New Jersey women are a little safer today, since an appeals court decided to uphold the medical license revocation of notorious abortionist Steven Brigham. The court, according to the Courier Post, found Brigham to have “engaged in ‘gross negligence’ while providing late-term abortions to almost 250 women between September 2009 and August 2010.”
The article went on to note:
The 99-page decision also said Brigham violated medical regulations with a process that initiated abortions at his South Jersey medical offices, but completed the procedures one or two days later at an Elkton, Maryland, “surgical center.”
Brigham had claimed that the state Board of Medical Examiners took his license in 2014 because of their “bias” against late-term abortions. Below is an example of a type of abortion committed very late in pregnancy, starting around 25 weeks:
But if this were true, then the New Jersey board isn’t alone in its alleged bias. Live Action News’ Rebecca Downs reported in 2015, “The actions of abortionist Steven Brigham have been disturbing (and illegal) enough for his medical license to revoked, relinquished, or suspended in five states” — not just New Jersey.
On top of this, he kept ownership of his abortion businesses but tried to cover it up. Operation Rescue noted, “Brigham reported that he transferred ownership to long-time employee Vikram Kaji, but the transfer was a sham…. Kaji was charged with fraud for going along with Brigham’s attempt to deceive authorities into thinking he had relinquished ownership.” Pro-Life Action League stated in 2015, “Brigham still owns 16 abortion clinics in four states, but is not licensed to practice medicine in any of them.”
Interestingly, according to the Courier Post, “The ruling also said evidence supported the view that ‘Brigham’s patients were exposed to harm by his lack of hospital or (licensed ambulatory care facility) privileges to deal with unforeseen complications.'”
The abortion industry has fought against requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges, claiming it does nothing to aid patient safety. It appears the appeals court in Brigham’s case thought otherwise.
