Dr. Grossman: a Catholic Funded Abortionist in Colorado's Four Corners

Dr. Richard Grossman M.D. is the only abortionist in over 200 miles, and he's not shy about publicly touting his grisly profession.

Every Wednesday of every week, Dr. Grossman kills children at the Durango Planned Parenthood. He charges a sliding scale based on the age of the child. For killing a child of 5-11 weeks he charges $425, 12-13 weeks $515, 14-15 weeks $780, and 16-17 weeks costs $880.

Pictures of what each of these children look like after they are aborted at these different stages of development can be seen here.

I first learned of Dr. Grossman, on Wednesday, Novemeber 18, 2009. I was participating in a vigil outside the abortuary that was organized by Life Guard of La Plata, a Catholic non-profit organization that helps mothers in crisis pregnancies. During this vigil, pro-lifers told me about Dr. Grossman.

I already knew what abortionists do, and I was saddened to see approximately six young ladies escorted in to participate in the killing of their children. What I wasn't ready for was to learn what Dr. Grossman did on the other days when he wasn't killing children.

Here is a man that kills children once a week, and he is employed by a hospital that is supposed to share my belief that what he does is murder? What in the world was going on? I immediately fired off an email to my Bishops.

Despite repeated entreaties to my Bishops, I have not learned of any action being taken to end this scandalous situation. I have since learned that local pro-life activists (Catholic and Protestant) have been trying to get the Catholic church to step in and stop Dr. Grossman for at least three years!

It should be noted, that while I realize that it is scandalous to point out this ongoing situation within the Catholic church, it is a much more egregious scandal to let it continue unaddressed.

Dr. Grossman would not be able to financially maintain himself on what he earns killing children one day a week. Does this not make Mercy Hospital in Durango and the Catholic Church a material facilitator to the killing? In effect, the Catholic Church, Mercy Hospital, and the Catholic Health Initiatives (based in Denver) are subsidizing abortion services in the Four Corners area.

It seems that the Catholic church is not capable of putting a stop to Dr. Grossman's evil audacity. The reason, according to local activists, is that the hospital and the church fear federal employement discrimination lawsuits. There is, however, a valid basis to believe that this Catholic hospital would be within its right to fire a murderer such as Dr. Grossman, although it is more likely that the church would lose a lawsuit from Dr. Grossman.

When it comes down to it what makes a church like the Catholic church great is its claim to be the repository of the Truth, not the health of its bank accounts.

In an age when the Catholic church is sued on an almost daily basis, wouldn't it be refreshing if the church were sued for preventing child killing at its hospitals instead of for allowing children to be molested.

I for one would welcome the fight. In the meantime I will be helping activists in the Durango area protest, not only at the abortuary, but at the Catholic hospital that makes it possible for Dr. Grossman to kill children and still make a good living.

I am not familiar with the author of this article, but I found this:

"Gualberto Garcia Jones was born in Spain and emigrated to the United States as a child. He graduated with honors from the University of Wisconsin with a double major in history and political science. After clerking for a Denver District Court judge, he attended The George Washington University Law School. After graduation from law school, he became the Director of Legislative Analysis at the American Life League. Gualberto is a veteran of the 2006 campaign to outlaw abortion in South Dakota, and the 2008 Personhood Amendment in Colorado. During the 2008 Personhood Amendment campaign Gualberto founded the group Colorado Catholics for Personhood, which he still operates.

Gualberto is also the founder and Director of Personhood Education, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to the education of the general public regarding the personhood of all human beings. In 2009, Gualberto became the Director of Personhood Colorado, a group supporting the 2010 Colorado Personhood Amendment. He is also the legal analyst for Personhood USA."

...I wonder why you fail to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has been consistently on the side of life.

It is because the Catholic Church has been consistently on the the side of life that I comment. What? You think history automatically translates into the future, no matter what the current generation tolerates?

...I consistently come down on the side of life regardless of a person's or institution's religious affiliations.

I'm not challenging your track record. I'm challenging your current framing on this thread. That's it.

You want to define favoring sanctity-of-life by yours -- and by the Catholic Church's track record. I say, "that's all well and good...and perhaps great." But I'm not commenting on the grass already grown under our feet. I'm commenting on the caretaking of the lawn now. (And that's not the best lawn fertilizer you could be using)

Do we really think that what was done in the past automatically translates into caretaking for each new pre-born currently in the womb?

All I'm advising you is, "Hey, watch your language and your arguments on this thread."

Illustration: About 20 years ago, state legislators started considering passing fetal pain bills. All well & good. But if those legislators weren't careful in how they framed things, they would make it sound like abortion was "OK" on those pre-borns too young to feel pain. Those legislators were "pro-life." But even solid pro-life advocates, when commenting on these things (parental consent bills would be another example), can fall into sounding like some pre-borns are "fair game."

* Fetal pain gestationally aged pre-borns, no; younger than that, yes? (Well of course not, but lack of care in discussing this could imply that)
* Parental consent babies fair game? (Of course not, but some pro-lifers have come across sounding like if grandma says it's "OK," then it's OK)
* Pre-borns in Catholic hospitals no; but pre-borns "attended" to by exact same abortionist outside those hospital boundaries, yes? (Of course not, but your arguments make it sound like the geographical distinctions you are making are key points to distinguish; I would say that if we're looking at this from the angle of the pre-born being "attended" to by this abortionist, the baby would make no such false distinction)

Bottom line: This RC hospital is "upping" the reputation of this abortionist as being deemed as a "healer" by his very presence at this facility. There are women whose trust level in his recommendations are falsely raised because of his association with it.

So, are you more interested in defending the hospital or in defending pre-borns on this thread?

You could help answer that by lowering the defensiveness of yourself and this hospital and raising the defensiveness of the pre-borns at risk to this butcher.

...a doctor who performs abortions...

Abortions aren't "performances" and abortionists aren't real "doctors."

In which post have I in any way defended the hospital?

Answer: …this DOES NOT mean that the hospital is accommodating…abortions [Post #109]

#1 They are accommodating an abortionist, which = accommodating the abortion industry.

#2 We both know when a hospital extends privileges, there's a fair amount that goes with that...access to hospital computer systems; sometimes personnel; etc. ... they all carry on what they do in their offices on the go...which includes arranging for "procedures"

Which argument have I made on this thread that you disagree with?

That there's no accountability process re: abortionists under this hospital's privilege umbrella.

I have stated that the hospital MAY NOT be able to revoke privileges simply because he is an abortionist. That is a statement of FACT.

see articles below: P>Date: May 19, 2010:

* Source: Nun excommunicated, loses hospital post over decision on abortion
* Source: Hospital nun rebuked for allowing abortion in Phoenix

#1: As you read these articles, note that this woman wasn't just a nun but a hospital administrator [so I'm not referencing the "ex-communication" part]

Here's the article excerpts:

Catholic News Service:

PHOENIX (CNS) -- A nun who concurred in an ethics committee's decision to abort the child of a gravely ill woman at a Phoenix hospital was "automatically excommunicated by that action," according to Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix.

Mercy Sister Margaret Mary McBride also was reassigned from her position as vice president of mission integration at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix after news surfaced about the abortion that took place late last year. The hospital did not say what her new job would be.

The patient, who has not been identified, was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that the hospital said carried a near-certain risk of death for the mother if the pregnancy continued.

"If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it. We are convinced there was not," said a May 17 letter to Bishop Olmsted from top officials at Catholic Healthcare West, the San Francisco-based health system to which St. Joseph's belongs.

But the bishop said in a May 14 statement that "the direct killing of an unborn child is always immoral, no matter the circumstances, and it cannot be permitted in any institution that claims to be authentically Catholic."

"We always must remember that when a difficult medical situation involves a pregnant woman, there are two patients in need of treatment and care, not merely one," Bishop Olmsted said. "The unborn child's life is just as sacred as the mother's life, and neither life can be preferred over the other."

Sister Margaret, who has declined to comment on the controversy, was on an ethics committee that was called to decide whether doctors could perform an abortion to save the mother's life. Catholic institutions are guided in making such decisions by the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services."

USA Today/AP:

PHOENIX (AP) — A nun and administrator at a Catholic hospital in Phoenix has been reassigned and rebuked by the local bishop for agreeing that a severely ill woman needed an abortion to survive.

Sister Margaret McBride was on an ethics committee that included doctors that consulted with a young woman who was 11 weeks pregnant late last year, The Arizona Republic newspaper reported on its website Saturday. The woman was suffering from a life-threatening condition that likely would have caused her death if she hadn't had the abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.

Hospital officials defended McBride's actions but confirmed that she has been reassigned from her job as vice president of mission integration at the hospital. They said in a statement that saving the mother required that the fetus be aborted.

"In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother's life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy," hospital vice president Susan Pfister said in an e-mail to the newspaper. She said the facility owned by Catholic Healthcare West adheres to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services but that the directives do not answer all questions.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, head of the Phoenix Diocese, indicated in a statement that the Roman Catholic involved was "automatically excommunicated" because of the action. The Catholic Church allows the termination of a pregnancy only as a secondary effect of other treatments, such as radiation of a cancerous

#1 They are accommodating an abortionist, which = accommodating the abortion industry.

I agree. What they ARE NOT accommodating is abortion.

Giving hospital privileges DOES NOT mean that an office is provided and there is NOTHING in the story to lead one to believe that hospital computers or personnel are facilitating abortions.

I asked:
Which argument have I made on this thread that you disagree with?

To which you responded:
That there's no accountability process re: abortionists under this hospital's privilege umbrella.

Where have I made this argument?

At NO TIME have I suggested that the abortionist should have hospital privileges. I have simply pointed out that revoking them MAY NOT be as simple as it appears and I have also stated that there is NOTHING to suggest that the hospital has been used for abortion. So, you statement is meaningless, though I will commend you for dropping your insinuation that I'm not pro-life.

#1: As you read these articles, note that this woman wasn't just a nun but a hospital administrator [so I'm not referencing the "ex-communication" part]

Firing a hospital administrator is totally different from removing a doctor's privileges.

Do you have ANYTHING that says that a Colorado hospital can remove privileges when no laws are broken or malpractice isn't involved.

Do you have ANYTHING that says that a Colorado hospital can remove privileges when no laws are broken or malpractice isn't involved.

Do you have ANYTHING that says they can't?

Hospitals have been known to withdraw hospital privileges.

My understanding from other states is that such people can request hearings when denied privileges. (see below)

I did a quick search, & can get to additional research later...but there was a case making its way to CA Supreme Ct: Gil Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital and Medical Center
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA GIL N. MILEIKOWSKY, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) S156986 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/8 B186238 WEST HILLS HOSPITAL AND ) MEDICAL CENTER et al., ) ) Los Angeles County Defendants and Respondents. ) Super. Ct. No. BS091943 )

California’s statutory peer review process, Business and Professions Code section 809 et seq., provides a physician with the right to a hearing for the purpose of reviewing a hospital peer review committee’s recommendation to deny the physician’s application for reappointment to staff privileges. A hearing officer may be appointed to preside at the hearing, but the officer is prohibited by statute from acting as a prosecutor or advocate or from voting on the merits. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 809.2, subd. (b).) The merits are determined by the trier of fact, often a panel drawn from other of the physician’s peers. (Id., subd. (a).) We conclude the hearing officer lacks authority to prevent a reviewing panel from reviewing the case by dismissing it on his or her own initiative before the hearing has been convened, and also lacks authority to terminate the hearing after it has been convened without first securing the approval of the reviewing panel. We therefore will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

BACKGROUND

Dr. Gil N. Mileikowsky is a physician and surgeon board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. He had staff privileges to practice gynecology at West Hills Hospital and Medical Center (West Hills), an acute care facility. In May 2001, Dr. Mileikowsky applied for obstetrical privileges at West Hills and for renewal of his gynecological privileges. His applications were reviewed by a peer review committee, which recommended denial.

Source: http://lawzilla.com/blog/2009/08/03/gil-mileikowsky-v-west-hills-hospital-and-medical-center/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.