Advertisement

Archive for Friday, December 29, 2006

Morrison won’t keep Tiller case prosecutor

Incoming AG says Kline-appointed special attorney ‘extraordinarily political’

December 29, 2006

Advertisement

— A special prosecutor picked by Attorney General Phill Kline to pursue criminal charges against the state's most visible abortion provider learned Thursday that he'll lose his job after Kline leaves office Jan. 8.

That announcement from Kline's successor, Paul Morrison, came only a day after Kline appointed Wichita attorney Don McKinney to handle the case against Dr. George Tiller, who has received national attention as one of the few doctors in the United States who performs late-term abortions.

McKinney said in a statement that he wouldn't respond: "I don't have time for political posturing. I have work to do."

Kline alleges Tiller performed 15 illegal late-term abortions in 2003, for patients aged 10 to 22, and failed to properly report details about them to state health officials. Tiller's attorneys call those allegations groundless.

The outgoing attorney general filed 30 misdemeanor charges against the doctor last week in Sedgwick County District Court, only to see a district judge dismiss them, then refuse to reinstate them Wednesday.

An abortion rights Democrat, Morrison defeated Kline, a Republican and strong abortion opponent, in the November general election. McKinney was leader of a Democrats for Kline group, and he's viewed as a strong abortion opponent.

Morrison said he's not inclined to have a special prosecutor handle any investigation of Tiller, but if he decides to do so, "It certainly won't be Mr. McKinney."

"He is extraordinarily political and, in my opinion, would absolutely not present any kind of independent perspective," Morrison said in a telephone interview.

'Stranger and stranger'

Meanwhile, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius criticized Kline's actions in the investigation.

"The story just continues to get stranger and stranger," Sebelius said in response to questions from reporters.

Asked if she thought Kline's actions were appropriate, Sebelius said, "I think what the judge found is that he did not follow the law, he did not abide by the steps that needed to be taken."

Sebelius, a Democrat and abortion rights supporter, said she looked forward to Jan. 8 when Morrison would take over the job.

Of Morrison, she said: "He is capable of sorting this out and figuring out how to move forward. It is just how messy can it get in the next 10 days before he takes office?"

Wichita attorney Don Monnat, representing Dr. George Tiller, returns to his seat after speaking Wednesday in front of Judge Paul Clark in Wichita. Monnat says Don McKinney, a special prosecutor appointed by Kline to investigate Tiller, is "a former Kline campaigner and anti-abortion activist."

Wichita attorney Don Monnat, representing Dr. George Tiller, returns to his seat after speaking Wednesday in front of Judge Paul Clark in Wichita. Monnat says Don McKinney, a special prosecutor appointed by Kline to investigate Tiller, is "a former Kline campaigner and anti-abortion activist."

Kline didn't respond Thursday to Morrison's comments.

Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, said she was shocked by how quickly Morrison declared that he wouldn't retain McKinney.

"I've been disappointed by him a lot, but it's especially disappointing that he would claim a fellow Democrat is unqualified because he happens to be pro-life," Culp said. "Being pro-life should never disqualify you as an elected official from bringing charges that happen to deal with this issue. It can't influence the credibility of the evidence. Evidence is evidence."

And McKinney said in his statement that Kansans have enacted laws "to protect babies that are about to be born."

"Those laws restrict the abortion of late-term babies to very specific medical circumstances," he said. "Those laws need to be enforced and not winked at."

'Kline campaigner'

But Tiller's attorneys argue that Kline isn't capable of fairly evaluating evidence involving Tiller, given his anti-abortion politics. One of them, Dan Monnat of Wichita, called McKinney "a former Kline campaigner and anti-abortion activist."

During the campaign, McKinney publicly criticized a newspaper when he thought it wasn't being aggressive enough in pursuing 15-year-old, unproven allegations of sexual harassment against Morrison from a former employee. McKinney later said the allegations reflected on Morrison's character, though two federal lawsuits filed by his accuser were dismissed and she received no money.

And Cheryl Sullinger, a spokeswoman for the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, told The Wichita Eagle she has seen McKinney within the past year outside Tiller's clinic "praying for the babies."

Tiller has been a special target of abortion opponents for two decades, and his clinic has been the site of large protests. It was bombed in 1985, and a protester shot him in both arms in 1993.

"I would say no effort was made to find an independent prosecutor," Monnat said.

Campaign finance records show that funds from Tiller, passed through an abortion rights political action committee, helped finance at least $248,000 worth of mailings and radio ads aimed specifically at defeating Kline in 2002 and 2006. That has led abortion opponents to question whether Morrison will aggressively pursue evidence of wrongdoing by Tiller.

"I definitely question whether he can look at the evidence independently," Culp said of Morrison.

Morrison and his aides repeatedly have said the incoming attorney general will assess the evidence about Tiller before deciding whether to prosecute.

"I believe I was elected attorney general to use my judgment," Morrison said Thursday. "I'm not in anybody's camp on this deal, and I never have been."

Legal battles

There's also a question of how much power McKinney would have, even if Morrison were to retain him, thanks to judicial decisions in Sedgwick County that have so far blocked Kline's attempt to prosecute Tiller.

As part of his investigation of Tiller and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Overland Park, Kline waged a successful two-year legal battle to obtain the medical records of 90 patients, prompting the clinics to ask the Kansas Supreme Court to appoint a special prosecutor and seize the records.

The Supreme Court later rejected the request, but a day after the election, with the issue still pending, Morrison told reporters, "It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have a party that is, everybody agrees, neutral, perhaps appointed by the court."

On Thursday, Morrison was skeptical of the attorney general appointing a special prosecutor.

"I generally don't shirk my responsibilities by handing them off to somebody," Morrison said.

Comments

preebo 8 years ago

...Purely political.

Phile Kline may have a law degree, but he is no lawyer. He is a far better politician, but that in no way is meant to say a good one. That is how he was able to narrowly win election in 2002. If not for being in Kansas and the fashionable rise of neo-conservatism he would not have become the states leading legal officer. He doesn't have the credentials to be a prosecutor, as he has worked in civil proceedings his entire career leading up to his short one-term tenure as AG.

I know that eveyone wants to lable Paul Morrison as a "liberal" and a "Leftist," but we should remember that he was until earlier this year a Republican and the only reason Morrison became a Democrat was to take on Kline in the General Election. He understood the political landscape of Kansas and how social conservatives had hijacked the process, so he switched parties to regain the focus of the Republican party through democratic means. In short, Morrison will be every bit as moderate as any Reagan-era Republican, but will carry a "D" by his name.

BigAl 8 years ago

Kline's actions are pure political and it will be refreshing to finally have him out of here.....
The people of Kansas came through loud and clear with their votes. It is time for Kline and his cronies to go.

kramdorf 8 years ago

Let's not cloud the real issue here with politics. The real issue is did someone break an existing law by performing illegal abortions in the third tri-mester, and did they neglect to report an abortion procedure performed on a minor(which by Kansas law is the mandatory report of rape). I know as well as anyone that this is a highly charged political topic, but no one, regardless of what side of the political fence you are on, should be willing to accept that the case just won't be considered because of "political" views. If you don't agree with the laws, then fight to change them; don't just wink and grin and look the other way, and cover it up with "politics".

leftlawrenceafter30years 7 years, 12 months ago

It's too bad our priorities are so skewed. Unborn children get so much attention but once they are born they are less important. Perhaps we should focus on the ones who are on the ground and in need of assistance.

It is still men making the rules for women's bodies. There are many legitimate reasons for an abortion regardless of the age of the woman. I personally have never had one and raised four healthy children.

Abortion is not an easy choice to make and I'm sure that having someone turn your decision into a witch hunt can't be comforting.

I can think of all sorts of cases where a child was born and because of the circumstances of their conception have been impacted for life. A child of rape or incest are some of the instances I can think of where an abortion might be best.

At any rate, abortion is a private decision and at this time it is legal.

KUDB99 7 years, 12 months ago

Come on kramdorf, people wink at the laws all the time. Don't insult our intelligence by claiming that there's any other reason that Der Fuhrer Kline is investigating Tiller other than he's one of the few late term abortion doctors in the country.

Now I find abortion morally repugnant, but I also get that I should personally stay out of someone elses business who has to make such an agonizing choice.

However, even more repugnant is a man who claims to be the leading law enforcement officer for an entire state, and decides to put the full force of his office on a witch hunt to find some shred of impropriety in two doctor's offices in the state.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, consumer protection prosecutions are down by over 50% across the state. So Der Fuhrer is off on his witch hunt, and Grandma is losing her social security check to a Nigerian internet scam. What a great AG.

Baille 7 years, 12 months ago

I haven't seen any facts that would support the allegation that any prosecutors or law enforcements officials are winking at violations of the law. If Tiller has broken the law, he needs to be held accountable. However, the state officials responsible for holding him accountable must follow the law themselves. Furthermore, prosecutors have an ethical obligation to only file charges when the facts and the law support those charges. The vast majority of prosecutors take this ethical obligation very seriously. With all his other ethical lapses, I would be hard pressed to think the same of Phill. I am sure that Morrison wanted to review the case before it was filed to make sure that it was valid.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years, 12 months ago

What Morrison needs to do is turn it over to the Sedgewick county prosecutor to be reviewed. If Kline was trying not to be political he would have done the same thing, instead of hiring a special prosecutor who is so obviously biased. Or he could have found someone who wasn't so active in the anti-abortion movement. Kline and his buddies already think Tiller's guilty, no matter what the law says.

Jamesaust 7 years, 12 months ago

Come on, kramdorf - this isn't that hard.

Kline would have prosecuted long ago .... IF he had evidence. Kline has none, which is why he has recklessly sought to toss the constitutionally guaranteed rights of everyone aside while he searches for his missing evidence (the metaphorical needle in a haystack). "Did someone break an existing law"? Yes, or at least Phill Kline attempted to before the courts stopped him.

So, to recap: A) there is no evidence of Tiller breaking the law, B) one may not "investigate" by dismissing every innocent persons' privacy rights.

Tiller breaking the law right and left? Bring forth evidence! How can it be that crimes are committed virtually daily but not one single complainant comes forth?

Query: what legal basis existed for Kline to file his charges in the first place? If there was none or they were clearly insufficient, will the Kansas Bar Association discipline Kline? (I doubt it. While prosecutorial abuse exists in theory, 'everybody' expects prosecutors to overstate their case and so fail to discipline them for their 'puffery' as if their destruction of lives was comparable to peddling mouthwash.)

Will Morrison fire the "independent" investigator? Of course. Morrison doesn't have the ethical challenges and intellectual limitations that Kline does and so can do the job of AG for himself.

Bob Forer 7 years, 12 months ago

Does anyone know whether the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator has enough guts to follow the lead of the North Carolina Bar Association which yesterday charged the prosecutor in the Duke Lacross Debacle with multiple violations of attorney ethics, and take similar action against Kline?

Baille 7 years, 12 months ago

That is not exactly the way it works, Sychophant.

Here is a good overview of the process in Kansas: http://www.kscourts.org/attydisc/cmplnt.htm

Here is a good resource for reading the actual rules: http://www.kscourts.org/ctruls/atrul.htm

jmadison 7 years, 12 months ago

It will be interesting to see how much money, if any, Tiller's PAC gave to Morrison's campaign coffers. The final accounting is not due until Dec 31.

white_mountain 7 years, 12 months ago

Kline should have anticipated this, if he has half a brain.

He's just hoping to become the darling of the right-wing nutjobs for future political benefit.

KUDB99 7 years, 12 months ago

Gee, jmadison...I also would like to know how much money Operation Rescue and the other anti-abortion militants gave to Der Fuhrer.....

Baille 7 years, 12 months ago

I am sure Tiller gave Morrison a lot of money. He always gives the opponents of the fundamentalist right-wing a lot of money.

It would be more interesting to see the facts underlaying the charges Kline tried to bring and a detailed legal analysis of the charges.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Bravo Morrison. At LEAST SOME common sense prevails in Kansas even before Paul Morrison takes office. Kline & supporters & brainless Tiller haters, CRAM that special prosecutor where the sun does not shine!

Richard Heckler 7 years, 12 months ago

Phill Kline = harassment = violation of the law

I've never met a pro abortion person in my life male or female.

Bobo Fleming 7 years, 12 months ago

Der Fuhrer? Lets see who operates the death camps, Kline or Tiller?

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

parkay: "Tiller is guilty, according to the evidence evaluated by 2 judges. Morrison is obstructing justice while taking blood-stained "contributions" from abortionist quack Tiller, who butchers mothers as well as viable babies. This reeks!"

You & others who hate Tiller & Love Kline reek! Where did YOU come up with the idea that 2 judges found where Tiller is guilty?! You suck, especially if you have not paid attention to the news that TWICE Kline's case has been thrown out of court. First of all, let's get something straight, Tiller gives consultations before conducting these abortions, GOT IT?! The other thing is that the mothers made the decisions, themselves, are YOU & others going to tell me that they aren't as guilty as Tiller for wanting these abortions? You & others who want to ban something just because you think it's wrong; NEWSFLASH, you don't make that decision, DO YOU?! I acknowledge that I don't have that luxury myself, but you & others cramming this crap down our throats will get you nowhere FAST!

Richard Heckler 7 years, 12 months ago

Kline had no hard evidence which is why no grand jury was convened. Morrison action was appropriate.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

Parkay:

Tiller is guilty, according to the evidence evaluated by 2 judges.

WTF? Did you sleep through government class, the only way Tiller could be found guilty is by a jury of his peers, and the case hasn't even gone to trial!

Not only that, but Kline's pretty quick to take money from the kind of people who like to blow up bombs at clinics and shoot people in the arm for doing something legal that they don't approve of! Kline is worse than Morrison in that respect.

And how could all of this manuvering be Morrison's fault since he hasn't even taken office yet? Kline dropped the ball on this case, which is the first reason why it was dismissed. But more than that, the only reason why he brought the charges was because of politics, and that ticks off the people in court who are actually trying to investigate crime and make sure the justice system works. That's the bigger reason why this case was dismissed.

Baille 7 years, 12 months ago

"Tiller is guilty, according to the evidence evaluated by 2 judges. "

That is absolutely wrong.

yankeelady 7 years, 12 months ago

It seems that Dr Tiller is probably NOT breaking the law considering the scrutiny he has been under for more than 20 yrs. Day in day out, and nothing has been found to indicate he is breaking the laws. If nothing else the right has been persistent. I agree with an earlier post--more attempts at controlling womens rights through their bodies. And the most rabid of the protestors are men. I'm also tired of the" pro life "tag they claim. We are all pro life, they are anti-choice.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Merrill, Baille, yankeelady & MyName, & anyone else against Phil Kline, thanks for backing me up. I truly appreciate this because I know it & so do you & others that Kline was voted out of office for the right reasons. Now, this is America, isn't it? Well, it's time to use this experience of kicking Phil Kline out of office & send a message to extremists like Kline & Brownback: You're on a very slippery slope. You take your extremist views & supporters & you better tread carefully. Oh, one more thing: You better watch your backs! This is OUR country, & the days of dictatorships & infringements on our rights are OVER! Abortion is a very sensitive hot-button issue of the day, but the more Phil Kline, Sam Brownback, & people like that whack job governor of South Dakota try to infringe on women's rights, the more we need to step up & demand that the laws change so that nobody in government (hired or elected) will get a pension every time rights for all Americans are taken away. This is OUR country & it is time to take it back! What time is it to do this? NOW!

yankeelady 7 years, 12 months ago

Have any of you read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood? I remember when I first read it, about 20 yrs ago, thinking that could never happen here. Now I really am not so sure. We are definitely on the slippery slope and sliding faster every day. Women first, then who knows. That is why Phill and his ilk scare me .

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

All the more the reason why Sam Brownback must not be a top contender of 2008 because he has ruined Kansas with his slanderous comments towards doctors like Tiller & that he does not believe in women's rights. I do, & I despise everything Brownback stands for. Phil Kline's defeat is just ONE part of how we are going to take Kansas back. Bob Corkins' ouster was another, Connie Morris, Jim Barnet & Wag the Dog Wagle. All these defeats represent the ills of Kansas that WERE the butt of late night talk shows. Well, NO MORE! By being well-informed, we in Kansas will be better & safer, WITHOUT the likes of Phil Kline & Sam Brownback polluting our beautiful air with their poisonous venom of hatred & dictatorial propaganda.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

"Have any of you read "The Handmaids Tale" by Margaret Atwood?'

From one of the earlier feminists to another, younger one, Are you serious? You buy that crap?

No wonder the feminist movement is decline.

yankeelady 7 years, 12 months ago

I bought it 20 yrs ago--when I was younger. Nice to think someone still thinks i'm young--wish the mirror thought so. Seriously, yes it is extreme and more than a bit cheesy (and the move was awful) but the point is things that seemed impossible back in the day don't seem so farfetched now. After all who would have believed the current administration, global warming, etc? But it's here.

pelliott 7 years, 12 months ago

If kline can be charged it would be great. He has spent tax money like it was slush fund. How much does the old friend get for his two week stint? I feel so bad these kluwns have had so much access to people's personal information in the files. My guess is they aren't likely to honor that. Will we be hearing that someone (on the wrong side of any of their issues) will any tidbit about their life or some member of the family, be leaked. We might be suffering from this bozo for yeas. poor johnson co. What will phil do with inside, once confidential information he gleaned while legally in office? Boy did kansas buy a pig, then let him run amok poking into everyones life. His turning the ag office into a religious cause cost us real time. Unfortunate when Kansans need protection from privacy thefts, hustlers and scam artists, he went the other way, on those very issues.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Then, we the people of Kansas must demand an investigation & disbarring of Phil Kline SOON.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

I say we start our own phone tapping of goverment officials (BEGINNING with PHIL KLINE). Any ideas on how to start? I have been talking about taking our state back, well, this is a sure sign of how to to start by tapping into the dirty secrets government officials hide when they STEAL our tax dollars to do something illegal, like Kline is doing.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 confirms her fascist ideology.

Curious 7 years, 12 months ago

Women's rights. Okay, people. We can only abort potential males from now on.

EVEN WOMEN IN UTERO HAVE RIGHTS.

And . . . Those women who have men open their cervix and stretch it wide enough to turn a full grown baby around and pull it out backwards, have no rights either. No right to the information they need to make an informed decision. We don't have any right to information on the rate of future infertility from abortions, the rate of future pre mature birth from abortions, the rate of serious infection or even maternal death. Children have no right to be secure from coersion and taken across state lines for abortions. No right to having parents informed so their medical records can be available.

People, figure this out. The only people with rights are the abortion doctors.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

leftlawrenceafter30years writes: "It's too bad our priorities are so skewed. Unborn children get so much attention but once they are born they are less important. Perhaps we should focus on the ones who are on the ground and in need of assistance."

My comment: It is not an either/or choice. We can focus on both the needs/rights of born and pre-born children.

leftlawrenceafter30years writes: "It is still men making the rules for women's bodies. There are many legitimate reasons for an abortion regardless of the age of the woman. I personally have never had one and raised four healthy children."

My comment: It was the men of the US Supreme Court who ruled on women's bodies in Roe v Wade. I guess you don't have a problem with it then. When is it ever legitimate to end the life of another person just because you don't want that person around?

leftlawrenceafter30years writes: "Abortion is not an easy choice to make and I'm sure that having someone turn your decision into a witch hunt can't be comforting."

My comment: For some women, it seems all too easy because they keep going back for more.

leftlawrenceafter30years writes: "I can think of all sorts of cases where a child was born and because of the circumstances of their conception have been impacted for life. A child of rape or incest are some of the instances I can think of where an abortion might be best."

My comment: So you are saying death is better than knowing you were not conceived as a result of a loving consensual sexual embrace? I work with children who have been abused, some horribly, NOT ONE has ever said to me I wish was aborted or never born.

leftlawrenceafter30years writes: "At any rate, abortion is a private decision and at this time it is legal."

My comment: Just because it is a private decision and legal at this time, does not make it a good decision, the right decision, or even an ethical one. Our laws should reflect the value of the human person and not discriminate against a class of people in this case - the preborn.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

feminism was once about equal rights for all, including the rights of the almost- born.

What has bcome of feminism?

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Why are there no rights, people? 1 Name is obvious in this answer. (PHIL KLINE!) He says that he has rights to those records but you & I & our children do not, B S! Kline has violated every statute from the Roe V. Wade decision by going after Dr. Tiller in this Illegal witch hunt. He has no credibility whatsoever. I hope somebody puts a price on this criminal's head & hunts him down for invasion of privacy.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

BTW, rdh99, you cannot take away my feminist ID card; I invented the concept.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

KUDB99 writes: "Now I find abortion morally repugnant, but I also get that I should personally stay out of someone elses business who has to make such an agonizing choice."

My comment: Domestic violence, genocide, sex trafficking, etc. are also morally repugnant. Do you stay quiet about those things too because it is someone else's business and they made the choice to get involved with it? Things are morally repugnant because someone gets hurt. In the case of abortion, that someone is a preborn child.

Jamesaust writes: "How can it be that crimes are committed virtually daily but not one single complainant comes forth?"

My comment: Do you know how hard it is for a woman to file suit in an abortion case? Some women are ashamed and don't want to admit what happened. If they are teens, it means having their parents' cooperation. It is like women in most rape cases. They don't report and would prefer to get the whole ugly mess behind them. Maybe they feel like it is their fault, so they don't complain. Maybe they are not aware of what happened to them was illegal or below the standard of care. Maybe they think it won't do any good so why bother. Furthermore, they have to jump through a lot hoops, relive the whole episode, and expose themselves to criticism to win their case. That is hard to do unless you have an advocate on your side.

Where are the pro-choice organizations when it comes to standing up for women who have been injured by "safe" legal abortion? They don't support the vicitim. They minimize or deny such claims exist.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

Lifesupport, pro-choice organizations do not stand for the protection of women; they exist to protect the abusers of women.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

"Lifesupport, pro-choice organizations do not stand for the protection of women; they exist to protect the abusers of women". ...........

and girls.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Godot, I have a question for you: Do you support politicians who don't put a halt to Meth labs in Kansas? By the way, Phil Kline must have had a meth lab before he got AG. How much meth did Kline inhale in his diatribe against George Tiller & the abortion doctors in this great country of ours? Talk about an extremist bible thumping AG with brain damage. Quick call the tabloids!

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

When Kline is concerned about abortion doctors & DOES NOT stop illegal drugs from being made in Kansas, Kline DESERVES his reward for a JOB PISS POORLY DONE: Election defeat! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH & Godot & all you Tiller Haters & Kline lovers I have this for you: HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

rhd99, has anyone ever suggested to you that you have a problem focusing?

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Godot, has anyone told you or suggested to you that anyone who loves Kline needs mental help?

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 writes: "The other issue is that there aren't too many pro-lifers that can understand the viewpoint of the pro-choicers because pro-lifers want to dictate the behavior of others. However, many, many, many pro-choicers who understand the pro-life argument because they too, are opposed to abortion in their personal lives.

What Ms. Culp and many "lifers" don't seem to understand is that there is a world of difference between believing something is wrong (as is your right) and banning something from everyone because YOU believe it's wrong."

My comment: What you don't get is that some things in this world are just plain wrong. Abortion is one of those things. It is not a matter of belief. For example, I don't give a damn if Warren Jeffs believes he has the right to marry off little underage girls to old men. Child sexual abuse is just plain wrong. He can believe and protest otherwise, but it is still wrong. Now if you are one of his followers, you might say I have no right dictating their behavior. However, society has a right to step in.

It is our duty to defend the helpless, to aid the vicitimized, and to speak up for the oppressed. I admire those in the pro-life community who do that because they have the balls to voice their convictions, take the heat, and put their values into action. People who say they personnally oppose abortion but do nothing to stop the slaughter are being weak and wishy-washy.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Lifesupport, couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you. Happy New Year!

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

Lifesupport:

It was the men of the US Supreme Court who ruled on women's bodies in Roe v Wade.

No, it was the men of the Supreme Court who agreed with a woman that this procedure should be legal in the US despite what the (mostly male) lawmakers in Texas thought about it.

When is it ever legitimate to end the life of another person just because you don't want that person around?

How is this procedure doing this? If the potential human being can't live on it's own, then it is a part of the woman's body. No more or less a part than an arm or a leg or a spleen or anything else that is part of a woman's body.

Our laws should reflect the value of the human person and not discriminate against a class of people in this case - the preborn.

Can you name a single right that is more important than the right to do what you want with your own person? All other rights are an extension of this. This line of thinking places the rights of a potential human being over those of an actual living woman, in every case, and yet you claim that the people who think abortion should be legal in the first 6th months of pregnancy are the one's doing the discriminating. I think you have a problem with your reasoning here.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

rhd99 writes: "You suck, especially if you have not paid attention to the news that TWICE Kline's case has been thrown out of court."

My comment: I believe it was thrown out on a technicality of not including the local district attorney.

rhd99 writes: "First of all, let's get something straight, Tiller gives consultations before conducting these abortions, GOT IT?!

My comment: Check out the testimony of a woman who have been through an abortion at Tiller's clinic. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236279,00.html

KELLY: It's a group counseling with other women that are going through the same thing. . . And this is all very graphic, and I think that that's very important that people know that that's going on in our country. And really, that's the only two times I ever saw the doctor was when he injected the saline solution and when he finished the process by removing the afterbirth.

O'REILLY: Sure. Absolutely. And I applaud your courage. Now, did the doctor say anything to you?

KELLY: No. I mean - you know, what I remember today is that no one ever said anything to me about what was going to happen during that five-day process or what was going to happen when I left that clinic or 10 years down the road what was going to happen.

O'REILLY: All right. But Tiller himself, when he injected the fetus with the killing agent and then when he took the afterbirth, he never said anything to you at all?

KELLY: "This will all be over soon."

KELLY: I'm disgusted. I'm disgusted that women are told that they have a choice, yet no one tells us what that choice is or what that choice is going to do to us or to the baby, for that matter. I mean, very few people, I think, know that this is what happens. It's not just an easy solution. It just - it's not an answer to any problem. It just creates other problems.

Not much of a consultation "between a woman and her doctor" if you ask me. Kelly is not the only person who has this experience.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

What you don't get is that some things in this world are just plain wrong. Abortion is one of those things. It is not a matter of belief.

No the problem is that this issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. There is such a thing as choosing the lesser of two evils and the current policy on abortion is one of those cases.

From a public health standpoint, it is simple choice between millions of women doing something to hurt themselves in private because of a ban on abortions, or millions of women getting the same procedure done in a relatively safe manner. Obviously, legalizing abortion is better public policy.

Moreover, you keep bringing up the spectre of the rights of these dead babies, but the reality is, unless the potential human being can survive outside of the woman's body, it is a part of the woman and has no rights of its own anymore than your arm has it's own special class of rights that the rest of your body does not.

So if the law banning abortion is not based on legitimate rights, and it is not good public policy, then it is not a good law and should not be enforced. That is the whole of the pro-choice argument and it is a compelling one.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

MyName writes: "Not only that, but Kline's pretty quick to take money from the kind of people who like to blow up bombs at clinics and shoot people in the arm for doing something legal that they don't approve of!"

My comment: 99% of pro-lifers are non-violent, so do not judge all pro-lifers by the actions of a very few. I do not condone violence against any human being even Dr. Tiller. Don't forget that he tried running over a pro-lifer with his vehicle.

From www.prochoiceviolence.com "We have all heard about the seven murders committed by self-identified anti-abortionists during the time period 1994-1998. But to put this into perspective, according to the United States government, more janitors, bartenders, secretaries, hairdressers and cosmetologists have been killed on the job than abortionists.

The most violent social movement of all time is so-called "pro-choice." Not only have "pro-choicer's" killed tens of millions of innocent preborn babies in the name of convenience, they have murdered hundreds of men, women and children.

Deadly pro-abortion violence has been reported at least since 1965 and is escalating rapidly, with an incredible 269 homicides and other killings committed in just the last six years (since 2000). 2005 was the bloodiest year, with pro-abortionists murdering 77 people, including 28 pregnant women (and their 28 wanted preborn babies), two baby boys, one little boy and five little girls, four men and two women, and seven other wanted preborn babies. The pro-abortionists almost matched this bloody slaughter in 2002, with 58 deaths, and in 2003, with 53 deaths. In fact, pro-abortionists have averaged more murders per year since 1967 (that's 39 years in a row) than so-called "pro-lifers" have in the history of the entire conflict over abortion!

Human Life International has documented more than 7000 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:

* 880 homicides and other killings
* 86 attempted murders
* 23 arsons and bombings
* 787 assaults
* 1,798 sex crimes
  (including 169 rapes)
* 59 kidnappings
* 420 cases of vandalism
* 270 drug-related crimes
* 1,577 medical crimes

Also, 520 murders and 360 fatal botched abortions by pro abortionists, including;

* 145 pregnant women
* 360 abortion clients
* 71 other women
* 110 born children
* 164 wanted preborn children, and
* 30 men (including two pro-life activists, two abortionists, and a sheriff's deputy)"

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

"No the problem is that this issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be."

Yes, it is.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

My comment: 99% of pro-lifers are non-violent, so do not judge all pro-lifers by the actions of a very few. I do not condone violence against any human being even Dr. Tiller. Don't forget that he tried running over a pro-lifer with his vehicle.

I can understand completely how you'd be sticking up for people you agree with, but my comment was in response to some BS remark about campaign contributions from Dr. Tiller. Even if the murder rate among doctors who perform abortions was 1000 times that of the normal population, that wouldn't magically make Kline's contibutions from Operation Rescue spotless and wrinklefree.

In any case, I'm not going to waste my time combing through a website called prochoiceviolence[dot]com to figure out what meets their definition of a "proabortionist", but I figure that they have a handful of poster boys and the rest of the people in their "statistics" are probably only loosely connected to any kind of activism. I'd expect no less from propaganda websites on either side of the issue. Propaganda is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

"No the problem is that this issue isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be."

Yes, it is.

Godot: What do you think this is some kind of Monty Python skit?

Man: Look this isn't an argument.

Mr Barnard: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't, it's just contradiction.

Mr Barnard: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is.

Mr Barnard: It is not.

Man: It is. You just contradicted me.

Mr Barnard: No I didn't.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

Geez Marion, you think a geezer like you, who apparently has "written" an "entire book" on the subject, could come up with more than the same two lame arguments.

It's either "God don't you people get it, there's Babies on Spikes!!!"

or

"Pro-choice people are all nazis! Ein, Zwei, Ein, Zwei, bilt ein Empire! Meine Deutsch ist kaput!"

There, I've just given out the Cliff Notes version, saved somebody $5.00 and that hour of their life that they would never be able to get back.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

logicsound04 writes: "You are prohibited from considering yourself a feminist as long as you continue to take an anti-choice stance.

Anti-abortion and feminism are diametrically opposed--you cannot tout women's rights with an asterisk on your picket sign:

[WOMEN'S RIGHTS* NOW]

*right to terminate a pregnancy not included."

My comment: I consider myself to be a pro-life feminist; they are not diametrically opposed. In fact, there is a whole group called Feminists for Life. I do not not get my rights or am empowered by denying someone else, in this case a preborn child, his/her rights especially the right to exist.

I have plenty of control and freedom over my life and reproductive organs without abortion. I exercise choice by deciding if and when to have sex. Women do not need a chemical or surgical procedure to have equality with men. Besides, abortion on demand gives society a cop out from having to truly support motherhood.

If anti-choice means being anti-babykilling, I am proud of it. Pro-life mothers have other choices namely to raise the child or give him/her an adoptive home. Ironically, a sizeable number of women report that they got an abortion because they felt like they had no other choice. If the pro-choice movement was truly about choice, they would devote a lot more resources to helping women not abort.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

MyName writes: "No, it was the men of the Supreme Court who agreed with a woman that this procedure should be legal in the US despite what the (mostly male) lawmakers in Texas thought about it."

My comment: If you are referring to Sarah Weddington as that woman, you are right. However, did you know that original Roe and Doe in those cases are pro-life? Both claim to have been used by the attorneys seeking to overturn abortion laws. Both have tried to get the Supreme Court to reconsider their cases.

MyName writes: "If the potential human being can't live on it's own, then it is a part of the woman's body. No more or less a part than an arm or a leg or a spleen or anything else that is part of a woman's body."

My comment: If a pre-born baby is not a human being, what species is it?

There are a number of differences between my arm, leg, or spleen and the two sons I carried inside of me. 1) their DNA does not match mine exactly. 2) they are males, and I have never been a male. 3) our blood types don't match. 4) their hearts beat at a faster rate than mine did during the pregnancy. 5) their brainwaves were different than mine. 6) and, so on. As you can see, my sons are not simply an extension of me as my arm, leg, and spleen are. They are unique persons even when their residence was inside my uterus. They were also alive even when they could not live on their own. Some babies are aborted even when they can survive an early delivery.

MyName writes: "Can you name a single right that is more important than the right to do what you want with your own person? All other rights are an extension of this. This line of thinking places the rights of a potential human being over those of an actual living woman, in every case, and yet you claim that the people who think abortion should be legal in the first 6th months of pregnancy are the one's doing the discriminating. I think you have a problem with your reasoning here.

My comment: No ethical doctor is going to cut off my arm, leg, or spleen just because I say I don't want it even if I have an absolute the right to do what I want with my own person. No rights are absolute even those that have to do with our own bodies. It does not have to be a woman's right versus her baby's right to live and have his/her (the baby's) body remain intact. The baby is not the enemy.

MyName writes: "There is such a thing as choosing the lesser of two evils and the current policy on abortion is one of those cases."

My comment: How is taking someone's life the lesser of two evils? Besides, "lesser of two evils" is not a sound philosphical doctrine anyway.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

MyName writes: "From a public health standpoint, it is simple choice between millions of women doing something to hurt themselves in private because of a ban on abortions, or millions of women getting the same procedure done in a relatively safe manner."

My comment: If you will look at the CDC website on abortion statistics, the graph shows a steady rise in abortions from the time it became legal. I doubt millions of women will hurt themselves in private if it becomes illegal. Illegality will mean that it will be harder for a parent or boyfriend to coerce a pregnant girl/woman into getting an abortion she does not want. Even when the Clintons talked about making it rare, they expanded abortion.

MyName writes: "So if the law banning abortion is not based on legitimate rights, and it is not good public policy, then it is not a good law and should not be enforced. That is the whole of the pro-choice argument and it is a compelling one."

My comment: You and I are just going to have to differ here. The pro-choice argument is not compelling. In fact, it is easy to reject point for point. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in that order) are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Abortion on demand at any time for any reason is not good public policy. The whole Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton decisions are flawed.

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

Gee, I thought it was the rapists and abusive, incestuous relatives that were forcing the girls to get abortions to cover up their crimes.

I would not allow a mother to die. The doctor should attempt to save her life and child's life. If saving her life has the secondary but unintentional effect of child dying, then it is not an abortion. Abortion is the intentional killing of a pre-born human being. Removing a ruptured or about to be ruptured fallopian tube to prevent the woman's death is the purpose for the surgery. The purpose isn't to kill the child.

It is not pro-lifers who caused any harm to women in the so-called back alleys or with coat hangers. These acts were only done by pro-choice people.

If you came off your soapbox, you would listen to women who had abortions who said they were not given the opportunity or the information to make an informed choice. You would also understand that the pro-choice movement has opposed these types of bills when they come up in the legislature. I guess they are the ones who want women to be in the dark ages and powerless when it comes to our consumer protection rights. It is also disgusting when abortion operators are cited for health code violations. Shall I go over the list for you?

I'll say it again I, as a woman, have control over the body without abortion. Also, just because we don't agree does not make pro-lifers like me extremists or irrational. That is just a tactic or rhetoric used by some to take someone else's argument less seriously or to make it look like they are on the fringe when they are not.

Not looking at website of pro-choice violence makes me think of someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and whistles because he already has his mind made up and does not want to dialog. Keep your blinders on if you would rather not have an open mind.

deec 7 years, 12 months ago

life support must be catholic, with the hair splitting and the secondary effects thing. My ex justified to himself my being on the pill for birth control because "it controlled my migraines". Any woman " who had abortions who said they were not given the opportunity or the information to make an informed choice wasn't paying attention. Talk about absolving people of personal responsibility. If you are going to have a medical procedure, do a little research. Its not like providers are going door to door snatching pregnant women and forcing them to have abortions. No one I know who has had an abortion just woke up one day and said "I'm bored and pregnant. I think I'll go get an abortion."

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Lifesupport I applaud your tenacity to facts, but there is more than just technicality against Kline. He had no case against Tiller. Now, the gripping question I have for the Tiller haters & Kline lovers is this: Since you all are totally against abortions, like that whack job Governor of South Dakota, while also never considering the health dangers to women that are pregnant, how are you all ending abortions once & for all? Seems to me you're all talk & no action. That's weak-minded, along with all brawn & no brain, just like Kline! Have a nice day!

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

logicsound writes: "+force a rape victim to carry her rapist's child to term

+allow a mother to die rather than abort the source of her health problem (in those cases, that is)

+force children to carry their incestuous, abusive relative's child to term."

My comment: The child in a rape or incest vicitm's womb is not just the rapist's or abusive relative's child, he or she is also the mother's child. When pressed about the evilness of abortion or the humanity of the pre-born child, pro-choice community (like logicsound04 did) always throws out these hard luck cases which account for less than 5% of all abortions. It does not matter how or why the child was conceived. If it is wrong to kill one fetus, then it is also wrong to kill the other fetus.

I am not unsympathetic to rape/incest victims. If you read their post-abortive testimony, you would see how some came to feel that they were pressured to abort, that the abortion felt like another rape, and they now regret aborting their child. Are you unsympathetic to these women?

logicsound04 writes: "For the record, the Declaration of Independence does not include the non-living. In fact NONE of the rights and liberties that go along with being a U.S. citizen apply to the unborn for a very practical reason--they are not people."

My comment: The only reason they are not people is because seven men on the US Supreme Court in 1973 decided not to grant personhood to the unborn. Just in the same way that the court years before decided Blacks were not people. They were always persons whether the justices wanted to recognize it or not.

If a baby in the womb is not living, then he/she must be dead. Then how is his/her heart beating independently? How is his/her brain responding to stimuli and producing brain waves? How is he/she making independent movements and kicking? Try watching National Geographic's series In The Womb, then tell me that the pre-born homo erectus is not human or non-living.

logicsound04 writes: "That which has not been born cannot die"

My comment: I guess you never heard of stillbirths. Why do you think the OB listens to the baby's heartbeat or asks the mother about daily movements at each prenatal visit? Isn't it to determine that the baby is still alive and has not died in the womb prior to birth?

A new life begins at conception -- not just from a moral standpoint but also a scientific one. There is nothing arbitrary or inconsistant about that. It only becomes so because the pro-choice community wants to muddy the water or dehumanize the preborn to justify their actions.

We legislate morality in whole lot of other areas e.g. it is both immoral and illegal to steal, it is both immoral and illegal to lie, it is both immoral and illegal to commit homicide. Why shouldn't it be illegal to partially deliver a fetus so a doctor can jab scissors into the back of his/her head and evacuate the brain?

Lifesupport 7 years, 12 months ago

This comes from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in the United Kingdom:

Abortion to save the mother's life

Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life, a figure amounting to 0.004% of all abortions. (Dr Michael Jarmulowicz, cited in The Physical and Psycho-Social effects of Abortion on Women: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Operation and Consequences of The Abortion Act, June 1994 p. 5)

In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992)

When Dublin's National Maternity Hospital (where 10% of all births in Ireland occurred) investigated the 21 deaths of pregnant women there between 1970-1979, they found that not a single one of those deaths could have been avoided by abortion. (Irish Medical Journal 1982 vol. 75, pp. 304-306)

Ireland, a country where the unborn child is constitutionally protected, has the lowest maternal death rate in the world. The UK, where abortion is available practically on demand, has over five times Ireland's maternal death rate. (World Health Organisation: maternal deaths, three-year average)

Developments in medicine mean that the 'abortion to save the mother's life' argument is becoming harder and harder to justify. It is now possible for women with heart defects to carry a baby to term with expert help and life-threatening conditions such as cancer can often be treated without harming the unborn child. Women facing difficult pregnancies have a right to the best available medical support.

Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn child. Treatment to save the life of the mother that results in the death of the child as an expected but not intended side effect is not a direct abortion, e.g. in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. In this situation, the baby begins to develop in the woman's fallopian tube and has to be removed or the tube will rupture and cause the death of the woman. This involves the unavoidable death of the unborn baby but the aim of the operation is to save the mother not to kill the baby.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

Lifesupport, why was Phil Kline so inept in his case against Tiller this last week that he could not present the issues you presented today? Thanks to you, my whole outlook is not really about abortion anymore, but it's about Phil Kline's ability to try cases, especially in Johnson County. Phil Kline's ridiculous rhetoric against Tiller was never based on facts. You should be a lawyer in the court room taking Tiller on since you have the knowledge of this field. Kline IS the reason why law enforcement has taken back seat to political partisanship which he (KLINE) created by going after Tiller in the first place since being elected. Happy New Year to you, Lifesupport.

rhd99 7 years, 12 months ago

If America is based on Freedoms, then why the socialist behavior from Phil Kline, who I though belonged to a party that is anti-big government? Kline's arguments only prove that his party & he have no credibility on the issue of fetus protection even if the mother's health is in danger.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 12 months ago

lifesupport confidently stated: "A new life begins at conception -- not just from a moral standpoint but also a scientific one."

This is quite a bold statement that needs justification. First of all, by "conception", I take it that you mean "fertilization", the union of sperm and egg.

I will pose to you these questions, the answers to which I hope give rationale to your statement that life begins at conception.

1) Do you believe that human life begins at fertilization?

2) Why do you believe that human life begins at fertilization?

3) Where in the bible does it state that human life begins at fertilization?

I await your answers to these questions to bolster your confident statement.

Godot 7 years, 12 months ago

logicsoundo4 wrote: "Lying is not illegal."

Spoke like a true Clintonian.

If lying is not illegal, why is Scooter Libby under indictment for lying?

Baille 7 years, 12 months ago

Godot wrote:

"If lying is not illegal, why is Scooter Libby under indictment for lying?"

He isn't. At least not in the elementary way you suggest.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html

If you need any help with the details, just ask.

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

If you are referring to Sarah Weddington as that woman, you are right. However, did you know that original Roe and Doe in those cases are pro-life?

Way to skirt the truth by throwing out a red herring! This decision was made by a group of men at the behest of women which is something you tried to get us to ignore. I applaud your ability to segregate reality like that!

My comment: If a pre-born baby is not a human being, what species is it?

The question is not about species, it is a potential human being, but if it can not live on its own, then it is not a separate entity from the mother, either biologically or in terms of rights. You brought up some fascinating physiological and biological anticdotes, but you have yet to give a clear reason (either scientifically or legally) why it should have a special class of legal protections that other parts of a woman's body does not.

No ethical doctor is going to cut off my arm, leg, or spleen just because I say I don't want it even if I have an absolute the right to do what I want with my own person.

No, but then there's the whole field of cosmetic surgery, which is considered ethical in the medical field and is certainly considered legal, but most of the procedures done are elective rather than medically necessary, rather like abortion in that respect. Again, you need to be able to give a compelling reason why a part of the woman's body should have special legal protections that no other part of her body has.

No rights are absolute even those that have to do with our own bodies.

And the current right to an abortion is not absolute either, but rather is limited to the 1st 6 months of pregnancy (except for a few rare cases).

MyName 7 years, 12 months ago

How is taking someone's life the lesser of two evils? Besides, "lesser of two evils" is not a sound philosphical doctrine anyway.

This is not what's happening here, the person isn't alive if it can not live on it's own. I know this has rather a tautlogical quality to it, but somehow you're still missing the point! And the "lesser of two evils" is most certainly a "sound philosophical doctrine". It's an example of Utilitarianism in action!

If you will look at the CDC website on abortion statistics, the graph shows a steady rise in abortions from the time it became legal. I doubt millions of women will hurt themselves in private if it becomes illegal.

1) I'm sure the rise in that graph probably corresponds to the rise in population, or in availablity of abortion versus non availability or any number of reasons besides your claim that abortion is based 100% on coercion.

2)your willful skepticism isn't going to change the fact that there are millions of women having abortions, and they aren't going to all suddenly decide not to have them because it's illegal now. It didn't work in the past and there's no reason to believe it will work in the future.

In any case, a women having an abortion in a clinic is still much safer than a woman having an abortion through other means and you've offered nothing to counter that claim. This is the big reason why legal abortion is good public policy.

The pro-choice argument is not compelling. In fact, it is easy to reject point for point.

If that's the case, then why has the decision stood for 30+ years? And why have you been unable to offer anything better in its place? Rolling back the clock on abortion would harm women and would place the rights of a potential human being ahead of those of a living person. Nothing you've offered in this thread has countered these two compelling points.

Curious 7 years, 12 months ago

++the person isn't alive if it can not live on it's own.++

My, oh my, does that open a whole can of worms. Are you sure you want to put it that way? You mean no baby bottle? Or just can't inhale? Except a fetus can inhale as soon as it is born. So rather than abort, maybe we should induce early birth and see if it can live on its own.

++"lesser of two evils"++

Is not determinable. Well, since it has been determined that liberals abort more of their babies and have a lower birth rate overall in America . . . ?? No, any baby aborted must have a future to determine if it was the lesser of two evils to prevent its existence.

++coercion++

Something done willingly cannot have been coerced. Fallacy. Coersion can also be a very subtle thing. But yet, particularly those who are vulnerable because of age or circumstance, coersion can be real. The elderly who feel they are taking up room or money by living too long are feeling coerced into ending their life early, particularly in Holland and in Oregon. They do not feel that same type of coersion in places that possibility is not presented to them.

++they aren't going to all suddenly decide not to have them++

I really think they will decide not to have them if they become illegal. Adoption will become a realistic choice of many women who do not consider it now. Men will think twice before hopping into the dad making business. Women also will think twice. Women who are told to have an abortion by a married lover or a boyfriend will have a ready answer if they so choose -- it's illegal. Teachers and counselors might not be so ready to take very young girls across state lines. There will be fewer abortionists and they will not be advertising openly in the yellow pages. And last but not least, when so much money is on the line, I am convinced firmly, that some abortionists perform abortions on women who are not pregnant. If you are reading this, have the pregnancy test done by someone other than the clinic who urges you to have an immediate abortion. Make sure you are really pregnant before allowing someone to stretch your cervix and insert instruments to clean you out. You wouldn't allow that to be done to your cat or your dog.

Too looong, see next for other arguments.

Curious 7 years, 12 months ago

++abortion in a clinic is still much safer++

not proven. We do know some of the women who die from abortions now. Often though the cause is attributed to something else because the women are hussled so very quickly out of the clinics. And the statistics given of deaths caused by back alley abortionists were total fabrications. Most abortions done in the "old days" were done in doctor's offices and hospitals. No different than now. In fact, many legal abortionists now WERE the back alley abortionists of the "old days", they just came in out of the cold, with no more training, no more people skills, just a desire for A BIG LEGAL PAYCHECK.

++why has the decision stood for 30+ years++

As long as there are five on the Supreme Court who will not look at the decision again, it stands. Why are the pro-death people so afraid? They know, and you know, the last thirty plus years has been against everything the majority in this country stands for. Some states will pass laws that permit the killing of certain select people, just as Germany did, but not the majority of states. And the pro-death people cannot abide the fact someone might have to travel or might decide its not worth the effort.

++offer anything better in its place++

It is called life. What we offer in its place is exactly what you oppose. This is a very basic discussion the world is having. Does life have intrinsic value . . . or not?

But I don't think that is what you mean. There are many groups aiding women who choose to carry a baby to term. All will admit there are not enough workers to serve everyone.

++the rights++

We totally disagree on the value of every life. But leaving that aside, why do the pro-death people fear the right of the "living person" being given all the facts prior to making a decision? . . . I would call it a life or death decision. They fight laws tooth and nail, for example such as the bill that will tell a woman she has the option for an anesthetic for her fetus [which is Greek or Roman for baby] who will feel the pain of dismemberment. And we, who sympathize with Hussein the way his neck was stretched, can't sympathize with a fetus whose neck is stretched until it breaks.

I do hope you follow your threads and get around to reading this. I would enjoy your return arguments.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.