Abortion Doctor investigated after infancide

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Doctor investigated in badly botched abortion
By Christine Armario
Associated Press

TAMPA, Fla. -- Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.

Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.

What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.

“I don’t care what your politics are, what your morals are, this should not be happening in our community,” said Tom Pennekamp, a Miami attorney representing Williams in her lawsuit against Renelique and the clinic owners.

The state Board of Medicine is to hear Renelique’s case in Tampa on Friday and determine whether to strip his license. The state attorney’s homicide division is investigating, though no charges have been filed. Terry Chavez, a spokeswoman with the Miami-Dade County State Attorney’s Office, said this week that prosecutors were nearing a decision.

Renelique’s attorney, Joseph Harrison, called the allegations at best “misguided and incomplete” in an e-mail to The Associated Press. He didn’t provide details.

Case has riled anti-abortion community

The case has riled the anti-abortion community, which contends the clinic’s actions constitute murder.

“The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage,” said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. “People all over the country are just aghast.”

Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.

“It really disturbed me,” said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. “I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.”

According to state records, Renelique received his medical training at the State University of Haiti. In 1991, he completed a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Interfaith Medical Center in New York.

New York records show that Renelique has made at least five medical malpractice payments in the past decade, the circumstances of which were not detailed in the filings.

Several attempts to reach Renelique were unsuccessful. Some of his office numbers were disconnected, no home number could be found and he did not return messages left with his attorney.

Williams struggled with the decision to have an abortion, Pennekamp said. She declined an interview request made through him.

She concluded she didn’t have the resources or maturity to raise a child, he said, and went to the Miramar Women’s Center on July 17, 2006. Sonograms indicated she was 23 weeks pregnant, according to the Department of Health. She met Renelique at a second clinic two days later.

Renelique gave Williams laminaria, a drug that dilates the cervix, and prescribed three other medications, according to the administrative complaint filed by the Health Department. She was told to go to yet another clinic, A Gyn Diagnostic Center in Hialeah, where the procedure would be performed the next day, on July 20, 2006.

Williams arrived in the morning and was given more medication.

The Department of Health account continues as follows: Just before noon she began to feel ill. The clinic contacted Renelique. Two hours later, he still hadn’t shown up. Williams went into labor and delivered the baby.

“She came face to face with a human being,” Pennekamp said. “And that changed everything.”

The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.

An even cruder account

Williams’ lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.

No working telephone number could be found for Gonzalez, and an attorney who has represented the clinic in the past did not return a message.

At 23 weeks, an otherwise healthy fetus would have a slim but legitimate chance of survival. Quadruplets born at 23 weeks last year at The Nebraska Medical Center survived.

An autopsy determined Williams’ baby — she named her Shanice — had filled her lungs with air, meaning she had been born alive, according to the Department of Health. The cause of death was listed as extreme prematurity.

The Department of Health believes Renelique committed malpractice by failing to ensure that licensed personnel would be present when Williams was there, among other missteps.

The department wants the Board of Medicine, a separate agency, to permanently revoke Renelique’s license, among other penalties. His license is currently restricted, permitting him to only perform abortions when another licensed physician is present and can review his medical records.

Should prosecutors file murder charges, they’d have to prove the baby was born alive, said Robert Batey, a professor of criminal law at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport. The defense might contend that the child would have died anyway, but most courts would not allow that argument, he said.

“Hastening the death of an individual who is terminally ill is still considered causing the death of that individual,” Batey said. “And I think a court would rule similarly in this type of case.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh my god thats sick! How the hel could you just throw away a life, a baby? How the hell could you stomach a abortion that far down the road anyway?

Im confused abou the 18 year old, is she facing any type of charges or did she claim she did not want this to happen?
 
Your telling me Obama voted to allow a child to be pulled form its mothers womb at a certain stage of development and be tossed in the trash?


Right, ok!:bowrofl:
 
Your telling me Obama voted to allow a child to be pulled form its mothers womb at a certain stage of development and be tossed in the trash?

Right, ok!:bowrofl:

Well then, let me clear this up for you-
He's saying that Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, the act that would protect babies that survived late term abortions, while he was an Illinois Congressman. It was a bill that would guarantee equal treatment to surviving babies of abortions to wanted births.

So, yes, that's what he's saying.
 
Sick people, I doubt anyone had any intent of this kind of practice being conducted!:rolleyes:

Cant argue with the Right Wing mobsters though.
 
Sick people, I doubt anyone had any intent of this kind of practice being conducted!:rolleyes:
It was written precisely with this kind of thing in mind.
Don't take my word for it, just look it up. I gave you the name of the bill. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Cant argue with the Right Wing mobsters though.
It's difficult to do so when you're wrong.
 
Sick people, I doubt anyone had any intent of this kind of practice being conducted!:rolleyes:

Cant argue with the Right Wing mobsters though.
Desperate words spoken by someone who doesn't want to face the truth.
 
There are many reasons why the Illinois law was bad... and remember it is a liability law, unlike the Born Alive Act, which Obama has stated he supports...

The Illinois law is poorly written, ill defined, and creates a new cause of action for monetary damages. Plus, when the Illinois law was in chambers, the federal government had the Born Alive law already in the works. The Illinois law would have added additional layers of legislation only for the purpose of lawsuits. It was a poorly written, redundant piece of legislation.

You can find out more about the Illinois law here....

However hopefully the doctor in the case above will be tried and convicted for murder...
 
Sick people, I doubt anyone had any intent of this kind of practice being conducted!:rolleyes:

Cant argue with the Right Wing mobsters though.

Ignorance is bliss apparently. You are very ignorant on this subject and and trying to condesent to those who have read up on this; arrogance?

Read up on it. The articles I linked to have many different links to primary sources (or as close to primary sources as you can get, depending on what they are talking about). The evidence is clear.
 
There are many reasons why the Illinois law was bad... and remember it is a liability law, unlike the Born Alive Act, which Obama has stated he supports...

The Illinois law is poorly written, ill defined, and creates a new cause of action for monetary damages. Plus, when the Illinois law was in chambers, the federal government had the Born Alive law already in the works. The Illinois law would have added additional layers of legislation only for the purpose of lawsuits. It was a poorly written, redundant piece of legislation.

You can find out more about the Illinois law here....

However hopefully the doctor in the case above will be tried and convicted for murder...

More obfuscation from foxpaws.:rolleyes:

Here is still the best rundown of the record (with links through which you can backtrack to the original sources) I can find.

Since you won't read it and will try to ignore it...
The record here is very, very clear. Obama initially said that he opposed the bill in Illinois because it didn’t have the “neutrality clause” included in the federal version of the legislation. As documentation proved, Obama voted against it even with the neutrality clause added. The Obama campaign finally acknowledged that Obama had lied about his position a month ago. Why? Because it would have actually forced doctors to provide care for live infants from abortions — or in other words, it would have worked.

Obama attempts an end run around this by making the issue about abortions. It isn’t. Babies born alive from abortions got left in laundry rooms to die, a practice exposed by Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in the Chicago area. A subsequent investigation showed that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in live births — and that abortionists routinely allowed the infants to die by denying them normal medical attention. That was the entire reason the issue came before the Illinois legislature, but Obama reacted by denying the problem existed:
[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a — an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.

Now, if that’s the case –and — and I know some of us feel very strongly one way or the other on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.
As I wrote at the time, this passage is really remarkable for the willfully obtuse nature of Obama’s arguments. By the time this debate took place, Jill Stanek had already revealed that doctors weren’t providing medical care to infants born alive during abortions, at Christ Hospital, and a subsequent investigation proved that other abortion providers also abandoned such infants to die. That was the entire reason for the debate. Obama acts as if this is some curious academic hypothesis.

This bill did nothing to prevent abortions. It would have acted to protect live infants resulting from unsuccessful abortions — real children who were being murdered through neglect in Illinois. Barack Obama protected abortionists rather than the helpless infants that were being killed. That’s the record, and Obama cannot run away from it...

...Here’s the audio of Obama making the argument in opposition to protecting live infants born of abortions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypDw...mas-infanticide-vote/&feature=player_embedded
 
Mr Warner - you can read the Illinois bill here it is really very short. You can see for yourself what a really bad bill it is. It is litigation nightmare. It creates all sorts of false liability.

Anti choice people are pretty notorious for doing this. They often get bills put before state legislatures, many times poor ones like this, so they have 'ammunition' when elections come around. They can then say that 'this elected official' voted down legislation that would have prevented baby killing. They are for killing babies.

Go to shag's sites - you can read what they say about this - I would however take the youtube little tirade in context of where it is at. It is on youtube, where people put up videos of their dogs licking themselves.

This is what Obama has recently said, in July '08...from CBS news
"...I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Now his campaign backed off the mental health statement, but sources thought it was because of pressure from Hillary backers. It is believed that he will adopt an abortion reduction agenda regarding late term abortions, it has upset many in the Democratic party, such as Marie Cocco
 
This is what Obama has recently said, in July '08...from CBS news
"...I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that "mental distress" qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions."

Now his campaign backed off the mental health statement, but sources thought it was because of pressure from Hillary backers. It is believed that he will adopt an abortion reduction agenda regarding late term abortions, it has upset many in the Democratic party, such as Marie Cocco
...but what has Obama repeatedly done?

Twice voted against banning partial birth abortion.

The man's a liar and a hypocrite.
 
...but what has Obama repeatedly done?

Twice voted against banning partial birth abortion.

The man's a liar and a hypocrite.

No, 'the man' voted against very bad laws. Have you read them foss - they are a mess. Maybe if the anti choice people could quit putting so much garbage in the laws that they craft they could get some passed.

But, that isn't the reason they have these laws placed before committees - it is so they can point fingers after the law gets struck down.... 'oh, they want to kill babies'

The Federal Born Alive Act is much better... It isn't full of accusation and liability clauses, a simple definition.

This part alone in the Illinois Induced Birth Infant Liability Act is hideous, especially if a case ever did get to court- "...the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages... If the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund."

So a government fund would profit from the government bringing suit against a hospital and it's staff... whoa....this isn't a fine from a criminal case - this is a civil case...
 
Mr Warner - you can read the Illinois bill here it is really very short. You can see for yourself what a really bad bill it is. It is litigation nightmare. It creates all sorts of false liability.

OBAMA NEVER GAVE THAT AS A REASON FOR VOTING AGAINST THE BILL!!

You are stating a reason to vote against it as justification for Obama voting against it; a reason he never gave. You are effectively putting words in his mouth! Are there any lengths you won't go to in defense of him?

The closest thing Obama said to what you laid out was reported by the Chicago Tribune in 2004. This is what was reported:
Obama said that had he been in the U.S. Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. . . . The difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion

However it has been verified that the Language was added to the state measure in a subcommittee chaired by Obama, which then voted along party lines (6-4) to kill the bill.

What is also interesting, Fox is that the bill you cite is not the only "born alive" bill, and not really the one in question. The bill you cite is SB 1661 (from 2002) and the bill in question is SB 1082 (from 2003). The Illinois SB 1082 bill (original text/ amendment added in subcommittee by Obama) is virtually identical to the federal bill.

Obama clearly did not voted against the bill in question for the reasons you state.

Obama lied once again and claimed that the state bill didn't include certian language that the federal bill included that would, "clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade" when the state bill was amended to add that language and he chaired the subcommittee that added it!

Obama's reason for opposing that legislation (in any form of the bill, from any year) is patently absurd in another way as well. Federal law supersedes State law in this country. So any legislation Illinois passed could not override the federal precedent of Roe v. Wade. If it were such an issue and ever came before any court, the law would be overturned as being "unconstitutional".

Go to shag's sites - you can read what they say about this - I would however take the youtube little tirade in context of where it is at. It is on youtube, where people put up videos of their dogs licking themselves.

And this somhow makes the video less credible?

Let me counter your illogical argument here with the same type of "logic".

Mr Warner, you should take Fox's argument in the context of who is making it; a Godless, immoral liberal as well as an apparent alcoholic (she loves them margarita's).​

Sounds logical, doesn't it?
 
No, 'the man' voted against very bad laws. Have you read them foss - they are a mess. Maybe if the anti choice people could quit putting so much garbage in the laws that they craft they could get some passed.
Actually he voted 'present.'
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top