At that time, in response to a request from Rutland's lawyer seeking clarification of the no-surgery order, the judge amended it to specifically ban him from performing "first trimester abortions and endometrial curettage procedures."
Two weeks later, Medical Board investigator Carmen Aguilera-Marquez made an appointment for an abortion at A Women's Choice Family Planning Clinic in Chula Vista. She used an undercover alias and brought a urine sample from a pregnant woman.
At the clinic, she saw Rutland in a room through an open door standing by a woman lying on an examination table, according to a petition filed by the board. The patient's legs were bent, and Rutland was looking into the patient's cervical area, she said.
She spoke with a friend of the patient who told her that the woman was there for a "chemical abortion," a spontaneous miscarriage induced with pills inserted by a physician, she said in the petition.
Later, when she was asked to undergo a pregnancy test, the investigator went into a bathroom and filled the cup with urine she brought with her, she said.
Rutland determined she was seven weeks pregnant. He said his physician daughter performs surgical abortions but was not in that day, she said, and advised that she allow him to do a chemical abortion.
The investigator insisted on a surgical procedure, and an appointment was scheduled for another day, she said in the petition.
Doctors in New Zealand are fighting proposed guidelines which would require them to tell patients having doubts about their pregnancy that abortion is an option.
A physician in Jamaica named Kenneth Enyi has been charged with performing an abortion on a 13-year-old girl. The mother of the individual who impregnated the girl has also been charged.
Posts
Sounds like he tried to do a MEDICAL abortion (not surgical) and also scheduled an appointment for HIS DAUGHTER to do a surgical abortion.
ReplyDeleteNo violation there!
You might have missed this part of the story,
ReplyDelete"At that time, in response to a request from Rutland's lawyer seeking clarification of the no-surgery order, the judge amended it to specifically ban him from performing "first trimester abortions and endometrial curettage procedures."
That seems to indicate that "no surgeries" includes prescribing abortion drugs.
But hey if you want to defend Andrew Rutland - go right ahead.
It's not a question of defending him. It's a question of whether or not he violated the order.
ReplyDeleteIf the order was a "no surgery" order, then no he did not violate it by prescribing drugs, because prescribing drugs is not surgery.
You may have also missed this:
ReplyDelete"Rutland’s attorney told the LA Times that Rutland’s daughter was actually doing the surgical abortions, but in the call made by Operation Rescue, the receptionist “Rhea” indicated that the caller’s appointment would be with Dr. Rutland, referring frequently to “him.” There was no mention of another physician."
Source:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/abortionist-rutland-caught-doing-abortions-in-violation-of-suspension/
They even have a recording of the call on the website.
I find it disgusting that a butcher like him is allowed to practice medicine at all, but most especially in San Diego! People come here from all over the world to get top-of-the-line medical care, and it's an insult to our county that this guy be allowed to pretend to play doctor here, with so many violations, botched procedures, and deaths under his belt! He should be put behind bars and stripped of his medical license FOREVER!
This guy needs to get it that he no longer has the right to perform abortions.
ReplyDeleteAs for the link about the new guidelines in New Zealand, requiring doctors to inform women who have doubts about their pregnancy, that abortion is an option; what's up with that? Why do they need to be told that abortion is an option? Don't these women already know that? Are they brain dead that they can't figure this out for themselves? At what point does simple informing become harrassment, or the taking advantage of a first time mother's inexperience and lack of confidence? Why is it assumed that a woman's rights have been violated if she doesn't have abortion shoved down her throat, but it's never assumed that they're violated when abortion is pushed too hard on her?
HAH! The judge agreed with me. No surgery equals no foul.
ReplyDelete