Archive for Washington Post

Gov exposes deficient care at Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Missouri

Posted in Abortion clinic, Abortion clinic closed by state, Illegal abortion, Leana Wen, Planned Parenthood inspected with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 30, 2019 by saynsumthn

Planned Parenthood in St Louis, Missouri may lose it’s license to commit abortions following numerous reports of emergency responses summoned to the abortion clinic and claims of health deficiencies by state authorities. If the license is rejected, Missouri could become the first state without a single abortion facility, a concern PP’s president called, “Not a Drill.” But, president Leana Wen is known for her over-the-top and often deceptive language surrounding abortion, prompting the Washington Post to grant her four Pinocchios for using fabricated stats on illegal abortion deaths.  For those interested in the truth on this topic, Live Action News has broken down this data in more detail previously, including also debunking Planned Parenthood’s false claims multiple times.

Planned Parenthood St Louis abortion facility

Instead of the media joining with Missouri Gov. Mike Parson in calling for PP’s dangerous St Louis abortion facility to remain closed until serious problems are corrected, they are instead lauding Planned Parenthood as almost invincible and incapable of placing women at risk. Of course, the media are the same ones that routinely censor reports of women being killed by abortion, and specifically those who die after abortion care at Planned Parenthood facilities.

 

 

A report published by Live Action News sheds light into the reason the media should be exposing PP, not protecting them:

“The real public health crisis is what’s been going on unchecked at this abortion facility for years, and which Wen conveniently doesn’t mention. This particular Planned Parenthood facility has had more than 72 ambulance calls since 2009. Not only are they killing preborn babies at this Planned Parenthood, but they’re also maiming women. In addition, multiple health violations have been racked up over the years at this one facility.”

Governor Mike Parson also gave detailed reasons for why Planned Parenthood’s license was not being renewed (watch here).

According to Missouri Gov. Mike Parson:

March 27, 2019: Statement of deficiencies issued by Missouri Health Department for violating the law and providing safe care for women….Health officials identified a series of deficiencies…which needed to be addressed prior to their license renewal deadline of May 30th.

April 3, 2019: State health department started investigation into PP St Louis relating to series of incidents raised concerns about:

  • Quality of care
  • Patient Safety
  • Statutory and Regulatory compliance

April 11, 2019: State Health Department requested (in writing) to conduct interviews with seven physicians performing abortions at Planned Parenthood St. Louis

April 16, 2019: A PP attorney responded saying PP was not obligated to make physicians available for interviews with state health department officials.

April 22, 2019: A PP attorney informed state health department regulators that physicians would now be represented by their own counsel and Department should attempt to schedule interviews with their individual attorneys.

May 16, 2019: PP submitted license renewal applications, final day to be accepted by DHSS a deadline PP was aware of. State Heath Department notified 5 or the 7 physicians declined to cooperate with the interviews.

May 28, 2019:  Two PP Physicians agreed to cooperate with interviews.

“Planned Parenthood has been actively and knowingly violating state law on numerous occasions…In addition, there is concern for the standard of care due to the fact that the significant medical evidence showing at least three failed surgical abortions…records provided by PP indicate that these failed abortions also include the patients returning to PP after realizing they were still pregnant. In another case, a patient’s safety was jeopardized and rushed to an ambulance from PP where an emergency surgery was needed…” Missouri Gov. Mike Parson stated.

The Governor said that the following concerns needed to be addressed prior to any license renewal:

  • Planned Parenthood’s apparent disregard for the law
  • Failure to complete complication records
  • Accuracy of medical records.

“No judge should give special treatment to PP in this instance…If you break the law- there are serious consequences. If you don’t provide a standard of care that ensures the safety of women you shouldn’t be allowed to operate, its that simple…” Gov. Parson said.

2016:

2013:

 

According to the pro-life watchdog organization, Operation Rescue:

[T]he number of medical emergencies requiring ambulance transport have increased dramatically.

Most recently, three women were transported by ambulance to hospital emergency rooms in a 22-day timespan ending on May 15, 2019.  Other recent medical emergencies occurred at RHS Planned Parenthood on April 24 and April 26, 2019.  In all, 74 medical emergencies have been documented at this Planned Parenthood in the past ten years.

The most common abortion complication suffered by women transported by ambulance from RHS Planned Parenthood is hemorrhaging, a life-threating, yet avoidable, condition.

The RHS Planned Parenthood has experienced other major issued in the past year or so:

  • Inability to conduct chemical abortions due to failure to meet new safety regulations.
  • CEO Mary Kogut resigned last October and has not been replaced.  Postings several other positions also remain unfilled.
  • Failure to expand abortions into Springfield and Joplin as planned, due to inability to meet licensing requirements.
  • Up to a 20-day wait to obtain surgical abortions, as confirmed by Operation Rescue, perhaps because the current medical director is moonlighting at an abortion clinic in Illinois.
  • Failed inspection report in 2017 with multiple safety violations, and where the Medical Director questioned whether hand-washing between glove changes was a new standard.

Below is the press release from the state regarding Planned Parenthood’s abortion facility in St. Louis.

Planned Parenthood files unprecedented lawsuit against Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services with licensure renewal process still ongoing

 Planned Parenthood refuses to fully cooperate with investigation into concerns about patient safety

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Planned Parenthood has filed suit against the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) while its application for renewal is still under review.

DHSS received Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region’s application for renewal on Thursday, May 16, 2019, which was the last day that it would be accepted by DHSS. The St. Louis, Missouri, facility’s license, which is renewed annually, is set to expire on May 31, 2019. Last year, the organization submitted its renewal application on April 27, 2018, with a May 31 renewal date.

Planned Parenthood’s statutorily required inspection occurred March 11-13, 2019, and an investigation has been ongoing since. Planned Parenthood was notified in early April that due to ongoing concerns about potential deficient practices, interviews would need to be done with the physicians providing that care. These concerns are not limited to, but include: 1) violations of Missouri law; 2) violations of applicable Missouri regulations; 3) standard care for patient safety as evidenced by, but not limited to, at least one incident in which patient safety was gravely compromised; 4) failed surgical abortions in which patients remained pregnant; 5) concerns about quality control and communication with a contracted pathology lab; and 6) failure to obtain informed consent.

The continued refusal of several physicians to cooperate in interviews regarding DHSS’s ongoing complaint investigation obstructs the State’s ability to verify that this facility is in compliance with all requirements of applicable statutes and regulations, which Missouri law requires DHSS to do before renewing a license.

Only on May 22 did Planned Parenthood change their previous position and agree to comply with Missouri regulations which require pelvic exams at the screening prior to abortions so that information learned from the pelvic exams could increase the safety of the procedure.

On May 28, only after filing their lawsuit did Planned Parenthood again change another previous position to comply with Missouri law that the same physician who does the preoperative counseling will also perform the abortion.

As of May 29, Planned Parenthood has still not agreed to full compliance.

“DHSS will continue to act in good faith to do our statutorily required duty to regulate facilities to help keep people safe and assure compliance with the law,” said Dr. Randall Williams, director of DHSS. “The unprecedented refusal by Planned Parenthood to fully cooperate as they have in the past heightens our regulators’ concerns about what their investigation has revealed to date.”

 

Bad Aim? NRA shoots 1 to save 2 – free speech deal

Posted in free speech with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 18, 2010 by saynsumthn

This is an editorial from the Washington Post and explains the title:

NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill’s cynical, fatal flaws

“[]The NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for ‘neutrality’ from the legislation’s requirements.” — NRA Director Cleta Mitchell, June 17, 2010

By Cleta Mitchell
Thursday, June 17, 2010; A21

The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.

The NRA “carve-out” reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment’s precise language: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”

Congress can’t help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents’ mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle.

For its part, the NRA — on whose board of directors I serve — rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for “neutrality” from the legislation’s requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind.

Since the court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated “disclosure” restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.

Democrats would effectively neuter the court’s decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as “byzantine” and an “arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements.”

The NRA’s wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it.

Receiving less attention than the NRA “carve-out” but no less cynical is the bill’s sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members’ dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members’ contributions to labor’s campaign-related spending wouldn’t need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.

In Citizens United, the court held that the First Amendment doesn’t permit Congress to treat different corporations differently; that the protections afforded political speech arise from the Constitution, not Congress. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a congressional power to license the speech of some while denying it to others.

The NRA carve-out is a clear example of a congressional speech license.

The ostensible purpose of the legislation is benign “disclosure,” upheld in Citizens United as permissible under the First Amendment. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of disclosure requirements in another case argued this term; Scalia intoned in oral argument that “running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage.”

That’s true. Indeed, the law upheld in Citizens United requires all donors to candidate-related expenditures to be publicly disclosed to the FEC in a timely manner.

But the Disclose Act isn’t really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association.

It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes.

This is not just “disclosure.” It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

The writer is a partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law and is a member of the NRA’s board of directors.

What is net neutrality? What is unbiased Journalism?

Posted in Abortion, birth control, Black Genocide, Constitution, Eugenics, Evolution, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Nazi, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Racism, Sterilization, Uncategorized, Violence against women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 23, 2009 by saynsumthn

The Washington Post has reported :

WASHINGTON POST: Rulers of the Internet

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality is a concept that all services and content on the Internet should be treated equally. Proposed new rules would seek to prevent Internet service providers from acting as gatekeepers.

Examples of how Internet service providers and wireless phone providers have allegedly acted as gatekeepers of services:

— Comcast allegedly blocked a video-and-music sharing site called BitTorrent.

— Verizon Wireless allegedly rejected a text messaging program from NARAL Pro-Choice America, an abortion-rights group. The program would have allowed people to sign up for text messages from NARAL.

— The FCC is examining whether AT&T and Apple deliberately blocked Google’s voice application for the iPhone. Google Voice gives users one phone number that they can connect to their home, office and mobile phones.

— Skype has complained that many wireless service providers have rejected its Internet voice service. For example, iPhone users can’t connect to the 3G network and use Skype; they must also be linked to the Web through a WiFi connection.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

NEWSFLASH – Washington Post:

YouTube has been censoring pro-life videos for a while and I do not see them in your list above.

To name one instance – YouTube censored the Undercover Videos of Lila Rose and yes, James O’Keefe ( ACORN Film maker) who proved that the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider, Planed Parenthood, who sucks over $1 Millions Dollars PER DAY and $350 Millions Dollars PER YEAR from the taxpayer, is covering for statutory rape and possible sexual abuse of minors.

According to Lila’s Live Action Films, “YouTube has unfairly censored two Live Action videos in what appears to be an act of discrimination against our viewpoint. We have carefully laid out the case below why each video that was removed was wrongly banned. We hope you read this and join us in action against this bias.”

Live Action Petition to YouTube:

Dear YouTube:

We are concerned that YouTube staff is censoring videos based on ideology, despite YouTube’s claim to uphold fair standards.

The following links provide the background and case why YouTube should restore our videos:

The Case Against YouTube’s Removal of Live Action’s “Alabama Investigative Video
http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/youtube/83

The Case Against YouTube’s Removal of Live Action’s “Planned Parenthood Counseling Lie
http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/youtube/84

We ask that YouTube will restore their customer’s trust and live up to its own rules by doing the following:

1. Promptly reinstate both banned videos

2. Remove the “strike” against the account “liveactionfilms”

3. Assure Live Action and the YouTube’s community that YouTube is
truly opposed to ideological censorship and is taking steps to prevent this from happening again.

4. Provide Live Action with an email and phone contact representative at YouTube to ensure that any potential future issues are resolved promptly

Sincerely,
-The Undersigned
Sign Petition Here:

In one of the Video’s, Live Action gave this timeline:

HISTORY
June 30th, 2009: Live Action uploads the “Alabama Investigative Video
July 8th, 2009: YouTube notifies Live Action via email that they are going to remove our video within 48 hours if we do not remove it.
July 9th, 2009: Live Action replies to the YouTube email saying that “...we are requesting for you to let us know exactly where in our video we violate the privacy of an individual.” (see full email)
July 10th, 2009: YouTube removes the “Alabama Investigative Video”
July 22nd, 2009: YouTube still has not responded to Live Action over this matter.

YOUTUBE’S STANDARD

YouTube does not permit video that shows the identifiable face or full name of an individual per their policy listed below. We have uploaded many investigative videos (that are still live) where we have obscured the face and disclosed only the clinic workers last name. In all of these cases, YouTube has allowed these videos to remain live.

WHY THE VIDEO MEETS YOUTUBE’S STANDARD

We did not disclose audio or video that “uniquly identifies” the person in the video. We did not show any identifiable images, in fact, our video showed no images of any persons that did not give consent to be in the video. The audio in the video does not by voice or content of the voice, uniquly identifiy the person involved. Finally, no full names were disclosed, only first names as was consistent with our pervious (and still live) videos which have received hundreds of thousands of views without removal.

BE PART OF THE SOLUTION!

Contact YouTube and ask them why the “LiveActionFilms” video was removed.
YouTube web form. (select Video removal)

YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave.
San Bruno, CA 94066
Phone: +1 650-253-0000 or 650-343-2960
Fax: +1 650-253-0001

Press can ask YouTube about this at: press@youtube.com

And you may want to notify the Washington Post as well.

Learn More about Planned Parenthood with this stunning Documentary: Maafa21