Are There Any "Good Abortion Providers?" That Depends on What You Mean by "Good."
Writing in the USA Today one day after notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of 4 counts of murder and over 200 violations of Pennsylvania's abortion laws, Amanda Marcotte argues that the way to prevent more Gosnell-like situations is to have fewer regulations of the abortion industry. She argues that when the pro-life community argues for more - to use her words, "unnecessary regulations" - it is actually driving women to predatory creeps like Gosnell who give no meaning to back alley abortions and keep severed baby parts as his trophies.
Instead, she says, "if we want to prevent future Gosnells, the solution is simple: Support good abortion providers."
Marcotte forces us to consider the very important question: are there good abortion providers?
She makes at least two major logical blunders in her argument. First, in a clearly partisan jab, Marcotte alleges that "anti-choicers" have made Gosnell possible by demanding that lawmakers pass, "unnecessary regulations." That's wrong by at least two accounts. For one thing, the pro-life community is arguing for necessary regulations, not ones she unilaterally deems unnecessary. But going beyond that, she concedes that some regulations are necessary, "in the same way that all other medical practice is regulated," she admits.
Well, here's the thing: that is not what is happening. For instance, in West Virginia's largest abortion clinic, once the abortionist takes a woman's money and then kills her baby, he never sees her again. Not ever. There is no post-op follow up, no "see me in three days," not even a, "take two tablets and see me in the morning." If something were to go wrong during the abortion, the secretary drives these women around the corner to the state-funded emergency room of a hospital in which the abortionist does not even have privileges to practice.
The abortion industry, at least in West Virginia, is hardly regulated like any other medical practice. Far from it.
Marcotte's other logical blunder is assuming that there are, "good abortion providers." Evidently, her definition of a "good abortion provider" is one in which a woman can access immediately and be paid for by taxpayer dollars.
Now, that's just ludicrous. One would expect Marcotte to mean that a "good abortion provider" is one that has sanitary offices and does not routinely injure women. But that's not what she says. The imprimatur for "good," for Marcotte, is met by immediacy and price, not health and safety.
And, clearly, Marcotte has completely rejected any reference to the metaphysical category of the good. Humanely, is it "good" for mother's to kill their offspring? For human flourishing, is it "good" for us to encourage the destruction of our children? Morally, can we really declare the intentional taking of an innocent human life to be deemed, "good?"
Gosnell is not an outlier of the abortion industry, he is the abortion industry uncovered. Gosnell is the rusty coat hook covered over by the abortion industry's glittering, pink paint.
To use Marcotte's undefined analysis, Gosnell was very good. He provided a service to women that no one else would. He was efficient, minimizing his time with patients and maximizing his profits. He was good at being willing to break the abortion laws of Pennsylvania to give women the very immediate and inexpensive abortion that Marcotte suggests would benefit our country. Women that went to Gosnell were not slowed down by insurance companies or waiting periods. Gosnell was so good at what he did, that, according to Marcotte, his practice actually drove down the overall prices of the supposedly more reputable clinics.
Ignoring Marcotte's argument for the sake of reality, we realize that it is impossible for us to send our sisters and daughters to a "good abortion provider." Why? Because there aren't any.