Unless, of course, you’re the woman in a medical emergency and paramedics can’t get a stretcher to you, and have to carry you down rickety stairs to get you the help you need.)
I wonder: have any of these editorialists actually bothered to read any of the inspection reports?
The deception about complications to abortion is perhaps most deceptive. The fact is that no federal or state entity tracks all complications to abortion, so saying that there aren’t any is simply not real science – again it’s an abortion industry talking point. For example, if someone suffers a complication from laser eye surgery, you can bet they’ll be reporting it to the board of medicine and more than likely hitting the yellow pages for the first attorney they can find to sue. What about a woman who suffers from a botched abortion, but doesn’t want anyone in her family to know she had an abortion? Is she going to the board of medicine with a complaint? Or sue? No, because it would expose her abortion. And when she ends up in the ER, there is no record kept or reported that the complication stemmed from a botched abortion. None. The talking point is a lie.
But then there is this jewel:
A more measured approach might have done greater good, by shining light on an industry largely exempt from the scrutiny that most others — insurance, pharmaceuticals, energy, automobiles, payday lenders, etc. — routinely are subjected to. The press delights in exposing the alleged malfeasance of companies that ignore safety warnings and lobby against regulation. But when abortion providers do the same thing, the press runs interference for it.
Seriously? “Shining a light” on the abortion industry is exactly what the inspections have done, but the reporters at RTD (and every other Virginia newspaper) and the editorialists who wrote this have refused to “shine a light” on what’s been found. The media has protected the industry for decades. It refused to even report about Kermit Gosnell until it was shamed into it, and then it buried the story as deeply as it could.
Instead of just repeating the $1 billion abortion industry talking points, perhaps the editorialists at the RTD themselves could have exhorted a little effort to “shine a light.” But alas, that would have required more work than cut and paste.
The blind allegiance to “reproductive liberty” displayed in this editorial is expected. The distortions have become the norm for most editorialists. But the complete disdain for the intellect of their readers is getting old.