More “Pro-Life” Bullshit


Behold Lucifer himself.

This is why the “conscience clause” is transparent, anti-woman bullshit.

A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that “having the IUD come out was a good thing,” because “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them.”

The patient sued Presbyterian Health Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona in Federal Court.

The plaintiff says she went to Rio Rancho to have the strings on her IUD shortened.

The complaint states: “As soon as Defendant Olona began speaking to (the plaintiff), she questioned her about her choice of contraception.

“As Defendant Olona began the procedure, (the plaintiff) felt Olona pull on the strings of the IUD. (The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.”
As that happened, Defendant Olona stated, ‘Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came.’ She then explained, ‘I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly.’

“Olona then stated, ‘having the IUD come out was a good thing.’ She asked (the plaintiff) if she wanted to hear her ‘take’ on the situation. Without receiving a response, Defendant Olona stated, ‘I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.’

“Defendant Olona stated, ‘Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.’

“At this point, Defendant Olona advised that (the plaintiff) needed to take a pregnancy test. (The plaintiff) did, and the test was negative.

“Defendant Olona told (the plaintiff) that is was better that she did not have the IUD because she could now use a “non-abortion” form of contraception. Defendant Olona suggested the deprovera (depo) [sic] shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD.”

“Accidentally,” huh? Funny how she repeatedly has these accidents.

People like this have no business making decisions about your health. In fact, this woman has no business being outside of a prison cell. That the Republicans want to give people like Ms. Olona job security and immunity from prosecution for their criminal misconduct says all that you need to know about them.

Oh, and on top of that, she’s just dead wrong about IUD’s causing abortions. Naturally.

12 thoughts on “More “Pro-Life” Bullshit

  1. She’s (and her kind) not even worthy to wash the dead or even hose down the embalming table – let alone contend with the elderly who have even less ability to flag abuse/mistreatment.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if she were to keep a turkey baster and ready-to-go sperm handy so that when any non-pregnant, viable uteruses (?) presented, she could load ’em up and make more baybeeze for jeebus.
    UGH! Elspeth

  2. That “nurse” and her hospital should be facing a huge personal injury lawsuit, which they will end up losing. I don’t mind when medical personnel make genuine mistakes, since that is part of being human, but this was deliberate, so I hope both the “nurse” and her hospital face huge damage awards.
    If such a lawsuit occurs, the problem will be that a winger will end up on the jury, and force a hung jury.

  3. Damn, this stuff makes me mad. Where do these people get off thinking they have the right to make decisions for other people? The fucking egomaniacs.
    Sue the shit out of them. Make every fucking hospital or doctor in the nation terrified to do this shit.

  4. If, as she claims (which I don’t believe for a moment), the IUD just came out when she tugged on it, what was she doing tugging on it? Even her lame-ass rationale for why it happened doesn’t hold water, because she shouldn’t have been screwing with it in the first place.
    I find it weird that someone like that would be against IUDs but not the Pill or Depo-Provera. I mean, isn’t the usual rationale for why Teh Pill is Teh Evul that it allegedly causes fertilised eggs not to implant? (My boyfriend didn’t actually know how hormonal BC worked, so I had to explain it to him; I have to wonder what they got taught in sex ed in England.)
    Someone needs to write an actual science-based sex-ed curriculum that actually discusses things like the Pill and Plan B in detail, rather than just saying, “It prevents pregnancy by [vague bullshit here],” or promoting out and out misinformation. (The big one that gets me most is saying that Plan B can cause a fertilised egg not to implant — yeah, that’s why they givethe same combination of hormones to women who’ve just had IVF so it has more of a chance of working…guess what, if you’ve got a fertilised egg in your fallopian tube, taking Plan B is going to make youmore likely to get pregnant. On the other hand, if you haven’t yet ovulated, it’ll stop you from popping a follicle at an inopportune time.)

  5. Are Presbyterian-affiliated clinics and hospitals like Catholic ones, where contraception devices are simply a non-starter? If so, what was she doing there? And if her insurance limited her on access to clinics, why isn’t she suing them? Anyone have any background on this?

  6. When medical personnel perform a procedure against the expressed desires of the patient, that’s not only a tort, it’s assault. In this case, assault causing bodily harm. A business establishment that condones its employee committing a long series of assaults causing bodily harm should find itself the target of a criminal investigation, especially when the aussaults (and the condoing of them) appear to be for the purpose of preventing a protected class of people (women) from exercising their rights (contraception).
    Just sayin’

Comments are closed.