Late-term abortionist Jean Guimond was recently interviewed on Montreal radio to get his reaction to the Kermit Gosnell case. (Paul Arcand 98.5FM). Campaigne Québec-Vie made a transcript of the interview, and this is my translation:
HOST: So we can say that Gosnell is a marginal case?
ABORTIONIST: I don't feel like calling him a doctor, not even a man. It's really a bunch of horror stories; and he's above all a doctor who's lost his right to practice-- in many states in the United States. It's not even a marginal practice, it's charlatanism.
HOST: Just to give the people a frame of reference, from what period can abortion normally be practiced, and up to how many weeks can it be done?
ABORTIONIST: We have to make a distinction between the United States and Canada.
ABORTIONIST: In Canada, there is no maximum limit to do an abortion. That's a function of the Charter of Rights and Liberties, and all the judgements [he really means "cases"] of the Supreme Courts that wanted to limit access to abortion.
We hold therefore to the definition of a fetus that is considered part of a pregnant woman's body. Its status changes beginning the moment that it is born live. Born alive means breathing and having a beating heart. Therefore, technically, theoretically, abortion can be obtained up to the end of the 40 weeks of pregnancy. But practically, that's not something that's done....easily, and that it's mostly done with therapeutic indications [read: eugenics].
HOST: That means that in general, it can go up to 18 weeks, 24 weeks, after that it's much more complicated.
ABORTIONIST: Exactly. Forget about the number of weeks-- that is-- viability is not a factor in evaluationg whether or not to obtain an abortion because viability, let us remember, is not an objective criterion, depending on the regions where one lives [i.e. viability depends on where one lives]. So, if there is a medical centre with the best neonatologists, it will tell you that viability is 21-22 weeks. However, if you live in the Far North, viability is not 22 weeks.
HOST: In Gosnell's case, are we talking about butchery?
ABORTIONIST: Listen, yes, because-- in seeing all this-- I followed it all in the New York Times-- and the descriptions that were given-- it's not so much the abortion technique, as the entourage, the staff with him, the non-respect of basic rules of preventing infections. The premises were ghastly, and listen, what this tells me is that if a woman wants an abortion there, she is ready to risk her integrity, her health and even her life.
So, Gosnell what he simply did is profit from that situation to offer abortions that shouldn't be performed that way.
HOST: Thank you very much Dr. Guimond.
ABORTIONIST: You're welcome.
So you see, boys and girls, the problem wasn't that those babies died.
It was that he killed them the wrong way.
The butchery was not in snipping the necks.
It was in the awful care he provided to women.
And he followed it all in the New York Times. So that means he's really well-informed.