Talk:National Abortion Federation

How are we going to flesh this out?
Nobody's even joining in on the discussion about how to get a balanced article up about NAF. I believe it's futile to put anything negative about NAF in the article because it will just be summarily nuked. But nobody's even proposing an alternative. These scandals resulted in changes within NAF, from a "Standards of Care" model to a "Clinical Guidelines" model, and NAF added -- at least to their web site -- on-site inspections, something they'd not claimed to do prior to the ab/mal scandal and the Lime 5 allegations.

I'm willing to hammer this out but I seem to be a voice in the wilderness here. ChristinaDunigan 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should add information derived from an analysis of Kevin Sherlock's books. He has documentation out the yin-yang about the butchery in NAF facilities. And he isn't afraid to name names. I have both of his books: Victims of Choice, and The Scarlet Survey. It will take time, but if you have a list of NAF facilities (which shouldn't be hard to obtain), then we have all the information we need. People are forgetting that sooner or later the NAF facilities are going to be sued bigtime for all the butchery they're doing. What difference does it make if a woman dies from a coathanger or an infection or exsanguination at the hands of a butcher who is getting off scot free because abortion is legal? She's just as dead! FemCofounder 16 August 2006

FemCofounder, NAF's web site has a member finder, but of course that only shows current members. I don't know that anybody has compiled a ready list of who was a member in the past. Crutcher's organization might. Library of Congress has all of NAF's Annual Reports in their stacks, but as far as I know you'd have to physically go to LOC to check them out and review them. But they do list the members every year.

I don't have Sherlocks's books at hand (I lent them out and never got them back.) so I really can't contribute anything on that score. Maybe you could do an entry on Sherlock and on each of his books, and add a sentence here summarizing Sherlock's findings with a link over to the Sherlock article. It's a shame that he never really published his Abortion Death Log but The Scarlet Survey and Victims of Choice were certainly important works. I know Priests for Life really picked them up and ran with them. I think Sherlock's contributions are more important as regards the CDC's abortion surveillance activities than regarding NAF. ChristinaDunigan 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scandal
The original entry on this page was lifted verbatim from the National Abortion Federation's own promotional materials. Rather than delete it, I added information about scandal to provide a balanced perspective. Severa deleted my entire entry. I restored the deleted information and have saved a copy.

Readers are entitled to a complete, balanced view, which is not achieved by merely reposting an organization's own promotional writings. ChristinaDunigan 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Abundant citations were provided about the NAF scandals, and they hardly involved a small number of facilities. Just off the top of my head we have Hope Clinic for Women and the death of Barbaralee Davis, Hanan Rotem with his patient death and his receptionist administering general anesthesia , Abu Hayat and his multiple scandals that got national coverage on Rush Limbaugh and Phil Donohue's shows, FPA and their twelve deaths and hundreds of malpractice suits, how Atlanta Women's Pavillion managed to fatally injure two teenage abortion patients within a one-hour period , Eastern Women's Center with its three patient deaths and misplaced medical director , Midtown Hospital and its illegal late-abortion scandal, George Tiller with the recent controversy over the death of Christin Gilbert, and the two RU-486 deaths in California. And I only brushed the surface of what Crutcher uncovered. I didn't go into Warren Hern's assertions that NAF's standards of care were ornamental, cosmetic, and meaningless. (If this is what a founding member said about them, it's not just prolifers that have a beef with NAF.) I didn't go into 60 Minutes holding Barbara Radford's feet to the fire for keeping silent about the conditions at Hillview. I didn't go into the NAF attorney scolding members to stop committing malpractice because she was tired of having to frighten and intimidate women into dropping their lawsuits. Considering the volume of information I have on NAF deaths and malpractice suits and wrongdoing in general, I think I exercised considerable restraint.

I believe that the more appropriate response would have been for those with a more positive view of NAF to provide information about NAF's more illustrious members, such as Warren Hern with his advocacy and book, Jane Hodgson with her advocacy, David Grimes with his prolific writing, Michael Burnhill's contributions both to NAF and as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, etc.

We're not going to get a balanced, fleshed-out article if people just keep nuking stuff. We're going to get a balanced, fleshed-out article if people contribute verified information from both sides. Otherwise this is going to remain a stub forever. ChristinaDunigan 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006

In my opinion, we have to ask ourselves whether we are more interested in accurate information, or in a political agenda. We aren't performing a service for the safety of women if we sweep the bad stuff under the rug. I hope that's not what people are doing here. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Sometimes the facts are uncomfortable. If NAF doesn't like its reputation, it can clean up its affiliates. It's that simple. NAF may be able to influence the contents here, but it won't be able to do that all over the internet. The best thing to do is present as much documented evidence as possible and let the chips fall where they may. FemCofounder


 * This is ridiculous. NAF is a professional association for abortion providers. Not exactly on the same caliber, but still similar to the American Dental Association or the American Medical Association. Go to those articles and see if there is a laundry list of everything that has gone medically wrong with any of their members. The actions of members in their own practices cannot represent the parent Association. Seriously, imagine what it would be like to do what you are trying to do to the AMA or ADA articles. This article is about a parent medical association organization, not about individual doctors. It is almost akin to posting a list of all accidents by licensed drivers on the DMV page. Look at the criticisms section of the AMA article. Those criticisms are about the organization, not individual members. Keep in mind what makes an article encyclopedic, instead of an essay, or blog post. What you need to do is find reliable sources that covers criticisms of NAF. Saying a patient died at a NAF member clinic is not a criticism of the parent organization by itself. There needs to be evidence reported in a verifiable, reliable source that the parent organization caused the death, or covered it up or something else relevent to NAF. This isn't about censorship. It's about following wikipedia policy, and keeping articles up to a high caliber. Filling a this article with pro-life criticisms from a blog cite is no better than filling the NRA article with a list of gun related deaths (or NRA member gun accidents or whatever). Always keep in min WP:OR and the undue weight portion of WP:NPOV. Finally, this isn't about sides. If you know ways to contribute to this article, both positive and negative, why not do it youself (it is a wiki afterall)? There is nothing wrong with "writing for the other side". I think taking sides from the get go in controversial articles only leads to edit wars and POV insertions. --Andrew c 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, NAF is an organization which purportedly sets standards for abortion providers. If we cannot trust them to do their job, the world has a right to know about it. The actions of affiliates do reflect directly on the NAF itself. If the NAF isn't willing to police the providers, then it deserves a bad reputation based on what the providers do. If the NAF is committed to making abortion safe, it will police its providers and remove the affiliation of any that do not measure up to its standards. The AMA has a responsibility to remove the affiliation of any doctor who commits malpractice intentionally and willfully. Such a doctor should have his license suspended or revoked. If he is running a shoddy medical clinic, then he should be dealt with. If the AMA refuses to deal with such doctors, then, yes, they deserve to have this fact pointed out. FemCofounder

No, Andrew, it's not like that at all. What's happening here is more like an article on Ted Kennedy in which all attempts to relate the events of Chapaquiddik are nuked, and are finally replaced with the sentence, "Republican opponents of Kennedy sometimes make reference to a 1969 incident in which he left the scene of a motor vehicle accident."

NAF held numerous sessions at Annual Meetings about the problem of malpractice within their ranks. Warren Hern, to his great credit, kept repeating that the way to avoid getting sued was to stop committing malpractice. But the discussion hinged on legal strategies to frighten and intimidate women into dropping lawsuits, on CYA documentation, and on attacking attorneys who represent the women. One strategy that was discussed at these meetings was making a change from having "Standards of Care" to having "Clinical Guidelines."

And we're not talking about how sometimes things just go wrong despite people's best efforts.

In one session, Steve Lichtenberg went on at great length about the risky procedures he did on an outpatient basis, the spectacular complications that arose, and his great skill in treating those complicatios on-site. Michael Burnhill (then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the moderator of many Risk Management Seminar sessions) told Lichtenberg he was "playing Russian roulette" with his patients' lives and told him he was going to kill somebody if he didn't stop. Lichtenberg is the doctor who performed the abortion in which the 13-year-old girl died of a Brevital overdose. Lichtenberg is still a member. And when Crutcher's employee asked about patient death at Lichtenberg's facility, she was repeatedly assured that had there been a patient death, NAF would have been notified and that the practitioner would no longer be a member. The caller was repeatedly assured that there had been no patient death there, that any serious problems would result in the member being expelled from NAF. To reiterate: The Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America was of the opinion that Lichtenberg was playing Russian roulette with patient's lives, but any qualms about the fact that NAF refers women to Lichtenberg, with assurances that he adheres to high standards of care, is treated as just a couple of prolifers with their panties in a twist.

It is just the prochoice point of view that the problems within NAF are merely a reflection of normal medical practice. By all means, add a defense of NAF. But don't silence the controversy. Warren Hern, a founding member, called NAF's Standards of Care "ornamental", "cosmetic", and "meaningless," and voiced his concern about what his fellows within NAF were doing. Michael Burnhill condemned not only Lichtenberg's Russian roulette, but chewed others out for their habit of hiding complications from patients and taking a "cross your fingers" approach. It's not just prolifers who have a bone to pick with NAF. It's that only the prolifers voice these concerns in public.

This is a systemic problem within NAF. ChristinaDunigan 17:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another problem that isn't being discussed here. In almost all cases, abortion is an elective procedure, with no medical indication for it. Most other medical procedures are done because of an existing medical condition, and are done because the risk to the patient is greater if nothing is done, than if the procedure is done. Because abortion is almost always elective, I see no problem whatsoever with a heightened scrutiny of conditions. But even without a heightened scrutiny, the facts to me appear to be appalling. The public has a right to this information. FemCofounder


 * Well, if you can keep it concise and encyclopedic, and if you have reliable sources backing up these claims, then go right ahead and add whatever material you feel is relevent to an encyclopedia article about this organization. I'm not here to debate politics. Ok. I just did a LexisNexis search for "National Abortion Federation". In 1985, they were involved in a federal lawsuit, Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Operation Rescue, that was appealled and ruled favorably to the plaintif in 1993, concerning "conspiracy to hinder state law enforcement officers from securing to women the right to obtain an abortion". In 2004, they lost a federal case, National Abortion Fed'n v. Ashcroft, involving protecting abortion patient/doctor records and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Back in 1984, there were press releases and news items concerning anti-abortion violence, and the NAF's outcries against those "acts of terrorism". Same thing in 1993, and 1998 when doctors were murdered. Ok after getting 366 hits, I refined my search to include the word "death". More articles about anti-abortion violence. One article in 1995 about David Benjamin and a wrongful death of a patient, with one line that mentions NAF: The National Abortion Federation, which represents about 300 clinics, called the case tragic. I mean, I searched for about 20 minutes and thats about all I found. I know LexisNexis isn't everything, but finding reliable sources documenting the systemic problems within NAF may be challenging, but I'm looking foward to whatever research and accompanying contribution you have. Just keep in mind original research and reliable sources, and you should be ok. Wikipedia is not the place to publish neither primary sources nor any information for the first time.--Andrew c 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Andrew c is absolutely right about the applicability of this information to the article. It would be incorrect to conflate the conduct of an individual dentist with the conduct of the ADA as a whole. Likewise, Ted Kennedy at Chapaquiddik, George W. Bush on WMDs, or Paul Martin on sponsorship serve as evidence of misconduct on the part of one to a few individuals, not sweeping indictments of the Democratic, Republican, or Liberal parties.
 * Do we see such a detailed, case-by-case listing of malpractice examples on, say, gastric bypass or anethesia? I can see no practical, encyclopaedic reason to single out abortion from among all other medical procedures. There's already information on U.S. and U.K. mortality figures for induced abortion at Abortion, which, if you asked me, is entirely consistent with the standard set by other surgery-related topics.
 * I think your best bet is to try out Abortion debate. Also, I think you would need to collect some U.S.-external data, in keeping with Wikipedia's goal of a worldwide perspective. If such data prove not to be widely available, propose the creation of a "Malpractice cases" section at Abortion in the United States, because your info is U.S.-specific. Remember, we are writing an encyclopaedia, so trim out all unnecessary flourishes and keep it to the essential facts. Keep in mind WP:RS and WP:NPOV, because, generally, secondary sourcing, anecdotal evidence, or relying heavily books written and published by advocacy groups would be considered insufficient on such a contentious issue. -Severa (!!!) 23:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Andrew, why don't we hammer out something based on what I originally posted:

Anti-abortion activist Mark Crutcher, in his book, Lime 5'', raised allegations that NAF was harboring dangerous practitioners, referring unwitting women to physicians and facilities with a history of deaths and malpractice. Crutcher included a number of instances of death and malpractice allegations in the book. Crutcher also cited taped conversations between an employee of his and a NAF hotline counselor in which the caller was repeatedly assured that there had been no patient death at Albany Medical Surgical Center in Chicago, even though a 13-year-old patient had died there from a massive overdose of Brevital.''
 * Note- the cite for this would of course be Lime 5 itself, though I can add an additional cite on the death of the patient. I can also make note of the dates on which the calls took place. I made no mention of the conversations between the employee and NAF's Sylvia Stengel, who indicated that hotline counselors were not given information about problems at facilities and that their goal was merely to refer the woman to a NAF member. Note also that I didn't go through the full range of Crutcher's allegations, based on National Abortion Federation meeting and seminar tapes, referenced above, regarding Hern's chastisement of his fellows, Hern's references to NAF's standards of care as "ornamenal", "cosmetic", and "meaningless", nor Hern's assertions that "following standards costs money and people don't want to do that." I did not go into lurid detail about the girl's death, nor into Lichtenberg's background which as I said includes Michael Burnhill, the Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, chewing him out for playing Russian roulette with patients' lives.


 * This paragraph seems the most relevent to this article, but we have to keep in mind "are the claims verifiable" and "is Crutcher a reliable source?" Clearly he is a source for his own view, but is there any independent verification by non-political extremist groups? And how prevelent are these views? By giving them so much space, are we breaking WP:NPOV with undue weight to a minority view? I'd say if we condensed this section down to a sentence or two, and toned it down a little, and presented it in a little more of a NPOV manner, it could work.

''The first high-profile NAF death took place on July 14, 1977. The patient, an 18-year-old newlywed, had been referred to Hope Clinic for Women, a member of the newly-founded National Abortion Federation, by a local women's group. The abortion was preformed by Hope's Medical Director, Hector Zavalos. Though the woman was unable to walk unaided, she was discharged from the clinic and sent home in the care of her sister. She bled to death from a massive uterine tear, with portions of the fetus embedded in the tear. ''
 * Note that I did not go into lurid detail about the death, merely making mention of the three most salient points: that she was weak and in obvious distress when discharged, that she had been sent home with an undetected and untreated uterine tear, and that the abortion had been incomplete to a degree that would have been obvious to anybody doing even a cursory pathology exam of the tissue removed during the abortion. Barbaralee's death was contemporaneous with the Chicago Sun-Times expose, "The Abortion Profiteers," which included an article on the newly-launched NAF and how women could avoid problems by going to NAF members. What happened to Barbaralee was ironic, to say the least.


 * There is no connection made between NAF and the death besides the clinic was a member clinic, right? Where is the conspiracy? Where is the systemic issues that point the finger back to NAF? Furthermore, regardless if this paragraph is off topic or not, it seems very unballanced to talk about patient deaths without talking more generally about patient deaths (how common are they in the abortion industry verse other industries, statistical information about their prevelence, etc. Focusing in on a few cases seems like an emotional argument aimed towards painting a negative picture.) That said, I still do nto see how this information relates to NAF.

''Perhaps the most spectacular case of a troubled NAF member was Dr. Abu Hayat of New York. Hayat made headlines in 1991 when he attempted a 32-week abortion in his office. He removed the right arm from the fetus, then sent the patient home with instructions to return the following day to complete the procedure. In pain, she instead went to a hospital where she gave birth to a maimed infant. When the news broke, New York Post reporters discovered that Hayat had performed a botched abortion the year before, resulting in the death of the 17-year-old patient. Women came forward with multiple accusations of malpractice and sexual abuse. Hayat was stripped of his license by the medical board and successfully prosecuted for the attempted illegal abortion that had resulted in the birth of the maimed baby. The 1991 National Abortion Federation Annual Report lists Hayat as a member. ''
 * Note that I did not go into lurid detail about the abortion that maimed Ana Rosa Rodriguez, nor into the abortion that killed Sophie McCoy, nor into the details of the allegations the other women brought forward. You can go here to see the medical board documents on Hayat and get a glimpse of exactly how much I let slide on this fellow. The maiming incident got national attention on Rush Limbaugh and when the mother brought the baby on Donohue. This wasn't some little incident that slid under the radar.


 * Same problem as the above paragraph. What does NAF have to do with this case. I went to LexisNexis too look up some of those articles, and none point the finger at NAF. None make the connection that seems to only be put forth by Crutcher and Dunigan. Once again, this paragraph seems out of place in this article, and has encyclopedic issues as well. Try reading how other articles deal with POVs and controversy.

''More recently, questions regarding the safety of the abortion drug RU-486 arose following a cluster of deaths in southern California. Two of the four dead women obtained their doses at NAF facilities. One woman was prescribed the drugs at Eve Surgical Center by Dr. Christopher Dotson. At the time of the fatal abortion, Dotson had not yet completed eight years medical board probation for gross negligence and incompetence in the death of a patient. The other woman obtained her dose at a Family Practice Associates Medical Group clinic, becoming the twelfth confirmed abortion death at FPA facilities. (I'm going to have to do an entirely new search to get sources for these because my original web sources moved or deleted the articles. The twelve FPA deaths are: 1. Chanelle Bryant (The RU-486 death, need new cites since my old cites moved) 2. Denise Holmes 3. Mary Pena 4. Josefina Garcia 5. Laniece Dorsey 6. Joyce Ortenzio 7. Tami Suematsu 8. Christina Mora 9. Susan Levy 10. Patricia Chacon 11. Kimberly Neal 12. Deanna Bell ''
 * Note, Deanna is the girl who died under Lichtenberg's care, mentioned above.


 * The mifepristone deaths were investigated by the FDA and others. What were their findings? How do they relate to the NAF in any way? These were fairly high profile cases in the media, so we should have some verifiable source that there were wrongdoing on behalf of NAF, correct? If not, how is this information relevent to this article then? What do FPA deaths have to do with NAF? etc, more of the same. --Andrew c 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So this is a very superficial look at the Lime 5 allegations, the first NAF death headline, the NAF practitioner who gained the most noteriety, and NAF's involvement in the recent RU-486 brouhaha. That strikes me as a modest overview sufficient for the scope of Wikipedia. ChristinaDunigan 18:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Using LexisNexis, I searched through a number of the cited newspaper articles, and none of them are reporting on the systemic problems of NAF surrounding these cases. It all comes back to the claims of one or two people. (If one of those people is you, we go into WP:OR). Let me quote part of WP:RS:  editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views... Groups like these may be used as primary sources only, i.e. as sources about themselves and their own activities or viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. When it comes to biographies of living people, wikipedia has a zero-tolerance policy of inserting unsourced criticism because of legal issues surrounding libel, and defamation of character of the living people. I believe the spirit of this policy applies here. Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism, and we have to be conscious of what unsourced, negative statements can do to existing organizations. All that said, I still do not understand why the actions of members need to go in an article about an organization. Like I said above, do we list all the malpractice suits under ADA and AMA? List accidents by licensed drivers under DMV? Where does it stop? Seriously, find reliable sources that are critical of the organization and their systemic problems, not opinions and accusations from extremist groups.--Andrew c 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "(If one of those people is you, we go into WP:OR)."
 * According to a 2001 article published on Salon.com, "Journalists or terrorists?" by Frederick Clarkson, "...The section's editor, Christina Dunigan, worked as a researcher for the militantly antiabortion group Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas. Life Dynamics has collected intelligence about abortion providers to inform readers about what founder Mark Crutcher has called 'opportunities before us which, if properly exploited, could result in an America where abortion may indeed be perfectly legal, but no one can get one.' "
 * I don't mean venture into ad hominem, of course, but I thought it was worth pointing out. I read the article a couple of months back when doing some research. -Severa (!!!) 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never made any secret of who I am. I'm more informed than the average reader on the street because I've been doing abortion-related research, both on my own and professionally, since 1983.

Anybody who cares enough to contribute is going to be coming at the topic from a particular perspective. The only way you're going to get balance is to have people from each perspective contributing and allowing the other perspective to be included. I'm not trying to keep other people's contributions under wraps. ChristinaDunigan 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What Hope Clinic, Abu Hayat, etc. have to do with NAF in general
The issue here is that NAF is not merely an educational and advocacy organization. They assert that their members are required, as a requirement of membership, to adhere to certain standards. Callers to their hotline and visitors to their web site are assured that NAF membership assures high standards of care. "In order to become a member, a clinic must complete a rigorous application process. Member clinics have agreed to comply with our standards for quality and care, updated annually in our Clinical Policy Guidelines, which set the evidence-based standards for abortion care in North America. NAF periodically conducts site visits to confirm that our clinics are in compliance with our guidelines." This is why the actions of particular members are so relevant. Imagine, for example, if UL-approved electric appliances were bursting into flame and causing fatal house fires. Would that be dismissed as a matter that's relevant only to the manufacturer? I think not. I think that this would be appropriate for the article on Underwriters Laboratories because of how they present themselves to the public. For the woman seeking abortion, a provider's NAF membership is the equivalent of the UL label on an electric appliance. NAF membership is presented to the public as proof that this entity has been tested and found safe. ChristinaDunigan 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is still a matter of citation and OR. You need verifiable sources that point the finger at NAF in regards to these malpractice and wrongful death issues. Don't wrongful death/wrongful abortion and malpractice issues end up going to court or being settled? Do you have any evidence of a court finding wrong doing on behalf of NAF? Do you have any evidence of NAF settling one of these issues out of court? DO you have any evidence of NAF being involved what so ever in any legal troubles? These are the sort of things that can be verified and encyclopedic. A single political advocate claiming things in a self-published book does not meet WP:V nor WP:RS. Even if you personally witnessed a NAF certification process of an unsafe clinic, it cannot be published here without violating WP:OR unless there is a proper citation to back it up. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it isn't tabloid journalism, it isn't a blog, it isn't a place to air political views, or to have a debate, it isn't a place to publish something for the first time, etc. These policies may prevent some information that someone feels is relevent from getting in articles, but in the long run it helps to keep things encyclopedic, and holds articles up to a high standard. --Andrew c 22:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have NAF's own web site assuring that they inspect their facilities and that they adhere to high standards, and independent sources indicating that these facilities are in trouble. Just today news broke of another one. Is NAF's site not a reliable source about NAF practices? Is NAF's site not a reliable source for NAF membership? Is the Orlando Sentinel not a reliable source about an illegal abortion at Orlando Women's Center? Is the Florida professional licensing database not a reliable source for the information that the owner's license is under emergency suspension?

Not that I want to add Pendergraft's recent woes to the article. I'm just using him as an illustration. I'm just being accused of using flimsy sources. Are the sources I list above not reliable sources? Or is it that it's forbidden to take reliable information from Reliable Source A and juxtapose it to reliable information from Reliable Source B? How many other people have to juxtapose the information before Wikipedia will allow the information to be juxtaposed? ChristinaDunigan 01:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Orlando Sentinel and the Florida Medical License information are both reliable sources. Unfortunately, neither one mentions NAF. If there was an article on the Florida Department of Health, would we put up information on all the doctors who lost their licenses? The Orlando Sentinel does not claim it is the DoH's fault that the doctors did these things, and the Orlando Sentinel does not claim it is NAFs fault that the doctors did these things. Therefore, we have no verifiable sources that NAF or DoH is responsible for the actions of these doctors, and therefore these cases do not belong in either article. The original news stores are reliable sources, that isn't the issues. The assumptions and accusations you bring are the original research part. You are drawing conclusions and interpreting the data in ways that are not supported by your sources. I mean, how can you honestly think you are citing verifiable, reliable information about the NAF when the articles you cite don't even mention the NAF. Like I said, it seems like if there really was these systemic issues that NAF is so grossly irresponsible, that there would be a paper trail of lawsuits against them, no? So where is this paper trail? All you have is guilt by association (and as I tried to demonstrate with my ADA, AMA, DMV, and DoH comparisons, it just doesn't work like that. We need more to go on before we put this original research into wikipedia).--Andrew c 02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And because I've been thinking about this, here is another comparison. Go to the NRA article. Consider adding info on every single hunting accident that has occured by a card carrying NRA member (including Dick Cheney's). Now ask yourself, does that sort of thing belong in an article about the NRA? Surely, it pushes the extreme gun control POV that guns are not safe. And guilt by association 'proves' that the NRA is responsible for the fact that all of the hunters behind the trigger were NRA members, right? I think its clear that sort of thing doesn't belong here, and for almost identical reasons, I cannot fathom why these edits belong in the NAF article.--Andrew c 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with Andrew c. The central issue herein is the direct relevance of this information to an article about the NAF, which, given Andrew's ADA/AMA/etc. comparision, is questionable. You cannot manufacture controversy as an excuse to shoehorn something in when it doesn't fit. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and, thus, isn't intended to function as a blog or pamphlet. Try Abortion debate or Abortion in the United States instead. -Severa (!!!) 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How much I held back. Now let's admit an example.
Some folks here seem to be of the opinion that I am just picking on NAF.

First, let's look again at what NAF tells the public:

"In order to become a member, a clinic must complete a rigorous application process. Member clinics have agreed to comply with our standards for quality and care, updated annually in our Clinical Policy Guidelines, which set the evidence-based standards for abortion care in North America. NAF periodically conducts site visits to confirm that our clinics are in compliance with our guidelines."

Let's see what facilities can get away with and still be NAF members, still be considered worthy of the NAF seal of approval, assuring the public that they have been tested and found safe:

1. After the death of Gloria Aponte, state inspectors found that NAF member Hanan Rotem had been allowing his receptionist, a woman with no medical training, to administer general anesthesia.

2. I mentioned in the article that a 13-year-old girl had died of a massive Brevital overdose at a NAF facility. I did not mention that Michael Burnhill, then Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, had told the doctor, Steve Lichtenberg, that he was playing Russian roulette with patients' lives when Lichtenberg boasted at a NAF event of the risky abortions he attempted on an outpatient basis. Nor did I mention that despite Deanna's death and despite Burnhill's low opinion of the man, Lichtenberg not only remains a NAF member, he is a frequent presenter at NAF Risk Managemten Seminars. I did not mention that Deanna was administered at least 250 mg Brevital, when sufficient dose for an adult would be 70 mg., and that Deanna had been given 400 mg Brevital for anesthesia during laminaria removal procedure the previous day. Brevitol is not approved for pediatric use. Deanna, at age 13, would be a pediatric patient. Deanna was noted as being discharged to the recovery room at 7:51, and was rated 9 favorable points of possible 14 for normal color, respiration, etc. But her pulse was 130-135, per Lichtenberg's Clinical Summary written after Deanna's death. Deanna was noted by monitors as lacking vitals at 7:53. The first resuscitative efforts were documented at 8:51, although Lichtenberg's Clinical Summary written after Deanna's death indicated that resuscitative efforts made for the 1-hour period. No record of pupil dilation response was noted in the recovery room record, and "no effort was made to transport the patient to a more fully-equipped facility" during the hour they reported attempts to resuscitate her. The suit filed by Deanna's family also stated that the facility lacked any protocol for dealing with cardiac-respiratory arrest. Lichtenberg also noted, "Prior to the removal of the body from the premises a total of 18 family members congregated in the clinic and were addressed by our clinic manager ... who was with me during my initial presentation to the patient's mother and sister." Although the clinic told family and the press that the probable cause of death was amniotic fluid embolism, the autopsy showed that "Histologic studies showed no microscopic evidence of amniotic fluid embolism." In other words, Lichtenberg lied to the girl's family about the cause of her death. A report sent to the hospital that had referred Deanna read, "Date of service 9-5-92, Uneventful D&C, Thank you!" signed by Lichtenberg. Uneventful.

3. NAF member Robert Crist has three patient deaths that I know of. One, Nichole Williams, does appear to just be one of those things, a forseeable but not always treatable complication. The other deaths are less innocent. According to suits later filed by Diane's mother, RHS staff and abortionist Robert Crist did not check for possible drug interactions before giving Diane Boyd valium and sublimaze. These drugs evidently reacted with Diane's usual medication, thorazine, causing her to stop breathing. Diane's mother said that the clinic lacked heart monitoring equipment or resuscitation equipment. Latachie was 17 years old, and 22 weeks pregnant, when Crist performed an abortion on her at Houston's West Loop Clinic. According to Latachie's family, she bled heavily at the clinic, and cried out to the staff for help. They told her that her symptoms were normal, and sent her home. Several hours later, Latachie stopped breathing. Her brother-in-law called 911 while her sister did CPR, to no avail. Latachie was dead on arrival at Ben Taub Hospital. Despite claims that they report such things, the Centers for Disease Control counted no abortion deaths among women of Latachie's race and age range for 1991.

4. I only mentioned that Family Planning Associates Medical Group had ten abortion deaths that have been verified, and that one of them was a woman who had died in the cluster of RU-486 deaths in southern California. I didn't even scratch the surface of the other deaths. Patricia Chacon bled to death while left unattended. Mary Pena's body was rushed through the morgue without an autopsy; only an alert vital records clerk caught irregularities on the death certificate and an autopsy was ordered and it was found out that she had bled to death from a massive unsutured cervical laceration. FPA physicians failed to diagnose Josefina Garcia's ectopic pregnancy and instead performed an abortion procedure as though she had a uterine pregnancy; she was left unattended in the recovery room where she bled to death. Laniece Dorsey lapsed into a coma and died after going into cardio-respiratory arrest during general anesthesia for her abortion. Joyce Ortenzio was discharged after her abortion, told all was well, then was later found dead in her home due to an overdose of the drug amitriptyline, infection from fetal parts that were not removed during the abortion, and septic shock. Tami Suematsu, who had a history of asthma, had an asthma attack in the facility after surgery, went into cardiac arrest, and died. Susan Levy was discharged with retained tissue, and was found dead of infection in the car she was living in. Deanna Bell I went into at length above. Christine Mora's abortion was rushed through in a mere three minutes, resulting in a cervical laceration that allowed the amniotic fluid embolism that killed her. Kimberly Neil's family asserts that FPA failed to promptly and properly treat her respiratory arrest, allowing her to die.

5. I mentioned the death of Barbaralee Davis, the first known NAF death, and how she was sent home, weak and unable to walk unaided, to bleed to death from an undiagnosed uterine tear with fetal parts lodged in it. I didn't mention that though Barbaralee was kept two extra hours for observation, they last charted her vitals 45 minutes after the abortion, which meant that they didn't even check her vitals before they sent her home. Even the CDC's investigators noted that when discharged, Barbaralee was showing symptoms "suggestive of internal hemorrhage." I didn't mention how Barbaralee's sister had helped her to bed, called the ambulance when she found her unresponsive, how she was rushed to the hospital and an emergency hysterectomy was performed. How she left a small child motherless. The medical examiner noted: "A very large retroperitoneal hematoma is present with dissection of blood along right ureter. A 4 mc. tear is noted on the right anterior surface of the lower third of the uterus and a large amount of blood, estimated at 2000 ccs. is present in the pelvis. Two fetal parts, the face and thoracic spinal column, are embedded in a 700 cc. fresh hematoma inside the uterus." Even though the state of Illinois at the time had a 12-week limit on outpatient abortions, the fetal parts left in Barbaralee's uterus were consistent with a 16-week pregnancy.

6. The NAF facility where Tamika Dowdy died was already in trouble with the state for an incident involving a perforated uterus.

7. I won't go into the huge controversy surrounding the death of Christin Gilbert at a NAF facility other than to note that event though Christin was in full cardio-respiratory arrest at the facility, when staff called 911, according to EMS records, "The caller is with the patient. She does not have chest pain. She is completely awake (alert). She has not fainted. She has pain above the belly button (navel)." Thus vital information was withheld from EMS services.

8. Easter Women's Center has three deaths that I know of. The suit filed by survivors of Dawn Mack asserted that Eastern's staff failed to adequately respond to "the precipitous drop in Plaintiff's blood pressure, cardiac arrhythmia leading to cardiac arrest and cessation of respiration." Dawn's family faulted Eastern with carelessness in hiring staff, negligent supervising of staff, lack of emergency protocol and staff skilled in treating emergencies, lack of adequate equipment, failure to maintain equipment appropriately, failure to administer timely and properly dosed medications, failure to convey to Dawn the risks of anesthesia, failure to adequately evaluate Dawn's condition via exam and medical history prior to anesthesia, failure to allow sufficient time to administer anesthesia and perform the abortion in a safe and careful manner, inadequate staff training, failure to adequately monitor anesthesia, failure to accurately chart and record observations and responses, and failure to anticipate potential complications. The suit further contended that "no reasonable person would have undergone the procedures which were performed upon the decedent plaintiff if the level of skills and ability of staff and other medical personnel, together with the amount, kind and condition of equipment on the premises had been disclosed to decedent plaintiff." Dawn Ravenelle's abortion as performed (legally, I'll admit) without her parents' knowledge, despite the fact that she as only 13 years old and the abortion was being paid for with a credit card borrowed by her 15-year-old boyfriend's family member. During the abortion Dawn began to revive and choke. The doctor put a breathing tube in her and left her unatteneded. She lapsed into a coma from which she never recovered. Venus Ortiz went into respiratory arrest during her abortion. The suit filed by her family alleged that there was negligence in administering anesthesia to Venus, and failure to establish an airway. Brevital, fentanyl, and midazolam were administered in dosages and manners contrary to standards of practice, causing Venus to suffer a synergistic reaction. Venus languished in a coma for years before her death. These three deaths are far from the only mishaps and problems at Eastern. Just a few of them include a 28-year-old patient who alleged that she was released from Eastern and later was discovered to have multiple uterine perforations and had to be hospitalized for corrective surgery. In 1990, patient "J.P." said that her August 10 abortion by Orin Moore at Eastern left her with injuries that resulted in her needing a hysterectomy. Deficiencies cited in 1989 inspection included staff lacking CPR recertification. (Statement of Deficiencies February 21-29, 1989) In 1988, the Health Department noted that a 17-year-old patient who was actually 20 weeks pregnant was told that she was 8 or 12 weeks pregnant; her abortion resulted in injury and hospitalization. Assessed penalty of $42,000 in 1988, required to conduct Quality Assurance review of abortion procedures, to perform evaluation and revision of nursing policies and implement in-service education for medical and nursing staff, review credentials of all physicians, and develop approved protocols for quality assurance audits. 1988 inspection noted patient had indicated taking heart medication on history she completed, but anesthesia noted said "no known med. illness." (health department documents of 1988) In 1987, the Health Department noted that a vacuum abortion was to be done on a patient on January 23, but there were no notes on what type of procedure actually was performed. The operating time is noted as being 30 minutes, which is an extrordinary length of time for a vacuum abortion. The next day the woman bled so heavily she was hospitalized. (Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction July 20-24, 1987) Also in 1987, a Statement of Deficiencies noted that a woman had undergone an abortion at Eastern on April 10. She called their hotline on May 15 to report very heavy bleeding and cramping. The notes said, "this is probably her first real period after procedure." The patient reassured, told to relax, instructed to use a cold compress and to return if her symptoms persisted. A follow-up call on May 20 noted that the patient said she was feeling better, but on June 25, she called again to report heavy bleeding. She was told to return on the 27th for an evaluation. When she was evaluated, it was discovered that her hematocrit was reduced by 8%. She evidently had not been given an evaluation by a physician during that 1 1/2 month period. (Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction July 20-24, 1987) During a 1987 inspection, Eastern couldn't find the Medical Director after looking for him for four days. But the inspectors were able to find plenty of violations. (Statement of Deficiencies July 20-24, 1987) In 1982, a patient alleged that on January 22, Hanan Rotem performed an abortion on her at Eastern, leaving her with a uterine perforation and a hole in her uterus. She took the case to court and won a $300,000 verdict, but Rotem settled for $117,500 after the trial. Rotem was the guy who allowed his receptionist to administer general anesthesia and who performed the fatal abortion on Gloria Aponts. Eastern was permitted to join NAF despite a history of malpractice going back to 1972.

9. I mentioned Abu Hayat and the maiming of Ana Rosa Rodriguez and the death of Sophie McCoy, and the fact that other allegations were raised and that he was convicted of illegal abortion and stripped of his license. I didn't give details of Sophie's death. Sophie went to Hayat's office iwth her mother, was given general anesthesia, and was discharged. That evening, Sophie was bleeding, had abdominal pain, and was having trouble breathing. The next day she was taken to a hospital and found to have a perforated uterus and a case of sepsis. She was diagnosed there with a perforated uterus. An emergency hysterectomy was performed, but Sophie developed disseminated intravascular coagulopathy and septic shock which killed her. She left a one-year-old son motherless. After Sophie's death, Hayat originally denied having treated her at all. But Sophie's mother identified Hayat by name and from a photograph. While continuing to deny having treated Sophie, Hayat told one of the physicians who had tried to save her life that she had expelled a fetus at home and come to him for treatment, whereupon he'd sent her to the hospital. But Margie, an employee of his, recognized Sophie from a photo and said that Hayat had indeed treated the girl on two occasions. Margie added that after the second visit, Sophie's mother had called, hysterical and crying. Margie further said that she had seen medical records for Sophie at the facility, and that Hayat had argued with the referring clinic about payments for Sophie's treatment. So Hayat not only injured this child and allowed her to die, he lied to investigators afterward. Hayat got national attention from Rush Limbaugh and Donohue, and National Right to Life made him a key part of their then fledgling campaign against what they called "Partial Birth Abortion." I have details on the allegations raised by other patients, but they're far too lentghy to go into here. I've already provided a link to the New York State medical board so you can read it all for yourself. I think it's hardly trivial that NAF, while advertising that members must meet high standards, allowed this guy to be a member.

10. Benjamin Munson as permitted to become a NAF member even after he was prosecuted for manslaughter in the death of Linda Padfield. A pathologist found the remains of a five-month fetus in Linda's uterus, missing a leg, arm, part of its skull and part of its torso. The retained fetus caused the massive infection that had killed Linda. Munson went on to perform the fatal abortion on Yvonne Mesteth. Like Linda, Yvonne died of sepsis from an incomplete abortion.

11. Denise Montoya bled to death after a 25-week abortion at a NAF member clinic. Her parents filed suit against Douglas Karpen and the clinic, saying that they had faied to adequately explain the risks of the procedure, and had not provided consent forms, or had the parents sign any informed consent document, prior to the fatal abortion.

12. Fifteen-year-old Sara Neibel went to Midtown Hospital in Atlanta for an abortion at 17 weeks. She was given a clean bill of health and sent home. The next day, she reported a severe headache, sore neck, neck stiffness, and trouble seeing. Her parents began the drive to take her to the hospital. On the way there, Sara began screaming and behaving strangely. When they got to the hospital, she refused to get out of the car. She was disoriented and stuporous upon admission. Sara went into respiratory arrest, and was admitted to the ICU. She was pronounced dead May 11, 1994. The cause of death was determined to be Group B Streptococci Meningitis caused by infected amniotic flued in her bloodstream. The autopsy performed on Sara found dead tissue and a fetal bone fragment in her infected uterus. Midtown Hospital was investigated by the state and found to be performing illegal third-trimester abortions and allowing live-born infants to die. In fact, Midtown got shut down by the state, but managed to re-open.http://www.georgiabulletin.org/local/1983/05/12/a/]

13. Catherine Pierce lingered for months in a nursing home, and left an 11-year-old motherless, after abortion at a NAF member facility. Inspectors cited Atlanta Surgi-Center for administering "the same anesthesia dosages" to patients whose weights ranges from 107 to 167 pounds, inadequate record keeping, and inadequate supervision of patients.

14. Tamia Russel was pregnant due to child sexual abuse. She was 15. The baby's father was 24. His sister took Tamia to many abortion clinics, all of whom told her that the girl's pregnancy was too far advanced for an abortion. One even offered prenatal vitamins. Bu NAF member Woman Care Clinic in Lanthrup Village, near Detroit, was willing to do the abortion not only in the face of Tamia's advanced state of pregnancy, but in violation of state partental involvement laws. They inserted laminaria, but then Tamia changed her mind about the abortion and asked her family for help. The clinic lied and said that it would endanger Tamia's life to remove the laminaria. The abortion was performed by Alberto Hodari, who has a long record of disciplinary actions by the medical board. Tamia developed sepsis and died.

15. NAF member Atlanta Women's Pavillion fatally injured two teen abortion patients within an hour. It all began when 19-year-old Angela Scott stopped breathing in the recovery room. A nurse-anesthetist was administering anesthesia to 14-year-old Delores Smith while Dr. Jacob Adams was performing her abortion. The nurse-anesthetist ran to assist in efforts to revive Angela, leaving Delores unattended with her anesthesia drip still running. After staff had resuscitated Angela and loaded her into an ambulance, they returned their attention to Delores, who had gone into cardio-respiratory arrest. Adams had accompanied Angela to the Grady Memorial Hospital, and staff refused to release Dolores to an ambulance until the physician had returned to discharge her. This resulted in a 30-minute delay, during which the ambulance crew was unable to attend to Delores or begin transporting her. Angela lingered for a week in a coma before dying on June 11. Delores never regained consciousness and eventually was admitted to a nursing home, where she died of adult respiratory distress syndrome.

16. I mentioned that Oriane Shevin died after being prescribed RU-486 at a NAF facility by Christopher Dotson. I mentioned only briefly that Dotson was still under probabion by the medical board for gross negligence and incompetence in causing the death of a patient. He failed to take an adequate exam, failed to classify her as a high risk pregnancy, failed to heed the risk of severe bleeding, failed to have appropriate equipment for monitoring, and failed to transfuse her in a timely way, having left the room while she was still bleeding. Dotson had also been investigated in 1993 after Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital of Los Angeles had reported him for being negligent in the treatment of six women. Dotson had also worked at San Vicente Hospital, a notorious abortion facility that was bought out by Family Planning Associates Medical Group. San Vicente was where Sara Lint, Natalie Meyers, Joyce Ortenzio, Laniece Dorsey, and Mary Pena underwent their fatal abortions.

Considering that NAF promises that all their members must adhere to high standards and pass inspections, I hardly consider these to be isolated incidents not worthy of laying at NAF's doorstep. Women calling for a referral to a safe facility are instead sent to people like these.

The idea that NAF can promise safety then refer women to the likes of Abu Hayat is a highly political opinion.ChristinaDunigan 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Double standard
Look at what's permitted to stand on the article about Mark Crutcher:

"According to the Wichita Eagle, in March, 1995 in Kansas, Crutcher gave a seminar at the national conference of the American Coalition of Life Activists, attended by many advocates. Paul DeParrie, a supporter of both LDI and the "justifiable homicide" of abortion doctors, once said approvingly of Life Dynamics: "Probably the single most consuming passion at LDI is to make it a legal hell for abortionists and abortion clinics.""

DeParrie merely attended a seminar by Crutcher, but his background and comments are considered valid for inclusion. What NAF's actual members actually DO is not considered valid for inclusion.

DeParrie merely (I don't recall this, but I'll assume that the person who added this had a valid source) approved of shooting abortionists, but never lifted a finger against them. But deaths caused by the actions of NAF members aren't considered valid for including. And this is a reflection on DeParrie, not on Crutcher. The mere fact that this guy attended a seminar Crutcher gave is considered valid reason to bring up shooting abortionists in an article about Crutcher.

One person's opinion of Crutcher -- Paul DeParrie's -- is considered valid for inclusion. But the clearly documented wrongdoing by NAF members, and the fact that Crutcher, Sherlock, etc. have noticed that NAF promises safety but their members have checkered pasts, that's not considered valid for inclusion in an article about NAF. I've provided abundant cites about NAF members' actual wrongdoing.

And notice that I didn't just go in and nuke this addition to the Crutcher article. I think that you get a balanced article by allowing both supporters and critics to contribute. I only wish that those who admire NAF showed similar tolerance for opposing viewpoints.ChristinaDunigan 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of double standards on wikipedia. I am not the wikipedia police and I cannot monitor every single article. I have never been to Mark Crutcher. You cannot look at other articles for justification (unless they are WP:GA or WP:FA). Wikipedia policy and the style guide are the places you should look to for guidence in creating new content, not other articles that are not featured or 'good'. I'll see if I can't review the Mark Crutcher article now that you mention it.--Andrew c 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not a paen to NAF
Blufton, this is not a forum for singing the praises of the National Abortion Federation. This is supposed to be a balanced article. Go ahead and add all sorts of laudatory stuff about what saints fill the hallowed halls of NAF, but leave the legitimate criticism stand.ChristinaDunigan 17:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the second paragraph
This paragraph indicates that NAF provides "accurate" medical information, though the information they give is selective and has been challenged by medical professionals who disagree with their conclusions; "non-biased" counseling, though counseling by an abortion-advocacy group is going to lean toward abortion's acceptability and thus will be taking a particular stand; and the comment that they raise money for women who can't afford abortions "due to Medicaid" is a political statement. I think it would be appropriate to remove the word "accurate" and let stand that they offer "medical information," remove "non-biased" and simply let it stand as "options counseling," and delete "due to Medicaid" and simply state that they raise funds for women who can't afford abortions. ChristinaDunigan 14:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Abortion Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20041113062102/http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/expect/clinic.html to http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/expect/clinic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)