Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, January 31, 2008

Doctor ordered to turn in abortion files

January 31, 2008

Advertisement

— A Sedgwick County judge ruled Wednesday that Dr. George Tiller must begin turning over redacted medical records of about 2,000 women who obtained late-term abortions in the past five years.

Judge Paul Buchanan, who is overseeing a grand jury investigation into Tiller, made his ruling after hearing oral arguments by defense attorneys seeking to quash two citizen grand jury subpoenas - including one that demanded the files of women who ultimately did not get the abortions after going to the clinic.

Buchanan ordered them to use "all deliberate speed" in furnishing the files to the Sedgwick County District Attorney's Office. Those records would be handed over to an independent attorney and physician to review before the grand jury received them.

Defense attorney Lee Thompson said he will immediately ask the Kansas Supreme Court for a stay of the Buchanan's order while he appeals the motion to quash the subpoenas.

Thompson called the subpoenas a "dragnet operation" in their scope.

He was joined in his motion by the Bonnie Scott Jones, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed a motion to intervene on behalf of Tiller's patients.

"These patients are terrified their identities will be disclosed," Jones told the judge.

Deputy Sedgwick County District Attorney Ann Swegle countered that the grand jury was convened for 90 days, noting 22 days already have passed. She said getting the records incrementally would be fine.

"We just don't want any foot dragging," Swegle said.

Swegle said the subpoenas were directly related to the charge given to the grand jury.

The subpoenas seek all health care records of patients who aborted a fetus determined to be 22 weeks or older from July 1, 2003, through Jan. 18 at Women's Health Care Services. It also seeks all health care records of each patient who was at least 22 weeks pregnant when she consulted with a physician at the clinic but did not have an abortion.

The grand jury was convened after Kansans for Life gathered nearly 8,000 signatures to force a grand jury investigation into Tiller under a 19th-century state law allowing citizens to invoke grand juries if they feel government officials are not enforcing the law.

"We have an extremist political group generating the grand jury," Thompson told the judge.

David Gittrich, state development director for Kansans for Life, said outside the courtroom that the grand jury is trying to do what it has been commissioned to do.

"We are pleased with the ruling," Gittrich said. "Once again attorneys for Tiller are stonewalling and delaying."

Tiller's lawyers also argued the subpoenas would place an undue burden on the clinic to produce so many medical records.

When former Attorney General Phill Kline subpoenaed 60 redacted medical records from the clinic two years ago, it took two people working full time about one month to comply, the attorneys noted.

Thompson also told the judge it would take 5,000 hours and cost $250,000 in labor costs to comply with the latest subpoenas.

Comments

Ragingbear 7 years ago

Not like things such as doctor/patient confidentiality would get in the way of a small select group's job of trying to "save souls".

When this is all said and done, Tiller is going to have a massive lawsuit against the state, and he will win.

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

Every little thing that can slow Tiller down is a blessing.

Every subpoena, every grand jury, every investigation, every call from reporters, every dollar he has to pay his disgusting defense attorneys - all are wonderful things.

rollcar 7 years ago

"These patients are terrified their identities will be disclosed," Jones told the judge.

Why exactly are they "terrified" of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?

ndmoderate 7 years ago

I guess I don't really have a problem with the reality of the ruling--if Tiller has nothing to hide it shouldn't be a big deal...except for all those hours and dollars to comply concerns me. Regardless, Grand Juries such as this one is entirely legal in the state.

What I do have a big problem with is why the Jury needs to see files of women who didn't have an abortion? What will that accomplish? No abortion, no foul, right? Or am I missing something?

jhwk2008 7 years ago

"An abortion performed on a 14 year-old means that a crime has been committed to get the girl pregnant."

Really? What's that citation in KSA? http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/index.do

What if it's a 14 year old boy?

akt2 7 years ago

There is a law called HIPPA for short. Health Information Privacy Practices Act. Every one of these patients needs to raise holy hell. They or their guardian most certainly signed a consent for the procedure. If the individual wants to release their confidential medical records for all to see, then fine. Otherwise it is nobody's business.

Ragingbear 7 years ago

~~Why exactly are they "terrified" of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?~~

Probably because of terroristic zealots, like yourself, that think that it is perfectly acceptable to bomb abortion clinics because they don't agree with their "moral code".

Tiller did nothing wrong. The massive amounts of investigations have only dug up a few minor infractions, which could be found anywhere, even the police department if you look hard enough.

If you don't have things like abortion clinics, then you will either see a ton of deaths from coat hangers, and people going to Mexico where the procedure is legal.

Erin Parmelee 7 years ago

"Choice" is a crime against humanity and should be dealt with as such.


Oh really? Apparently that only applies to the abortion debate huh?

bugmenot 7 years ago

The outrage by these patients isn't that they knew they were doing something wrong, it's that a private medical procedure of theirs is being inspected by a grand jury.

I assume all of you are willing to have your doctors open up your private medical records for inspection by a grand jury. Abortion, like it or not, is still a legal procedure in Kansas. How would you like the results of your colonoscopy open for a grand jury's inspection, or a history of all your yeast infections, STDs, or impotence problems?

Just because you disapprove of the legal procedure being performed doesn't mean everybody who wants to gets a look-see at the medical records.

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

"For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open."

Let it be done according to His will...not ours. You all have not control over this. Never have, never will. Good will always prevail over evil.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

It helps, Agno, and I always appreciate your ability to calmly present coherent thoughts....but....I am still in the dark as to why the Jury needs to see the files of patients who DIDN'T even have an abortion. How do those cases have anything to do with a criminal investigation?

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years ago

Kansas, Home of the Late Term Abortion!!

How about that for a new state slogan? Lets put it on a billboard!!

SettingTheRecordStraight 7 years ago

scenebooster,

Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight.

ThatGirl2 7 years ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

scenebooster,

Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight.

Oh my God! You can't really be that stupid can you? You should be ashamed for posting something so utterly daft and insulting.

Ceallach 7 years ago

It is worse than the Holocaust. In the case of abortion, each death is a direct result of the mother's decision for her child to die. IIRC, during the Holocaust that was not the case.

Posters should acquaint themselves with the details of late term abortion procedures before announcing that those who object to it are stupid. If you can read what is done to those viable babies and not find it abhorrant perhaps you should hit the yellow brick road to seek out the wizard for a heart.


Late Term Abortion The procedures There are three general procedures of late-term abortions and partial birth abortions. The first and most popular is called D&E (Dilation and evacuation). Once the cervix is dilated, the fetus is removed by inserting forceps into the uterus. The Fetus is then separated into pieces. These "pieces" of your baby will be removed one at a time. Vacuum aspiration is then used to ensure no tissue remains in the uterus.

The second procedure is early induction of labor. This is very painful and intense for the woman and is rarely used as an abortion procedure.

The third procedure is called Intact D&X surgery. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[8] First, the cervix is dilated. Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech. Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head. Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina.

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening[9], and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.[10] References follow.

Ceallach 7 years ago

References: 8. Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques American Medical Association. H-5.982 Retrieved April 24, 2007. 9. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. __ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. 10. "Surgical Abortion Procedures" American Pregnancy Association. Accessed April 14, 2006. Haskell, Martin. "Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion." Presented at the National Abortion Federation Risk Management Seminar, September 13, 1992

Ceallach 7 years ago

r_t, some issues make shouldering the title tolerable :)

Ceallach 7 years ago

Can't help you with that, r_t, being a disagreeerer I fit into the "offensive, ignorant, and basically just stupid" catagory :[

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

Agnostick...Your supremacy and ignorance is typical of those as "educated" as you think you are. You frighten me and I'm concerned that you will never know the truth because your self-righteousness has you locked up in your brain. I hope you are not teaching young children, taking care of elderly parents or own any pets.

ThatGirl2 7 years ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

":..extremists:."

hehe. wutev.

Awww.....I've sure missed you R-T. ;)

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

Definition People: holocaust hÅ-lÉ-&&char114&&koÌst, &&char114&& hä- also -&&char114&&käst or &&char114&& hoÌ-lÉ-koÌst a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

Fact: 11 Million Died in the hands of Nazis

Fact: 50 Million babies have been killed since abortion was legalized.

The pretty much qualifies as genocide. Extremist? Sure. Call me that if it makes you feel better.

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

Agnostick...you amuse me. Like a cat licking itself. Matthew 6:1-8? You've never seen me fast, pray or give alms now have you? What ARE you talking about?

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

it just keeps getting even more ridiculous here:

Abuse the courts? Tiller abused the entire legal system by creating a lobbying group to stop these "terrorist at Operation Rescue" from exposing the truth that he was not following Kansas law by properly following the law in his practice. Please!

Worst of America? Illegal and unethical? And Tiller should be sainted?

They have NO values? Go away. You are deluded.

Bill Chapman 6 years, 12 months ago

I say: The records not involving pregnant / or abortion patients should not be accessed - this is about abortion/ statutory rape. Should the records show no fault by Tiller, that Kansans For Life members and the 8,000 signees of the petition be liable for ALL expenses incurred by the court AND Tiller. Should something prove Tiller at fault, then proceed with a case - post haste!

ThatGirl2 7 years ago

absolutelyridiculous (Anonymous) says:

Definition People: holocaust hÅ-lÉ-&&char114&&koÌst, &&char114&& hä- also -&&char114&&käst or &&char114&& hoÌ-lÉ-koÌst a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

Fact: 11 Million Died in the hands of Nazis

Fact: 50 Million babies have been killed since abortion was legalized.

The pretty much qualifies as genocide. Extremist? Sure. Call me that if it makes you feel better.

I don't think your an extremist (yet), but I do think you're a poor debater. You realize your trying to qualify your argument by stating that fetus's are "babies" when you know that position is at the heart of the issue.

You cannot compare the holocaust, the slaughter of 11 million men, women, and children who were actually LIVING at that time, to abortion. I think you need to pick a different analogy.

ndmoderate 7 years ago

Well, I suppose we can un-convene that Grand Jury, since apparently absolutelyridiculous has already pronounced a guilty verdict.

Next!

absolutelyridiculous 7 years ago

ThatGril2..you are right. I'm a poor debater. But I can't even imagine NOT calling a fetus a baby because it IS!!!!! A fetus is living tissue that is a man, a woman. It just doesn't get any clearer to me and to argue that it is anything other than a baby...is just insane, deluded and misinformed.

Life is NOT that complex. If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it? It's insane to think of it as a zucchini now isn't it?

absolutelyridiculous 6 years, 12 months ago

the plant doesn't produce a watermelon if you kill it dude.

roflmao 2

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

A doctor's first duty is to do no harm; therefore abortionists are not doctors. Their trade is taking money to mortally wound a pre born human being and on occasion, even the mother.

Choice is a much bigger word than just killing the innocent who are momentarily inconvenient. Choice also can mean adoption and even an orphanage. Ultimately, choice should mean keeping the child, cared for in a loving family relationship. There is no reason that Tiller the Killer and Planned Barrenhood should continue to sully the word choice.

Is it not extremely hypocritical that every abortion proponent has already been born?

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Life is NOT that complex. If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it? It's insane to think of it as a zucchini now isn't it?

Well, you're actually proving my point. The SEED will grow a WATERMELON. Just as a FETUS will eventually grow be a BABY. But neither is the same thing at the start which is why we have different words for them. If a watermelon was always watermelon, we wouldn't need the word seed. How is that confusing?

And for the record--life is pretty complex.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

STRS says, "Actually, abortion in America is worse than the Holocaust. Get it straight."

Unbelievable! Tell that to a holocost survivor!

Incredible! You've just shown how ridiculously out of perspective you are by saying that.

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 12 months ago

flock,

A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

R-T says, "Who are these 'extremists' in the judicial system, "

The ones that have (ab)used the grand jury process. That little insurrection raised eyebrows across the nation, mainly among those who are surprised that Kansas can be played that way.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 12 months ago

Face it. If men would not ejaculate irresponsibly women would not become pregnant. For we all know...no semen no children.

Yet the focus is always on the women. So when will the emphasis be placed on the men?

It's time to change the discussion in a very big way! Could it be that males need sex education?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/pregnancy/how-pregnancy-happens.htm

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 12 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says:

flock,

A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree.

That's not true. My father in law is pro life, and a holocaust survivor, and he cried reading your post. You are a world class a$$.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

absolutelyridiculous says, "If you watered a watermelon seed it still is a watermelon when it starts growing now isn't it?"

HAHAHAHA! A watermelon seed is not a watermelon. The vine that may come from the seed is not a watermelon. The vine may not bear fruit = still no watermelon. You're lost.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

merrill says, "no semen no children."

And still no watermelon. Finally, a statement that makes some sense.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

STRS says, "A pro-life Holocaust survior would agree."

Now you are pretending to get into the minds of people you don't know and have probably never even met. You are way out on a limb with that argument.

Setting the record slanted?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

R_T says, "that's by the letter of the law-seems there are too many 'extremists' out there"

If that's the case, then why isn't that provision "used" more frequently? That is, if there are so many extremists and this is not merely a way of just attempting to make things so difficult that the other party capitulates.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

R_T says, "If guys would at least pull out at a minimum and/or as my brother says 'tarp their load" (he's a truck driver) this could cut the incidence way, way, way down. Simple."

Hey, now, something we can agree on. But then you would need to expand sex education, which sends the Operation Rescue types into a high-RPM tizzy.

sdinges 6 years, 12 months ago

Can someone please explain how on earth it is justified to ask for the files of women who ultimately did not get an abortion? This is such a violation - of privacy, of rights, and of propriety.

What's the difference between this and these people coming along and demanding my file from my gynecologist just because they have some sense of perverse curiosity? Maybe then they can "accidentally" leak my private information to the public, so that everyone can know the details.

I disagree with these people being able to peruse any woman's private medical files, but demanding the files of women who did not get an abortion is repugnant and unconscionable.

georgeofwesternkansas 6 years, 12 months ago

I thought this problem was solved when Phil left and Chester the mollester came in??

Must be those pesky laws getting in the way again.

day 6 years, 12 months ago

Read the post by Ceallach at 12:21.

I remember the helpless feeling I had holding my crying wife after her miscarriage. I think of the two children I do have and weep while reading the details of this medical procedure.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion, I'm curious how many babies you have adopted?

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

None. No red herring, just a question. How many babies have you adopted? You seem passionate about the issue, so just curious. Are you on a waiting list?

Ralph Reed 6 years, 12 months ago

rollcar (Anonymous) writes: "Why exactly are they "terrified" of being exposed if they feel they are doing nothing wrong? Ever wonder why the KKK wore hoods?"

rollcar, I wonder the same thing about most of the anonymous posters here on the whole LJW forum ('award-winning' to quote rt), not just this one article and "discussion" (used very loosely). I can only assume it's an accountability issue - not wanting to be responsible for their words.


Definition of foetus (Brit spelling) from dictionary.com "fetus /&&char114&& fitÉs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled noun, plural -tuses. Embryology. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetus)

So medically an embryo does not become a foetus until after two months. Somebody please explain that to me rationally and without a lot of vitriol.

On another note. We were on a trip to Arkansas and Oklahoma prior to the grand jury being convened. I saw 'sign the petition against Tiller' signs in both states. It even gave the web address -- ostensibly owned by someone in KS. The thing I don't understand is if the grand jury was convened in Sedgewick county, should not ALL of the signatures have been from that county? If they weren't, isn't that a violation of the law in and of itself?

Those of you who have read my posts know my views on abortion, so I see no need to reiterate them now and add more fodder for the cannons of some of the posters above. Hence, there's no need to flame me on that aspect.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Ralph Reed 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) writes: "ThatGirl2: Are you suggesting that any baby not adopted or pending adoption should be merely killed in the womb?"


Marion, you know TG2 wasn't saying that, so why come back with that comment. I think she had a valid question for you, Would you please answer it? I adopted a child in case you wish to know. He turned out fine (in spite of my best efforts grin) and we're very proud of him.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

Well I was going to get all upset about the privacy issues of the women, however if no names are mentioned then no biggie. I suppose for all those that are advocating pro-life no matter what the circumstances think that women should carry full term after a rape? Or maybe the mom's life is in danger and she will die before the baby is delivered? By no means should abortion be used as an alternative to birth control. For the women who do that, get your tubes tied. We are not the judge/jury people, but thank goodness for freedom of speech or we'd all be in jail ;)

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2:

Are you suggesting that any baby not adopted or pending adoption should be merely killed in the womb?

Again, a red freaking herring!

No, I'm not implying anything. Just asking you a question. Why won't you answer it? I think your unwillingness to answer implies something, if I'm being honest.

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion, are you speaking from a holocaust survivors point of view? Are you implying that since abortion is murder because it is killing a baby that perhaps all birth control should be outlawed because it prevents the creation of such? (See how ridiculous this entire argument could get and has gotten?)

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

marion, please read my previous post when I stated that women who use abortion as birth control just need to get their tubes tied thanks. And we don't need to get in a cussing match but comparing abortion to the holocaust is what i was referring to as ridiculous. And you didn't answer my question if you are speaking as a holocaust survivor? Or would that be the red herring you were referring to.

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

Sigh, agreeing to disagree with Marion at this point even if we both agree on some points anyway.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"No, I'm not implying anything. Just asking you a question. Why won't you answer it? I think your unwillingness to answer implies something, if I'm being honest."

Marion writes:

Horsesh*t!

Your question is designed such that if I reply. "No, I have not adopted.", you will use my answer as a justification for the killing of babies in the womb.

Your question is a Red Herring, period.

Whether or not I have adopted is irrelevant.

You are trying to set it up such that if I have not adopted, I have no room to talk about the morality of the killing of babies in the womb and I will not alolow you to do that.

You are such a silly man! You seem to think you know an awful lot. Don't you know what happens when you assume, Marion. Speculate all you want---your defensiveness about the issue is far more interesting than any answer I was actually seeking. More amusing too.

Just for giggles, I'll ask again--since I remain genuinely curious given your ferver about babies (or so it seems)--have you adopted?

Katara 6 years, 12 months ago

Geez, looks like someone is on a bender again

Katara 6 years, 12 months ago

I am curious too about Marion's passion for children. How many children do you have, Marion? Are any of them adopted?

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

Thatgirl2- Don't bother, Marion doesn't answer questions as I've asked mine twice with no answer.

Marion, I'm disagreeing that abortion is like holocaust. Not disagreeing that when they have to suck out the babies brain that it's murder. Would I ever receive an abortion..nope. Is it up to me to judge those that would? No. Do I have the right to ask those using abortions as a form of birth control to tie their tubes, yep but they don't have to listen. So be agreeing to disagree with you, I CHOOSE not to listen to your holocaust comparison.

Have a nice night!

busymom 6 years, 12 months ago

thanks ljw for auto taking out some of my caps, I choose. and by not be

sdinges 6 years, 12 months ago

Agnostick: Thank you for clearing it up. I see where it mentions the files that have been ordered turned over are redacted. Although I don't agree with it, I fully understand what they are looking for in the cases of abortion. But what are they looking for in the cases where no abortion took place? I still don't understand how they justify even asking. They don't seem to be asking for only the files of minors in order to investigate abuse, or am I mistaken?

You are right that Phill Kline has tarnished my trust in this entire process as it relates to this investigation. What exactly do they have to say to get the unredacted information? What needs to be in the file? I feel strongly that these special-interest groups have stepped over the line here and are violating women's privacy. They have shown in the past that they are willing to abuse any information they can get their hands on. Personally if I had visited this clinic for any reason, I'd have hired an attorney by now to protect myself, but I suppose people with the cash to hire an attorney don't visit Planned Parenthood.

I did go through and read your posts, and I understand that my questions may just be rhetorical. I apologize for having not read them more thoroughly, but I admit once the holocaust or Nazis get brought into discussions (it's amazing how frequently that happens!), I don't really bother with the rest.

I think what it comes down to is that it bothers me terribly that these people can claim that they are fighting a "moral" fight even while trampling all over the rights of innocent people, abusing their privacy and violating their most personal information. I maintain that it is unconscionable.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Again, adoption is not the issue.

The murder of babies in the womb is the issue.

If you want to start a thread on adoption, feel free to start one over at my community forum or any of the other community forums readily available to you on the internet.

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb and nothing else.

The attmepts on your parts to bring in the adoption issue only furthers the idea that "unwanted" children may be and should be dismembered in the womb and cast aside as so much biowaste.

I never indicated I thought adoption was the issue. I only asked how many children you have adopted out of curiosity. A question which remains unanswered interestingly enough.

Weren't you the one posting question after question about hookah bars and then indicating if no one would answer your question you must be right? I guess by that logic, whatever I am thinking about you right now must be correct.

I have never said anything at all about "unwanted children,"--however, you did--but I'll go ahead and run with it. You seem to support a pro-life postion. Essentially, a position which requires a woman who doesn't want a child to birth that child, and presumably, place that child up for adoption. It's a logical string of thought, whether you like it or not, therefore, I remain on topic (abortion).

The question remains......

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2:

You wanna stay on topic, we can talk.

You wanna play the "What about this?" game; you go talk to your husband. boyfriend or girlfriends who buy into that BS but I am not going to play the game!

Why not...? It's your game. I already explained the logical explanation of my query to the topic, and if you have an ounce of intelligence, I know you can follow it. I'll ask again--how many children have you adopted?

Ralph Reed 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) writes: "Uh, Ralph::::::I have no "hood of anonymity". My "hood of anonymity" was circumcised long ago. That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!"


Marion, if you read my posts, you'll see I put that statement or similar statements at the bottom of each of my posts. So, it doesn't apply to you, does it? Hence, it shouldn't bother you. I'm still waiting for an answer to TG2's question as it is now mine also. Are you going to answer the question, or are you going to flame again?


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Erin Parmelee 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Dude, I am not "flaming".

This thread concerns the murder of babies in the womb, NOT adoption and the "questions" regarding "adoption" are only intended to set up a "Well, if you won't, don't or haven't adoopted, why are you against abortion?" game.

I do not play games.

The question is irrelavant to the topic of discussion.

Actually, you are flaming a little bit. I already explained to you how the question is relevant to the topic of discussion, but let me try again, since you don't seem to "see" (or are unwilling to, because you know it might be detrimental to your position), let me try another tack: assuming abortion is outlawed, and women have babies they do not want, what do you presume be done with said babies? Can you see the connection now??

Your stubbornness proves nothing. Asking a question is your favorite technique, so it seems extremely ironic that you won't answer mine. If you find the question so irrelevant, than why not answer it?

The words you are looking for are: "gotcha."

gccs14r 6 years, 12 months ago

It's time for the Legislature to address the civilian grand jury law. Back in the 19th century, they apparently didn't forsee the law being used to repeatedly harass someone for political gain.

workin2hard 6 years, 12 months ago

Can someone please explain what is moral about abortion.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

Tsk, tsk:I leave for a few hours and the whole debate just goes to hell. What AM I going to do with you people.

Who are you behind your real name?

Terrific folks-that's who!!!

If I could sell abortion debateI'd be a freaking kajillionaire!!

I don't think the debate went to hell--it just stalled out when Marion refused to answer a simple question because it was either a) "irrevelvant" (in which case, why not answer it, the answer to an irrelevant question doesn't matter), or b) a "red herring" (in which case the question was relevant, but he thought it was to throw the discussion off course). He never did actually make up his mind about which it was. Too bad--I think it would have made for an interesting discussion, but alas, some people get intimidated by questions I guess.

Katara 6 years, 12 months ago

I have yet to hear an answer on the following question from anyone before. I'm not holding my breath on getting one but I am interested to see if anyone steps up to the plate for it.

For all of those who want abortion outlawed, for whatever reason, what do you plan to do with all the resulting children that need care?

Ceallach 6 years, 12 months ago

You tell them Eve! I'm tired of women whining about why they "just can't be pregnant now!" It would be more truthful to say they just can't be without irresponsible sex . . . regardless of the consequences. But then again, they don't pay the consequences, do they? Their child pays.

Has Marion adopted a child? If he has not that wouldn't lessen the fact that there are lists of those waiting to adopt unwanted/unplanned children. As well as those who are waiting to adopt special needs children.

AG, I love it when you talk Bible. There is just something irresistible about an agnostic man quoting scripture :) But ya better be careful . . . reading too much of it may prove hazardous to your agnosticism.

Ceallach 6 years, 12 months ago

Katara, the mechanism is in place to accommodate mothers who, for whatever reason, cannot properly care for their child. Families and couples are waiting to adopt them. No one is required to wear a red letter, just sign a paper, others will gladly do the job said parent(s) are unable to do.

Earlier someone was talking about making fathers be more responsible. There is a problem with that, no doubt. However, single fathers have no say in the abortion or adoption of their child. Men are really discriminated against in this regard. If she decides to keep the baby he is required to pay child support . . . but if she decides to kill his child he has no legal right to require her to deliver his baby and let him raise it.

Ceallach 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer, I thought it might be due to all the posts about -- you know what.

bondmen 6 years, 12 months ago

Abortion, apportion, absorption, abstention, adoration, absolution, a solution, adoption, a baby, a human, eternally, being.

Katara 6 years, 12 months ago

Katara, the mechanism is in place to accommodate mothers who, for whatever reason, cannot properly care for their child. Families and couples are waiting to adopt them. No one is required to wear a red letter, just sign a paper, others will gladly do the job said parent(s) are unable to do.

Earlier someone was talking about making fathers be more responsible. There is a problem with that, no doubt. However, single fathers have no say in the abortion or adoption of their child. Men are really discriminated against in this regard. If she decides to keep the baby he is required to pay child support : but if she decides to kill his child he has no legal right to require her to deliver his baby and let him raise it.


Thank you, Ceallach, for answering my question.

I'm not convinced that there are lines of couples just waiting to adopt all these potential children. If that is the case, why are there so many kids in the foster care system? I'd interested in reading some sources that back up your statement.

As for the fathers, I guess it just boils down to that life is unfair. While I can feel for their situation, they don't have to assume the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

Ralph Reed 6 years, 12 months ago

Agnostick (Anonymous) writes: "This may come as a shock, but I don't think it's a black/white issue."


I agree, your 1025 was an excellent post. Well said.

Goldring7 6 years, 12 months ago

Doctor ordered to turn in abortion files........ DOCTOR........NO! MORE LIKE MURDERER

Kathy Getto 6 years, 12 months ago

Why are so many American couples going out of the country to adopt, and how does this affect the solution here?

Kathy Getto 6 years, 12 months ago

This sort of mentality goes back to the near-phobic hysteria that surrounded attempts to legalize family planning methods and distribution in 19th-century America. Many people at that time believed contraception, let alone abortion, was wrong not because such methods rivaled murder, but because women were trying to sleaze their way out of the social responsibility that had been thrust upon them by God Almighty - the responsibility to be wives and mothers. If women had a "way out," they would be flying in the face of divine providence, of everything good and natural.

What a crock.

Kathy Getto 6 years, 12 months ago

To quote Ag, who always inserts rationale into this topic:

"Abortion should be legal. Abortion should be rare. Abortion should be heavily-regulated and supervised by the government.

The #1 cause of abortion is the unwanted or unintended pregnancy. If you reduced the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies, the number of abortions will automatically be reduced, as well.

Reducing the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies cannot be achieved by outlawing abortion. Reducing these pregnancies can only be achieved through education, awareness, and better access to birth control.

[It's impossible to completely "eliminate" anything-that's why I say "reduce."]"


It is easy to holler "baby killer", but where are your solutions to unwanted pregnancies?

And for the record, Dolly - this is not about me. Abortion would have never been a choice for me, nor were any of my children unwanted or unintended.

Kathy Getto 6 years, 12 months ago

Interesting, warmer - he was not only comparing, he ordered those records be produced.

JohnBrown 6 years, 12 months ago

Welcome to the Blog of the Kansas Taliban, where so-called conservatives who rail about being "for" freedom, "for" less government intervention, and "for" the Constitution, except when it gets in the way of their being able to impose their religion on everyone else.

meanbean101 6 years, 12 months ago

Whether it's legal or not, women always will and always have made the choices they want when it comes to their bodies. So if you don't like abortion, then feel free to inform people about why and their alternatives.However, to support taking away a safe way for these women to make that choice is irresponisible. If you're comfortable supporting coathanger abortions resulting in the death of the woman and the child, then continue to support forcing these practices out of business. While abortion is by no means something to be proud of, neither is judging and harrasing people for the views they hold. I don't believe Jesus himself would talk the way some of you are talking. I think we can all do a little better. Marion, maybe you should take a good hard look at yourself before casting the first stone on all those who disagree with you.

Kathy Getto 6 years, 12 months ago

"Playing the whoa is me victim card?" Dolly "Until feminists, athiests, liberals and other assorted United Ilk of America get off the 'it's all about me' train, not a thing will change." R_T


I am so sorry you felt slighted, R_T, however, I can only offer you retribution.

dirkleisure 6 years, 12 months ago

Be certain to read the Wichita Eagle today for their reporting on this story.

Former AG Kline had demanded records from a Wichita hotel of names, home addresses, home phone numbers, and phone records from the hotel for the women whose medical records he claimed were "private."

In reality, even when a judge attempted to protect the privacy of the women whose records Kline was rifling through, he was using the power of the AG's office to cross reference the records with hotel records.

Wouldn't it be great to receive a phone call from the AG questioning you about the legal abortion you received? Because it is apparent that is what Phill Kline was after. Not only a woman's private medical records, but her home phone number to boot!

dirkleisure 6 years, 12 months ago

Ag, the attorney for Tiller's clinic very clearly stated she requested and received the document from the office of the attorney general. Absolutely Paul Morrison was aware of Kline's attempts to identify women who had an abortion.

There can be little doubt there is enough evidence of abuse of office at the Memorial Building in Topeka to bury Phill Kline.

denak 6 years, 12 months ago

Ok, I am going to take a stab at this question.


But what are they looking for in the cases where no abortion took place? I still don't understand how they justify even asking. They don't seem to be asking for only the files of minors in order to investigate abuse, or am I mistaken? ____________The only thing I can think of why they are asking for other files is so that they can compare the note taking in the files to see if there are systematic discrepencies. If certain files are mandated that they be done in certain ways and then there are files that seem, for whatever reason to have been done another way, they are going to look to see why there are certain files not in compliance with regulations and why some are. They are going to look to see if the paper is the same. They going to look to see if the ink is the same. You can tell A LOT about when a file was done by the paper it is on. You can tell if something has been erased. Basically, you can tell if something has been tampered with. You can tell when certain people work. So, if they have a file for someone who didn't have an abortion and her file was filled out by Nurse A on a certain date and you look and Nurse A supposedly didn't work that day, or Nurse A's signature is no where else on any files for those who had abortions, you would want to know why there is that discrepency. It could be a matter of Nurse A only does such and such clerical work, or it could be that the forms where Nurse A's name doesn't appear have been re-done. Basically, they want to look for errors that could prove that the clinic is trying to cover up something.

Dena

denak 6 years, 12 months ago

If a pregnant woman secretly gives the baby up for adoption: the man has lost an opportunity to be a father.


No, he hasn't. Depending on which state one lives in, the father has to give permission for his rights to be terminated just as the mother does. She might secretely give the child up for adoption, but if man finds out about the adoption, and trust me, these things always come out, he can contest the adoption and there is a chance he would win if he could show that he wanted the child, that he could care for the child and that he took the appropriate legal steps as soon as he knew about the child. Of course, there is a time limit. He would lose if he found out 10 years later because the standard would shift from him to what is in the "best interest of the child" and the court would find that it is in the child's best interest to stay with the parents that s/he has become attached to. However, since these are equitable laws, he might get visitations. Who knows. He doesn't lose his rights simply because she commit fraud. Unless of course, he lives in a state that doesn't need his consent. Personally, I don't think the mother should have the exclusive right to give the child up for adoption. I do think that, if the father wants to be the father, then he should be the natural choice to take the child. If neither one want the child, then they can place it for adoption. Of course, there are situations where the father is unknown, or violent or just a bum and his consent would cause an hardship, and in which case, the mother should have the exclusive right but if the father wants to be the father and raise the child, there should be some legal way to "opt -in" and get custody of the child.


If the woman, after discovering that she's pregnant, cuts off all contact with the man: moves 2,000 miles away to another state, changes her name, has the baby, raises it and eventually becomes a grandmother: the man has still lost an opportunity to be a father, no?


This is kind of an extreme example, but he still doesn't lose his right to be a father. If she goes to that extreme, then I think he should file charges for kidnapping. Not to mention, that he should file for custody since she is clearly not in her right mind. :)

Luckily, most cases aren't this dramatic. And as I said before, I do think states should make make some form of law that states that if the father wants to be a father, then he should be able to take custody of the child. It shouldn't be simply the mother's decision.

Dena

Ceallach 6 years, 12 months ago

denak, they could also be looking at the age of the patient. An underage girl's pregnancy should be investigated whether or not she decided to have an abortion. Too often the father is much older than the girl. In those cases he should be persecuted, er uh, I mean prosecuted.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion says, "That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!"

No, the point is that you are perfectly willing to tell a woman what she can (and can't) do in the matter, but you are not willing to bear direct responsibility for the result.

This is why we ask that you mind your own business!

dirkleisure 6 years, 12 months ago

Subpoenaed hotel records used to identify women who were patients at a medical facility.

These attempts even though a judge ruled the only way the records were to be reviewed was if the privacy of the individual was 100% secured.

Criminal activity, indeed.

While you continue to rail away about a legal procedure, your champions are breaking the law in your name. Congratulations on your complete disregard for our society and for our legal process. You should all be locked up.

Fishman 6 years, 12 months ago

Tourism poster: Visit KANSAS!! Home of Fred Phelps, and the late term abortion!! I'll admit to believing in God to some degree. I am however not religious at all. I for one could never terminate a pregancy if I were a woman. It's just one of those inate things that tells me the difference between right and wrong. No doubt in my mind that if you can hear a heart beating something's going on there. Seems to me if it wasn't alive it wouldn't be moving around in there. When the mother has her life in danger that is different in my opinion only. Rape is another thing that convolutes things more. I'm glad they aren't revealing the names on the records. Although if they feel as they've done nothing wrong and are so pro-abortion this would give them all a chance to speak out on pro-abortion from their own experience. I would be more apt to listen to someone that has actually lived it. I'd be interested to see how many regretted it. Ag, any good statistics would be appreiated. I still think that education and birth control are most likely the best solution to limiting unwanted pregnancies. I'm glad my mom didn't grab a coat hanger.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

Hey, I served my share of guard duty. But that's another story.

If you want to boil me and everyone else down to that, well, it makes you and your argument rather shallow.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says:

Marion says, "That is exactly what ThatGirl2 is implying; that unwanted babies should be murdered in the womb, so stop trying for the garden path; you ain't that good at spin!"

No, the point is that you are perfectly willing to tell a woman what she can (and can't) do in the matter, but you are not willing to bear direct responsibility for the result.

This is why we ask that you mind your own business!

Thakn you SO MUCH for getting my point. At least someone does.

I personally find it interesting that no one had any comments on the YouTube link--which I believe illustrates perfectly what I was talking about--taking a position without following that position to its logical conclusion.

PS: Don't worry about Marion--he doesn't know how to have a conversation. if you disagree with him, you're automatically a target. Much like 2nd grade.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 12 months ago

snap writes:

still

having

a

wonderful

internet

life

.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

So:::::ThatGirl2:::::.are you suggesting that what is really going on here is social blackmail?

Are you saying, "Adopt this baby or we will kill it!"?

Are you suggesting that if you say such and thing and receive no reply that you are then justified in the murder of a baby in the womb?

I really hope you're not as ignorant as some of your posts would indicate. I would explain my position to you (actually, I will below) but it is with the forgone conclusion that you won't hear it anyway--you have your blinders on when it comes to this issue: it's your way or the highway--which makes me wonder why you even bother to post if you scurry away from a discussion of the issue.

Regardless, my position has nothing to do with "social blackmail"--it has to do with the pro-life movement thinking their position through to its logical conclusion. Not just the "protect the babies" stance--but all the questions that arise from that position. I believe you have every right to think whatever you want to think. Be pro-life. But I also believe you should be accountable for the end result of your position. That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies? What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway? When posed those questions you yelled "Red Herring" and ran for the hills. The fact of the matter is it is very simple to say "I don't like abortion." Yeah, well duh...no one does. It's much harder to stand on that position by answering the tougher questions--as you keep proving.

Now I will sit back and wait for the insulting post, because I know that, rather than an answer, is what is coming.....

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

ThatGirl2 wrote:

" Not just the "protect the babies" stance-but all the questions that arise from that position."

Marion writes:

You mean the questions which you pose; the desired answers to which are designed to justify your murderous stance?

Those?

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"

Marion writes:

Well, they are certainly not presucted for the murder of the child.


My questions weren't designed for any purpose. If they make you feel insecure, that was not my intent. They are legitimate questions which arise if abortion is made illegal. To assert differently is beneath you. I'm not trying to pick a fight--just inspire some thought and dialogue. Call me "murderous" if it makes you feel better. I am pro-choice because while I find abortion unsettling and I would never have one, I am unwilling to make those decisions for other women, and I don't have the answers to my own questions.....(which apparently, neither do you).

My question was not what happens to women who have abortion now, my question was this: if you get what you want and abortion is made illegal, what happens to the women who have abortions anyway?

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote in a pitiful attempt to spin:

"My question was not what happens to women who have abortion now, my question was this: if you get what you want and abortion is made illegal, what happens to the women who have abortions anyway?"

Marion writes:

Your spin was cute as it went by but that was NOT the question you asked! (Please see above!)

The question you asked was and I quote:

""What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"

Marion writes:

Two entirely different questions but having answered the first, allow me to retort to the second!

Should the murder of babies by "choice" become illegal in this once great nation, women who have illegal abortions should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for premeditated murder.

No spin sweetie, you just didn't understand the question the first time. That's okay--for the future though, it's more credible to admit that than to try and twist it into something else.

In any case--I appreciate your honesty. I think you're a bit nutty, but at least you are willing to take a postion and stand on it. I tend to think most pro-lifers though, wouldn't agree with you. (In terms of prosecuting women, I mean....so that you don't get confused and then blame that on me later.).

You should look at the link I posted earlier.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

I say let them bleed to death from the coat hanger.


Precisely why the label "Pro-Life" is an oxymoron.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion writes:

Maybe if you say what you mean and mean what you say, we could save some bandwidth!

I understood perfectly the first question as it was written, it's just that you didn't ask the question to which you wanted an answer.

When, after a lot of wasted bandwidth, rationalisation, pseudo-claification and spin on your part, you got around to asking an entirely different question, I answered that one also and quite clearly, I might add!


I'm sorry, I think this is pretty clear:

"But I also believe you should be accountable for the end result of your position. That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies? What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"

The question asks about the END RESULT--i.e., illegal abortion. So either you misunderstood the question, or understood it and answered the wrong question intentionally--meaning you equally "wasted bandwidth."

Seems unfortunate that you can't discuss something without trying to jab the other person. Oh well--sometimes that is the only tactic people have.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

I believe the question was asked and answered two fold.

Let then die or rot in prison.

No one complained about the answers. Feeling guilty about the hypocrasy of your statement? If not, let it go.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Not at all, it appears though that you do not like the answers given. Those who take a life should be punished either by fate or law. I prefere fate myself though it gives me pleasure to watch it unfold.

Exactly how does it appear that way? Re-read my comment to Marion. I nbelieve I said I disagree with his position, but appreciate his willingness to admit it. Stop trying to create controversy where there is none.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"

Marion writes:

ThatGirl2 needs to be more concerned with punctuation and grammar, such that the import and intent of questions which she writes may be more clearly understood!

Examples follow:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"

Marion writes:

Did you mean; "What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?"; as in "Anyway, what happens to ::."

Did you mean, "What happens to women who obtain abortions ANY WAY?", as in "by any way that they can?"

Did you mean; "What happens to women who obtain abortions anyway?", as in "any way, even if in violation of a law?"

Marion writes:

I suggest that you more clearly word and properly punctuate your questions so that you impart to the target of those questions the degree of specificity required for those targets to return to you a reply to the question which you intended to ask!

As I wrote earlier; "Mean what you say and say what you mean!"

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"That means being willing to answer questions like: what happens to the babies?"

Marion writes:

The get adopted by people who want children, that's what!

As long as Americans are going overseas to adopt children when there are children in this country waiting, overseas adoption should be severely limited and adoption requirements should be lessened unless those who support "choice" are willing to impose requirements for couples to become parents as they do in Red China.

I understand that there are children in Thrid World Biosolidsholes without parents but the same is true in this country and we should take care of our own first.

Now, start calling me a "racist", as I'm sure that you will as you do not know the meaning of the term.

All so boring and predictable. I already had the answer to my question, so I don't really have much more to discuss with you. It's not my problem if you can't follow a simple conversation honey. It's hilarious though how you always accuse people of "red herrings" and then try and turn this into a debate about punctuation for God's sake. Pathetic.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Agreed marion the controversy is in the presentation of the questioner, nuf said, case closed.


Oh really? And how was the "questioner" presented Kathy? Before you try and critique grammar, you might want to learn how to use it.....

meanbean101 6 years, 12 months ago

By the way Marion, I'm not a Christian. Jesus is also a literary figure, so you basically missed my entire point. You seem to pretty good at that. And ,as always,I will enjoy my day full of choice, as that what our country is supposed to be about.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Right back at you. I believe marion pointed out your error.


Wrong. Marion misunderstood the question. And then you proved yourself a fool by jumping in and making a comment that doesn't even make sense.

BTW, the topic is abortion, in case you forgot. Are you really that bored tonight??

meanbean101 6 years, 12 months ago

By the way Marion, your hateful tirades don't leave most people thinking "What an intelligent and well thought out argument he made." You have some very good points, but the irrelevant rude personal attacks completely overshadow them.I don't really know if you care, but why put so much time and good information into something if you're going to attack those people who you're trying to convince?

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

ThatGirl2 wrote:

"Wrong. Marion misunderstood the question. And then you proved yourself a fool by jumping in and making a comment that doesn't even make sense."

Marion writes:

Marion did NOT misunderstand the question!

ThatGirl2 did not write a coherent question which properly indicated the information she was seeking!

English!

Do you speak it?

Not only do I speak it, I majored in it. As I stated earlier, not my problem that you can't follow a conversation.

PS: You might want to suggest that your lap dog find another thread to jump in on. She's just embarrassing herself here.

ThatGirl2 6 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

Marion writes: If you "majored" in English, you must certainly be the poster child for "No Child Left Behind" because it is more than obvious that proper use of the language has evaded you for some time::::::

:::.or you often slept through class:::::.

Further, I do not have "lap dogs"; you would not want my dogs on your lap and besides, my dogs would not demean themselves by mounting(pun) the lap of someone such as yourself.

LOL!


Not at all sweetie pie, that's why your lame attempts at insults roll right off me.

And for the record, I'm not talking about your mangey wolf hybrid's--I'm talking about your mangey sidekick. I know--easy to get them confused.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years, 12 months ago

Enforcer (Kathy) and Marion, You two are so utterly pathetic...you even have the nerve to try to tell others what to do when it is apparent that you can't do the right thing yourselves. Unbelievable! So, it's not hard to believe that you can make the Nazi comparison and truly believe it in your own minds.

Meanwhile, there's a world of people that know better. It's wonderful to know that you can't screw with other people's lives without some measure of accountability and to know that your views will never become codified for the rest of us.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.