Planned Parenthood (a misnomer if I’ve ever heard one) sure does seem to have a problem with their abortionists being required to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; every time a state passes a law ordering this, Planned Parenthood and their cadre of other pro-infanticide minions jump in, screaming, ‘WOMEN’S HEALTH!!!!’ and waving lawsuits.
Here in Wisconsin, it’s no different. But a statement by one of the state’s witnesses might shed some light on exactly why Planned Parenthood is so adamantly against admitting privileges for their abortionists:
The state's expert, John Thorp Jr., argued that physicians who have admitting privileges are more effective at treating patients because they have full access to electronic health records, are subject to staff discipline, and are able to participate in the communication and culture of the hospital at which they have admitting privileges. Thorp is a professor at University of North Carolina and director of UNC Women's Primary Healthcare. (emphasis mine)And there you have it, folks – do you really think Planned Parenthood is going to want their abortionists subject to discipline from the hospital they would have admitting privileges to?
If you think they wouldn’t care, here are three names for you: Tonya Reaves, Edrica Goode, and Holly Patterson. Considering what we’ve heard, seen, and read (thanks to the tireless efforts of Lila Rose and others), Planned Parenthood as a whole is a lot like a cockroach – shine a light on them and they scramble and scatter and run for cover. The last thing they’re going to want is their abortionists under the scrutiny and potential discipline of other medical personnel.
Because, if they had nothing to hide … why would they be so objectionable to something that would actually end up being beneficial, not only by being able to admit patients who might need further care, but by having the imprimatur of a local hospital on their résumé?