Kermit Gosnell, partial birth abortion, and regulation

A major part of Kermit Gosnell’s business was late term abortions.  The usual way to do a late term abortion is to induce childbirth, and then, as the baby’s head comes down the tubes, jab a steel straw into its head and suck out its brains with a powerful vacuum.  This collapses the head, making the rest of the birth easy.  However, because Gosnell was doing an abortion mill, doing as many abortions as possible as cheaply as possible with the least possible skilled labor, he generally left his patients unattended, so they would frequently pop out a living, healthy, screaming baby before Gosnell got around to looking in on them.  So instead of killing the baby five minutes before birth, he would kill the baby five minutes after birth. There is much shock and horror about this ten minute delay.

Notice I have categorized this post under economics, not politics. I am not among those horridly outraged by this ten minute delay.

Anti abortion forces are, of course, vigorously mobilizing to regulate abortion clinics. The permanent government, the official left, is vigorously mobilizing to regulate everything except abortion clinics,  as it has been doing with ever increasing vigor for many decades, while they are doing their damnedest to prevent the Kermit Gosnell incident from leading to regulation of abortion clinics.

I expect the anti abortion forces will piously say that the women suffered great pain and suffering by passing the baby’s entire head, and the poor innocent darlings should be protected from that terrible pain by regulation that makes sure the steel tube and vacuum arrive in time – and no one will believe them, for we all know that the real intent will be to strangle abortion clinics in red tape.

The reason Kermit Gosnell got busted is that the narcs got on his case, and the narcs are far less left wing than most of the permanent government,

Meanwhile, the permanent government will quite correctly tell us that market forces will usually protect women, and busybody regulators will just strangle everyone in red tape.

Quite so. But why is what is good for abortion clinics is supposedly not good for the rest of the economy?

Although regulations ostensibly have modest, reasonable aims, in practice, regulation is advocated and implemented by those who seek to destroy capitalism entirely – except, I suppose, for abortion clinics.

The whole point of this rant is that whenever you hear of some worthy regulation to accomplish some worthy objective, you should assume Jon Corzine will be implementing and enforcing the regulations.  Both sides in this debate reveal their inward unstated knowledge that regulation is an attack.  The left favors capitalism for what they actually want done, and opposes capitalism for everything else.

The anti abortion forces are thirsting to ensure that existing abortion regulations are enforced, and new regulations shall be added, even if the supposed aim of these regulation is to ensure that babies get their brains sucked out through a steel tube fast enough to avoid hurting the mother, because they know the regulations will in practice be implemented by the likes of Jon Corzine.  The pro abortion forces are resisting for the same reason.


21 Responses to “Kermit Gosnell, partial birth abortion, and regulation”

  1. […] Kermit Gosnell, partial birth abortion, and regulation « Jim’s Blog […]

  2. Robert in Arabia says:

    Western civilization died at Stalingrad.

    • jim says:

      Free people cannot deal with each other unless they agree on what constitutes a negative sum interaction (coercive) and a positive sum interaction (voluntary).

      Microeconomics provides such a definition. Nazis, like progressives and commies, reject microeconomics, hence bad Nazi behavior.

      Microeconomics logically leads to libertarianism, if one assumes that everyone is rational and well behaved. However, we have to consider what to do with individuals and groups that are irrational and badly behaved, which libertarians, seeking an alliance with progressives, are reluctant to do.

      • Jake says:

        >>Microeconomics logically leads to libertarianism, if one assumes that everyone is rational and well behaved. However, we have to consider what to do with individuals and groups that are irrational and badly behaved, which libertarians, seeking an alliance with progressives, are reluctant to do.

        People are not rational, they’re tribal. Intellectuals born without that sense of tribal identity(and often without religious gene as well) don’t feel tribalism pull at their ape brain and assume that people are rational despite overwhelming evidence that most people are not. Nationalism is tribalism writ large.

        Libertarians also assume that the economy exist to serve people. I don’t see any evidence that this is the case. Most people would be perfectly happy with nothing but hunting and gathering the minimum to survive if that didn’t guarantee their extinction at the hands of a stronger group. The economy exists so that a group can produce enough value so that their neighbor can’t conquer them at will. Anything beyond that level minimum military security can then be funneled into freedom, arts, learning, new tech, ect.

        >>Microeconomics provides such a definition. Nazis, like progressives and commies, reject microeconomics, hence bad Nazi behavior.

        From a Nazi perspective useless people, intelligent parasites, forcing a culture that isn’t native to given group drags that group down. From my own study of the improving conditions in Mexico and how much stronger Poland was after WW2 that they may have been right.

        • jim says:

          Of course Nazis were right about all sorts of things that progressives found unthinkable, but my problem with Nazis is what they had, and have, in common with progressives. Nazis are, pretty much, New Dealers.

          • Jake says:

            You’re right, they are New Dealers. But they’re new dealers with a system that actually seemed to work because it favored the middle class over the lower class and it encouraged savings over debt. I can’t say if it would have continued working after the war, but it certainly worked quite well before and during the war.

            • jim says:

              I seem to recall massive complaints about ersatz goods – inflation hidden in massive declines in quality, while wages did not rise.

              Hitler’s initial gamble – soak up unemployment by conscripting it into the army, pay them with freshly printed money, and then retake the Rhineland, thus ensuring the money was actually worth something, worked fine. Subsequently however, the economy went downhill, reflecting that fact that war is expensive, and that Nazi economics, like New Deal economics, sucked.

  3. Euro says:

    Were Gosnell’s patients mostly black/hispanic?

  4. anon says:

    the only regulation the Left want for abortion is that the taxpayer foot the bill.

    • jim says:

      Exactly so: Which admits what is denied – that regulation never achieves its purported purpose.

  5. And then there’s the whole social construct and Darwinian evolution in the abortion stuff. Like “I evolve/progress”, not “I am”.

    Personally, I think people already “are” before being born in this world and even being conceived. We just don’t remember that because we were “off” (as in we were already created/made but not conscious and were almost asleep) and possibly our memories (before being born) are wiped out until we die after being/living on planet Earth.

  6. Red says:

    I’ve always wondered why progressives have such a hard on for abortion. It’s really the odd ball out of the rest of their polices. The primary thing abortion does is slows the production of criminal human waste. Progressives tend to like and support criminals.

    • Thales says:

      Sexual revolution: liberal affluent white girls can chase varsity c*ck without fear of consequences.

    • Part of it is “It’s do as I say, not as I do” and “For me but not for thee” liberal/progressive dementia. And eugenics. Not to mention the twins of hypocrisy and projection.

      You see this with white liberals and East Asians who love, love, love diversity/multiculturalism but their gated communities, personal lives and overall life is free of “diversity”.

      The other stuff is liberalism sex-based lens.

      It’s the whole new age inner goddess stuff and sacrificing babies for the Devil/Satan (who masquerades as an angel of light to them). Various foreign tribes around the Israelites in the Old/First Testament sacrificed their children alive to the idol Baal.

      It’s “kind, compassionate” cruelty.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      What abortion does is weed out the most responsible genes from the pool of the lower classes.

      If she’s pregnant and she’s capable of thinking in advance enough to consider what her and the baby’s life will be like and she is foresighted enough to act on this information and she actually follows through on it then she gets an abortion.

      If she fails at any one of those steps she doesn’t.

      If in the back of her mind she thinks that abortion is an option she will be way more likely to have sex with any guy who excites your feral emotions – i.e., some criminal. Once she’s pregnant a whole other set of emotions take over.

      This is for the low end of the scale.

    • jim says:

      Women’s liberation. It started with the Puritans allowing women to speak in Church. But that does not make a whole lot of sense either, since Puritans at that time were making a huge deal out of strict fidelity to early New Testament Christianity.

      The early Puritans also desecrated marriage, and they and their successors continue to attack marriage to this day. Looks like a program of more sex for alpha males, less sex for beta males – that the content of Puritanism and its successors, despite its democratic pretensions, is dominated by a tiny minority of top Puritans – today a tiny minority of top progressives.

  7. […] Kermit Gosnell, partial birth abortion, and regulation « Jim’s Blog […]

Leave a Reply