Because there were no filthy conditions. Do you honestly think that an abortion provider is going to allow an inspector into a clinic where there are jars of baby feet, bloody sheets, cats running around and the smell of urine?<quoted text>
True, they didn't let him into their little fraternity, but they also didn't report the dangerous and filthy conditions that they found, did they?
The NAF evaluator did not witness filthy conditions. The NAF evaluators are not responsible for routine inspections. They inspect upon application from the provider. The NAF is neither federally funded or state funded. It is not the responsibility of the NAF to report to legislators of their findings. Perhaps it would be if the state had funded abortion care for low income women. But no no, nobody wants their tax dollars providing safe abortion care to poorer women. It was the states responsibility to routinely inspect Gosnells clinic.
I'm thankful that this has come out in the open because according to the Grand Jury report the Dept of Health, Dept of State, and the Dept of Public Health and other Doctors who treated some of his patients for complications are the ones "more culpable" than the NAF.
" WHO COULD HAVE PREVENTED ALL THIS DEATH AND DAMAGE?
Had state and local officials performed their duties properly, Gosnell’s clinic
would have been shut down decades ago. Gosnell would have lost the medical license
that he used to inflict irreparable harm on women; to illegally abort viable, late-term
fetuses; and to kill innumerable babies outside the womb.
Had DOH treated the clinic as the ambulatory surgical facility it was, DOH
inspectors would have assured that the staff were all licensed, that the facility was clean
and sanitary, that anesthesia protocols were followed, and that the building was properly
equipped and could, at least, accommodate stretchers. Failure to comply with these standards would have given cause for DOH to revoke the facility’s license to operate.
If inspectors had looked solely for violations of Pennsylvania’s abortion regulations, there would have been ample grounds to revoke the approval of Gosnell’s clinic as an abortion provider – as was demonstrated when DOH inspectors finally entered the facility in February 2010".
Morally culpable yes, but criminally no, the NAF is not responsible.