Over the weekend, the editorialists at the Washington Post once again exhibited their blissful ignorance when it comes to abortion center health and safety. In yet another editorial condemning health and safety standards for Virginia’s abortion industry, the Post writes:

“No evidence of violations resulting in harm to patients at any of [Virginia’s abortion] clinics, which had performed some 50,000 first trimester abortions over the two year inspection cycle” was found. [Emphasis added]

A remarkable statement considering the pattern of unsanitary conditions found in two years of inspections.

Now, this isn’t the first time the Post has buried its proverbial head in the sand when it comes to inspection reports.

And yet, there is a subtle change in their message since a very similar editorial earlier this year. In that ode to AG Mark Herring, the editorialists opined:

“Advocates of the 2011 law insist its intent was to protect women’s health, yet they have offered no evidence to suggest any pattern of unsafe, unsanitary or poor treatment at the state’s clinics…” [Emphasis added]

Note the earlier editorial said there was no pattern of unsafe or unsanitary treatment (something we rebutted here), but the new editorial says no evidence of violations (i.e. unsafe and unsanitary treatment) resulting in harm to the women who go to a Virginia abortion center.

So, apparently, the Post editorialist have figured out that there is a pattern of unsafe and unsanitary conditions at Virginia’s abortion centers, things like improperly or un-sterilized equipment, doctors and staff that don’t wash hands or change gloves between patients, blood on equipment and patient tables, etc. They’re just cool with it because, in their expert medical opinion, it isn’t harming anyone.

Such disregard for even a reasonable expectation of decent care would be shocking if it wasn’t for the fact that they are talking about the abortion industry. It’s almost as if the editorialists know the abortion industry is awful but just don’t care about the women subjected to these kinds of disgusting facilities. After all, the principle that abortion is sacrosanct and must be protected no matter what is far and above more important any inconvenient, nasty little infections women might bring home with them from their visit to the local abortionist.