Georgia Right to Life Pushes for More Enforcement

Citing a few hundred-page report and the proclaimed success of the 58 abortion clinics that have been shut down following the conviction of Kermit Gosnell, Georgia Right to Life is pushing for tougher enforcement on abortion clinics. In the brief 10-page summary, GA R2L said:

Roughly 10% of all U.S. abortion clinics have closed their doors following the horrendous discovery of the Philadelphia abortion mill. While many states have used the tools afforded them through the constitutionally valid regulations to prevent the repeat of the travesty that was the Gosnell facility, Georgia has done nothing. Not one single abortion clinic has closed in Georgia due to enforcement of Georgia regulations, despite many facilities operating in violation of those regulations.

Georgia’s abortion regulatory scheme is broken. Abortion facilities are regulated under two different sets of regulations, depending on when the abortion is performed. Abortion facilities are allowed to move between classifications, seemingly at will, when they prefer one set of regulations to another. Furthermore, even when a set of regulations clearly applies, violations go uninvestigated and regulations remain unenforced.

The group says a subsequent crackdown in Georgia has been lacking. “We’re asking for that same level of scrutiny to be applied in Georgia,” said Dan Becker, president of Georgia Right to Life.

Georgia Right to Life spokeswoman Suzanna Ward said, “This lax regulatory climate, coupled with the profit-minded attitude of providers, has resulted in a long list of abuses, a long list of injuries and even death,” adding that abortion clinic workers, patients and citizens alike have come forward with concerning information. She also mentioned that the group has been gathering and analyzing this information for years.

25 comments

  1. Charlie says:

    Simple question to GRTL:

    Do you plan to take this bill through the committee process, where it can actually be publicly vetted by legal professionals for constitutionality, and by medical professionals for workability in a practical setting, or will this be the usual “present what we drew up in a back room as an amendment to a floor bill on day 39, then proclaim Dan Becker’s wishes are the will of God and anyone that points out flaws is going straight to hell.”?

    Because the first approach actually says you’re interested in fixing a problem and actually want to regulate something. The second approach (the one usually taken) is more about the continuation of a cult of personality.

  2. “This lax regulatory climate, coupled with the profit-minded attitude of providers, has resulted in a long list of abuses, a long list of injuries and even death” – funny but if a liberal used the exact same wording to make a point about the broken healthcare system for say, poor 1 year olds who live in Georgia, I don’t think GRTL would care to do anything.

    • John Konop says:

      I gave that same question to a leader of the organization, and they told me it was not their issue. I was stunned, and asked how she defines pro-life relative to healthcare, and never got a straight answer. The even more bizarre part was she told me, her husband and her were Ayn Rand type libertarians on healthcare. She thought I was wrong when I explained that Ayn Rand was one of the most outspoken atheist of her time and that was core to her philosophy. I told her just go on youtube you can see the videos…..But hey why let facts get in the way you feel about an issue 🙂

      • MattMD says:

        So this organization would force the mother to keep the pregnancy to term but then they can both die in the street if they are poor? I know this wouldn’t happen in our society but what, exactly, is an “Ayn Rand libertarian” with respect to healthcare?

        • John Konop says:

          I asked her directly what her view was on children with no health insurance and the poor when they get sick or could die from a lack of healthcare. She told me her husband and her are libertarians via this issue, and it is their responsibility. I reminded her kids do not pick their parents and sometimes people fall on hard times…….and she replied with a survival of the fitist type answer very similar to the Ayn Rand……..bottom line her view was no saftey network for healthcare, unless the church in its genoristy agrees to help. I told her that seemed rather inconsistent and or unrealistic with being pro life……once again this was a leader and spokesperson for the organization.

        • John Konop says:

          This was basically what the Georgia Right to Life spokesperson told me. As I pressed her on children not picking their parents, untreated disease issues spreading into the population….she kept to the mantra below……..From a historically stand point this mantra is the difference between Adam Smith and Rand…. Many refer to Rand as a Godless view of Smith……Remember Smith was a moral philosopher….

          ………..The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree……..

          …….Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing?

          Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them……

          http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=13873

        • griftdrift says:

          That she claims to be a libertarian is not that shocking. Most if not all that claim that these days are absolutists on things like healthcare but either hedge on abortion or are full bore pro-life like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

          Frankly, it’s shameful.

          • John Konop says:

            I have never understood how they religious right could embrace a philosopher that is woven in an atheist view of the world?

            Just a few of her many comments, Ayn Rand Quotes On Religion:

            Religious people have a psychological weakness, they cannot accept reality.

            Faith is the worse curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.

            The only real moral crime that one man can commit against another is the attempt to create, by his words or actions, an impression of the contradictory, the impossible, the irrational, and thus shake the concept of rationality in his victim.

    • NorthGAGOP says:

      PP knows, that under Becker’s leadership, GRTL is ineffective and irrelevant in Georgia. I’m sure Becker et al will try to use this to fundraise.

  3. Harry says:

    As is constantly being proven by having to deal with many moral dilemmas, our society/culture needs a new structure. The traditional but realizable model is based on bottom-up society, where small tribal families (“Weapontakes”) (numbering about 100 individuals) leave weapons outside and decide upon the leader by discussion and compromise until consensus. In turn the leaders meet with neighboring Weapontakes and elect a sub-district or district spokesman in the same manner who then votes in a county council, and so on up as far as needed. Any of these can be replaced at any time by consensus. Each Weapontake takes responsiblity for its own people and is enfranchised with certain requirements and remunerations by the broader nation, depending on location and specific attributes. The point is, it’s a bottom-up driven approach and provides a generally peaceful means of handling 90% of needs within each Wapentake. I have studied how these groups operated in history, and what goes right and wrong with them. An imperfect version of this system was employed by pre-national tribes of Europe, North America, and all continents. We can learn good lessons from their success and mistakes.

    I don’t consider this a threadjack, but delete it if you think otherwise.

Comments are closed.