By Katherine Bisanz

In an article by Elizabeth Flock that seeks to discover whether the Gosnell story is changing the discussion surrounding abortion, Leah Chamberlain, the administrator of Philadelphia Women’s Center commented that rather that opening up a new conversation on the issue, an even greater divide has been forged between abortion supporters and the anti-choice community.

“I would hope that we could both rally behind the prosecution of someone who was providing subpar medical care to women, but this situation seems to be drawing clear divisions between the two camps and there’s a lot of yelling at each other rather than listening,” she said.

Curtiss Hannum, director of center affairs and development pointed out that one conversation that has indeed shifted is the patient/provider conversation. Hannum has noticed that patients in the clinic are asking different questions that they weren’t concerned about previously about how recently the facility has been inspected or about who their doctors are.

As for how the Philadelphia Women’s Center plans to move forward, Chamberlain made clear that Philadelphia Women’s Center will continue to serve women as it has done for many years:

“Really we are just going to continue to do what we’ve been doing all along which is to listen to, trust, and serve women by providing them with the safe, respectful and compassionate reproductive health care services that they are asking for and deserve”.

Hannum stated that  when it comes down to what the clinic will take away from Gosnell, there is one ”essential truth” that Gosnell solidified for them:

“Stigma, shame and inequality in access to legal abortion care creates fertile ground for subpar and criminal providers to thrive. Increased regulation has not stopped illegal and poor quality providers and never will because current regulation is fueled by a desire to limit access and close clinics not from a desire to make women and their families safe, valued and respected.”

By Katherine Bisanz

Gosnell is not a reflection of what abortion care looks like in this country.  It is a bone-chilling reminder of what it looked like before Roe v. Wade and a forewarning of what could come if state restrictions forge forward at the same rate they have in recent years.  Dick Polman of the Patriot News put it well when he said, “Gosnell is a classic back-alley practitioner, the kind of quack who thrived prior to Roe v. Wade — and would again if the bad old days ever returned”.[i]

Instead of heeding this warning, the response from right wing politicians has been to further tighten state regulations governing abortion providers, like forcing Pennsylvania’s clinics to adhere to many of the architectural and staffing regulations of ambulatory surgical facilities. In their March article, Kate Michelman, former President of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Carol Tracy of the Women’s Law Project summed it up by saying: “The Commonwealth’s focus has been on denying access, not protecting the health and safety of women who need this medical care”.[ii]

Contrary to the beliefs of law makers pushing these bills, restrictions like these won’t make abortion disappear into thin air. In fact, they create just the environment Gosnelian providers prey on.  To further restrict abortion in response to Gosnell is to ignore the many lessons that our history seeks to teach. If anything, as Polman says, “Gosnell is actually an advertisement for why early abortions should remain legal, with government oversight to keep them safe”. [iii]

As each state restriction sinks in, we are opening the door wider and wider for providers like Gosnell to slide through.  If we listen closely to the lessons of the past, it is clear that the direct outcome of these restrictions will not be less abortion, but more Gosnelian abortion.

Social Perception of Gosnell

What brought women to this house of horrors, you ask? Michelman and Tracy cited a number of factors that influenced a women’s decision to seek care at the infamous clinic; one of the most prominent being the fact that many of these women believed the procedure to be illegal despite its’ over 40 years of legality. Legal restrictions and social stigma are likely what cause this belief to flourish in mainstream society. Other reasons women chose Gosnell may have included, but are not limited to: Medicaid’s refusal to provide insurance coverage for most abortions; the scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania (and across the nation); the fear of violence perpetrated by protestors at clinics that Gosnell’s clinic, strangely, did not attract.[iv]

It is critically important that the women of Pennsylvania know that abortion is legal and begin to recognize it as the safe and common medical procedure that it is. It’s imperative that women understand that legitimate providers, like the Women’s Centers, Planned Parenthood and other members of the National Abortion Federation, follow regulations and standard medical procedures and employ only highly trained physicians.

Until women understand abortion to be the safe and legal medical procedure that it can be and their right to experience it safely and free of persecution, future Gosnells will continue to feed on the stigma these restrictions and social structures impose on women and prey on our neighborhoods and communities the way Gosnell did.