Topeka — A state administrative judge has ordered the revocation of a Kansas doctor’s license over her referrals of young patients to the late Dr. George Tiller for late-term abortions, concluding their care was “seriously jeopardized” by inadequate mental health examinations.
In an order that became public Tuesday, the judge said Dr. Ann Kristen Neuhaus failed to meet accepted standards of care in performing exams on 11 patients, ages 10 to 18, who had late-term abortions at Tiller’s clinic in Wichita from July to November 2003. The judge said Neuhaus’ records did not contain the information necessary to show she did thorough exams.
Kansas law required Tiller to get an opinion from another doctor to terminate the pregnancies. Neuhaus said each patient’s mental health issues were serious enough to allow each procedure to go forward.
Neuhaus, from Nortonville, a small town about 30 miles north of Lawrence, doesn’t have an active medical practice, but her license allows her to provide limited charity care, and she’s seeking to make it fully active again. It wasn’t clear Tuesday how quickly she’d have to stop providing charity care under Judge Ed Gaschler’s order.
The order must be reviewed by the State Board of Healing Arts, which licenses and regulates physicians, most likely at an April 13 meeting. If the board makes Gaschler’s order final, Neuhaus still could file a legal challenge.
“We are in the process of reviewing the order and whether an appeal is advisable,” said Bob Eye, an attorney for Neuhaus.
Gaschler heard evidence on a complaint filed by the Board of Healing Arts’ top litigation attorney in April 2010. The case centered on how Neuhaus reached her conclusions and whether she adequately documented the reasons behind each diagnosis. Her reports, compiled with a “PsychManager Lite” computer program, were five pages or less and don’t cite details from patients’ statements or data gleaned from her exams.
The administrative judge said that in some cases, the young patients were described as suicidal, but Neuhaus didn’t recommend further treatment. The judge said Neuhaus simply “answered yes/no questions” using the computer program and assigned whatever diagnosis “the computer gave.”
“The care and treatment of the 11 patients in question was seriously jeopardized by the Licensee’s care,” Gaschler wrote.
Julie Burkhart, a former Tiller employee and founder of the abortion-rights group Trust Women, questioned whether Neuhaus’ case was handled fairly and whether Neuhaus can receive a fair hearing from the Board of Healing Arts, with Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, a strong abortion opponent, in office. Burkhart said Neuhaus is a target for anti-abortion officials.
“There’s a political agenda here, and it seems that Dr. Neuhaus is the one who can be brought before the board and punished,” Burkhart said. “The agenda is to discredit her.”
Gaschler signed the order and mailed it to the parties Friday. The anti-abortion group Operation Rescue obtained a copy and posted it online Tuesday.
The board’s executive director, Kathleen Selzler Lippert, confirmed the authenticity of the posting but declined to comment because the board hasn’t reviewed Gaschler’s order.
The case initially stemmed from a 2006 complaint by Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue. And Mary Kay Culp, executive director of the anti-abortion group Kansans for Life, which scrutinized Neuhaus for years, said the evidence against the doctor was “crushing.”
Neuhaus performed abortions herself in Wichita and Lawrence but stopped in 2002. She provided second opinions for Tiller from 1999 through 2006. Under Kansas law at the time, abortions at or after the 22nd week of pregnancy, if the fetus was viable, were allowed if the patient faced death or “substantial and irreversible” harm to “a major bodily function,” including mental health. Legislators tightened the law last year so that it no longer includes the mental health exception.
“It was just a sham,” Sullenger said, who praised Gaschler’s order and described Neuhaus’ as helping Tiller in “circumventing the law.”
Tiller was among a few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortions and was shot to death in May 2009 by a man professing strong anti-abortion beliefs.
Tiller once faced misdemeanor criminal charges that alleged, in relying on Neuhaus for referrals, he wasn’t getting the independent second medical opinion required by state law. He was acquitted two months before his murder, but at the time of his death, a separate complaint was pending before the Board of Healing Arts.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) says…
"Neuhaus said each patient’s mental health issues were serious enough to allow each procedure to go forward."
As I understand the situation, Dr. Ann Kristen Neuhaus is not and never was a psychiatrist. So how in the world could Dr. Ann Kristen Neuhaus have any idea what she was doing? She had no training at all in the disorders she was diagnosing!
It might have been within the letter of the law in the past for a general practitioner of medicine to determine that "each patient’s mental health issues were serious enough to allow each procedure to go forward," but such a diagnosis is certainly far outside of the training that a general practitioner of medicine receives in medical school, and she should have known that.
"Legislators tightened the law last year so that it no longer includes the mental health exception."
That is a very good thing. If an abortion ever is required for mental health problems, and I certainly hope it is not, only a psychiatrist could make that determination.
There is a very serious problem that many women face, and that is classic Freudian denial of pregnancy. Meaning that many woman mentally suppress the reality of a pregnancy far too long. That is very common, and extremely unfortunate. I have no idea what a possible solution to that problem might be.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Except that the law doesn't include a mental health exception, it doesn't simply require that a trained psychiatrist perform the evaluations.
Also, why couldn't a psychologist or social worker do those as well?
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Correct, there is no mental health exception anymore. I mentioned that.
About a psychologist or social worker diagnosing mental disorders, they are simply not trained or qualified to do that. A psychologist works with psychological problems, and a social worker works with social problems.
Only a psychiatrist works with mental disorders.
And I do know about that, all too well.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Yes, and you said "that is a very good thing" that the law no longer includes that.
Seems to me your general reasoning was that only trained professionals should do them, not that mental health problems shouldn't be a grounds for an abortion.
If so, then this law over-reaches quite a bit, and requires that even women/children whose mental health will be compromised to bear the children.
And, your distinction is an odd one, between psychological/mental health issues - they are just different ways of talking about the same thing, as far as I can tell.
The only difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist is that the psychiatrist can prescribe medicine.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
"The only difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist"
There's about 8 years of schooling difference after graduation from college. That's pretty major.
"different ways of talking about the same thing, as far as I can tell."
It doesn't sound as though you have studied the issues very well. For starters, do you really think that schizophrenia is only a psychological problem?
bethann (anonymous) replies…
There is not an 8 year difference in schooling between an MD and a psychologist with a PhD.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
bethann, that is true, but a psychologist with a PhD is almost always going to be teaching other people to be a psychologist, and won't be working as one himself.
But, he would certainly be qualified to do so.
Very, very few practicing psychologists have a PhD. It is not required in order to be a practicing psychologist.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
No, I think there's probably a biological/genetic component as well.
But, we're not talking about that - we're talking about whether or not a trained psychologist can make a determination about the mental health ramifications of giving birth.
I see no reason to believe they can't.
You may be using "mental health" in a more specific diagnostic manner than I was, in which case you're right, of course. There's a difference between conditions like schizophrenia and conditions without biological/genetic factors involved.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Also, our mind/body connection is remarkable, and many activities can affect brain chemistry, exercise being just one of them.
I seem to recall that MPD folks can exhibit measurable physical conditions in one personality that are absent in others.
The mere discovery that there are some physical correlations with psychological conditions isn't enough to conclude that the conditions are caused by the physical manifestations, or that the best way to treat them is medically.
We're much more complicated, and interesting than that.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Oh, yes. You know what I think is really interesting? Is that Chang and Eng Bunker, the original Siamese twins, were never able to play chess with each other, because they always knew what move the other was going to make!
That let me to believe years ago that many of our thoughts are based partly in our bodies, and not only in our brains.
And there's something that has stunning implications. Not so much in only heart transplants, or in only lung transplants, but in many cases when a combination heart and lung transplant from a single patient to another single patient is done, some personality transfer has been documented to occur!
Here's a link to the wiki article about Chang and Eng Bunker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_an...
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
If you had spent a cumulative total of three weeks in psychiatric wards and met a lot of other patients in there, didn't know how many different psychiatrists you have seen because there were too many of them, didn't know how many different psychiatric medications your psychiatrists have tried on you because there were too many of them, and spent a lot of time reading scholarly articles on psychiatric issues, you would have a much greater insight into these issues.
That is what I was talking about when I said: "And I do know about that, all too well."
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
The horrific thing about it all is that there was a triggering event a bit over 26 years ago. I did rather well until that happened. When I think about what my earning power was back then I am stunned, good grief, I was loaded.
I am sure my life would be very different today if that had not happened, or if I had made a better decision at the time. And I would do ever so much better today if only,,, but that is something I have no control over.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
All of that seems to argue against putting one's faith in psychiatrists, don't you think?
At least psychologists can't prescribe medicine that is ill suited for the treatment, and has terrible side effects and interactions with other medications.
To my knowledge, psychiatrists, while more trained in medicine, are actually less well trained in psychology, and "talk therapy:, and tend to put their stock in medication instead.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
You're correct. A psychiatrist thinks of the brain as a body organ that does not always function correctly, or the patient is not able to properly control it.
So, only a psychiatrist can prescribe the available medications that can help. There has been a lot learned in the last two decades or so about brain functioning and some insight into why some individuals go into high functioning hyperactivity and then back into depression when they are unable to do any more than the basics of living.
A bipolar individual can cycle several times a day, and sometimes the cycles last for months. But, some medications actually do help a great deal, and with sedatives for manic cycles and antidepressants for depressive modes, such individuals can function quite well, except that erratic schedules seem to be the norm, and quite often preclude work that needs to be done on any kind of schedule. Most employers do not like that.
And, there's the ADHD syndrome, that also presents a problem for many individuals.
Plus, instances of paranoia come into play at some times, and that is actually a psychological problem in many cases, I think.
But in cases of schizophrenia, a psychiatrist is definitely required. Medication is the only thing that is going to help an individual with that problem, and a psychologist can't really do much except keep them company and discuss some of their delusional thoughts, while taking notes to pass on to a psychiatrist later.
And now, I'm at the limits of my knowledge base about psychiatric issues.
If a person is having only a stressful life event and does not fit the description of a disorder that is described in the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders', which is now it its fourth Edition (DSM-IV), then a psychologist is what is needed.
But, the very best care is when a psychologist and a psychiatrist work together. In a psychiatric hospital, many of the nurses have some training but have not specialized in psychology, and they can help a great deal. Plus, a psychiatric hospital will almost always have psychologists available, but their services seem to be rarely used. That is what is done in psychiatric hospitals everywhere, as far as I know anyway, and in some outpatient clinics.
Some patients really do not need the services of a psychiatrist, and others do not need the services of a psychologist.
It's a very complex subject, with many gray areas. That's just an overview, of course.
bethann (anonymous) replies…
Psychologists work with mental disorders and also can & frequently do diagnose them. Many social workers have specific training and do that as well. Most psychiatrists in this day & age prescribe medications and do little if any talk therapy. They often work in tandem with psychologists and social workers and prescribe medications based on their evaluations for mental disorders.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Yes, a typical appointment with a psychiatrist is only 15 minutes.
alicel (anonymous) replies…
Both psychologists and social workers are trained to diagnose mental disorders. In fact, social workers are the largest provider class of mental health services in the country. A Licensed Specialist Clinical Social Worker can not only diagnose independently, but can also collect third party reimbursement, and can assess clients for involuntary commitment. So can Psychologists, similarly licensed.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
I suppose that could be done, but a problem is that after they've made a diagnosis they need to be sent to a psychiatrist later, because only a physician can write a prescription for treatment.
But it is certainly true that they could refer a patient to a psychiatrist or send a patient to a psychiatric hospital where they would later see a psychiatrist.
Mike1949 (anonymous) replies…
You people don't get it. If you all ever succeed in stopping abortions, then we will go back to the 20's where it was done in dirty back rooms, and I wasn't old enough to know how many women died, but I've been told it was quite a few. Ya know, they tried prohibition and that didn't work too well did it? If you try prohibition with abortions, it will just go underground but instead of people getting drunk and creating a atmosphere that helped create mobsters and the like, in this case, women will die. Haven't you all learned that you can not legislate moral attitude. Just how many times do you have to fail to get that through your thick skulls? And remember, there is a very large portion of the population (would not be surprised if it was by far a large majority) that does not agree with you all. You can pass all the laws on morality you want, at least employment will go up because you're going to need to build more jails!
artichokeheart (anonymous) says…
A good call. Stop the slaughter!
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Spoken by the woman who would be happy to force a 12 year old to give birth.
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
If Flee had lived he would be suspended too. Enough with the martyr stuff. The chickens have come home to roost. Get over it.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
"Flee"? "Enough with the martyr stuff"? Are you referring to George Tiller? (What an interesting thing to call him. I wonder where that nickname came from?)
Because if you are, there are a lot of people who would far far rather he be just suspended (including his wife and children) by the state rather than dead at the hands of a so called "pro lifer".
So tell me, are you part of the Scott Roeder "fan club" that writes to him in prison? Because you obviously think that Tiller doesn't deserve the status of "martyr", do you?
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
Sit, Luna, sit. Good dog.
Arf!
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
So in the judge's opinion, forcing 11-year-olds to carry a pregnancy to term would have been the preferred recommendation?
That's just sick. You have to wonder if this judge would order the doctor's execution if he could.
xclusive85 (anonymous) replies…
Bozo, this is a little overboard. Nowhere in the story did the judge say that all of the recommendations were invalid. I believe that the case you mention would be one that most reasonable people, the judge included, would have no problem with. However, you fail to take into account any of the other cases. It is the extreme views like this (and no abortions in any case whatsover from the other side) that make it nearly impossible to have a reasonable conversation about the issue at hand.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
The elephant in the room in your appeal to "reason" is that forcing anyone, regardless of their age, to carry a pregnancy to term against their will is unreasonable.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
Every case cited in the proceedings against Dr. Neuhaus was of a girl under the age of majority. So, what "other cases" would *you* have allowed? The one that was 15? The one that was 16?
xclusive85 (anonymous) replies…
Sorry, you are right that all of these particular recommendations were for minors. They are not the only times that she performed second opinions for Dr. Tiller. As for the rest of these cases that were part of this decision, I don't have the authority or knowledge of each situation to pass judgement on which should have been allowed or not.
My post was directed at Bozo for going to the extreme side of an argument directly. Bozo rarely, if ever tries to find validity in what others say if they don't agree 100% with them. That kind of behavior does not further discussion one bit.
I don't see why if someone thinks that abortion should not be allowed in every case, that makes them in favor of raping 11 year olds.
Now to be fair, I find that math uses the same tactic. But in this case, bozo used it first, so that is where the comment came from and why it was directed the way it was.
xclusive85 (anonymous) replies…
Sorry, you are right that all of these particular recommendations were for minors. They are not the only times that she performed second opinions for Dr. Tiller. As for the rest of these cases that were part of this decision, I don't have the authority or knowledge of each situation to pass judgement on which should have been allowed or not.
My post was directed at Bozo for going to the extreme side of an argument directly. Bozo rarely, if ever tries to find validity in what others say if they don't agree 100% with them. That kind of behavior does not further discussion one bit.
I don't see why if someone thinks that abortion should not be allowed in every case, that makes them in favor of raping 11 year olds.
Now to be fair, I find that math uses the same tactic. But in this case, bozo used it first, so that is where the comment came from and why it was directed the way it was.
xclusive85 (anonymous) replies…
wow, my first double post!
jafs (anonymous) says…
I'll be interested to see what happens with an appeal, if there is one.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
I tend to think there won't be one because she will have a very difficult time presenting reasonable grounds for appeal, and she won't have the money to hire a lawyer.
There is no possibility that an attorney would take this case on a contingency fee basis, because there will be no payout awarded if he wins. The only thing she could fight for would be to get her medical license back.
But it really is a terrible shame all the way around. I personally knew a physician that lost his medical license, and there was quite some discussion about how terrible it was that all those years of schooling to become a medical doctor were now wasted.
And, I heard quite a lot about another physician that lost his medical license on unreasonable grounds. I believe he got his back later.
JackMcKee (anonymous) says…
Obviously political.
jjt (anonymous) says…
All abortion is wrong?
Would it be possible please for those who take the view that all abortion is wrong to answer the practical challenges to their views. For example children who are pregnant or the woman carrying a dead fetus, or a clearly unviable fetus, rape victims.
Would some one who is happy to post anti abortion views (and that is their right) simply give a view / answer for each of those four examples.
Thanks.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
For a child that is pregnant, an abortion is probably going to be necessary if she might not survive a pregnancy. But it should be performed early in the pregnancy, and not be done late term when the fetus might be able to survive outside of the uterus. I obliquely referred to that at the end of the first posting on this thread.
Read this article from ABC News if you can handle it:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?sec...
A dead fetus is just about always spontaneously aborted without assistance. If the fetus is dead, it's a surgery, not an abortion.
A clearly unviable fetus also is often spontaneously aborted. But "clearly unviable" might be quite a gray area. Is a Down's syndrome infant an unviable child? And for some people, "clearly unviable" might be stretched to mean that the child was not going to be the sex that the parents wanted.
I don't know about a rape victim, except for this: For the rest of her life, every normal woman is going to wonder what her child would have been like. The memories and repercussions of an abortion are lifelong, and should never be casually dismissed.
The Jewish position on the matter is that life begins with the first breath, so abortion is acceptable for good reasons, but is certainly never encouraged.
That position was derived by the rabbis in antiquity from Genesis Chapter 2, verse 7:
"then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Whatever a Christian position on the matter is, it was dreamed up, because abortion was never mentioned in the New Testament.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
Regarding children who are pregnant, sure it sold be ideal to terminate those pregnancies are early as possible, but the problem is that when the girl is 10 or 11 (as sadly they were in some of these cases), no one knows the girl is pregnant until well into the pregnancy. It probably wouldn't occur to most 11 year-olds to think to take a pregnancy test after missing a period. And how many parents would ever think it possible to check such young daughters for signs of pregnancy?
But just because the pregnancy isn't discovered until the 20th or 24th week doesn't make it any less dangerous for a young girl to continue to carry that pregnancy to term. An 11 year-old (generally) simply isn't physically equipped to give birth regardless of how far along she is into a pregnancy.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
A woman is still going to be in the first trimester until a bit after a second cycle has been missed.
And, did you notice my statements about the Jewish and Christian positions in my posting?
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
But the fact is that in these cases of 10 and 11 year-old girls, it's quite common for no adults to know there is a pregnancy until well after the first trimester is over. An 11 year-old girl isn't likely to be thinking, "Gee, I have now missed two menstrual cycles. I should probably take a pregnancy test." That won't be on her radar. Plus the fact that reporting a missed menstrual cycle or two might necessitate mentioning the sexual abuse she has endured which she is probably pretty darn scared to do. So the point remains that a lot of these pregnancies are not discover until the first trimester is over. Should the ignorant child who didn't put it together that she was dealing with the very adult situation of being pregnant still be forced to carry that pregnancy to term and give birth? Her body still isn't properly equipped to handle it so the health concerns remain regardless of when the pregnancy is uncovered.
The Jewish and Christian positions you cited were irrelevant to my challenge of your naive assertion that pregnancies of young girls should only be terminated early in the pregnancy.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
"after the first trimester is over" makes no statement as to whether she is in the second or third trimester. Third trimester abortions or nearly that are the subject of the article we are commenting on.
You asked: "Should the ignorant child who didn't put it together that she was dealing with the very adult situation of being pregnant still be forced to carry that pregnancy to term and give birth?"
I think I answered that already with: "For a child that is pregnant, an abortion is probably going to be necessary if she might not survive a pregnancy."
And in your last paragraph, I said "should" and you apparently misread that to mean "only".
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
You said they should not be performed after viability. So, yes, I took that to mean they should only be performed early. I don't think that's a misinterpretation of what you wrote. Since that came immediately after your sentence you cited above, yes, I took that to mean you would not support abortions post-viability for young girls. Otherwise, why add the restriction that it should "not be done late term when the fetus might be able to survive?"
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
I think I addressed that issue in the very first comment that follows the article:
"There is a very serious problem that many women face, and that is classic Freudian denial of pregnancy. Meaning that many woman mentally suppress the reality of a pregnancy far too long. That is very common, and extremely unfortunate. I have no idea what a possible solution to that problem might be."
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
How on earth does that address the question of young girls receiving post-viability abortions? And in a young girl, it's hardly some Freudian denial thing.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
We're not talking on the same level at all. There are plenty of books that you can refer to, I can't write one for you here.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
I'm just trying to figure out what you're talking about. I was purely talking about late-term abortions for young girls. You said such abortions should occur early in pregnancy, not after a fetus becomes viable. I responded that with young girls, it's not always possible to know that early that she is pregnant, but the danger of pregnancy and childbirth is still there. Where you went from there, I'm not sure. I was just trying to pin down your position and challenge your implied assertion that late-term abortions for young girls shouldn't happen.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
"I don't know about a rape victim, except for this: For the rest of her life, every normal woman is going to wonder what her child would have been like. The memories and repercussions of an abortion are lifelong, and should never be casually dismissed."
Just as you have a story in your background, I have one in mine.
Over 40 years ago I was raped and and became pregnant from that rape. I was 17 years old. I had one of the first legal abortions in the state of Kansas pre Roe V.Wade. The law went into effect on July 1, 1970 and my procedure was done July 7th. Did I regret it? No.
There are times that it has come to the forefront of my mind. The man that raped me was executed in Missouri in 1989 for murdering another woman he had raped eight years after he raped me. I thought about it then. Still didn't regret it.
Do I regret it now? Let me check.. Nope, still don't regret it.
I don't meditate on what the child would have been like because for me, there *was* no "child". A fetus is not a human being, it's a *potential* human being and this was one potentiality I wanted no part of.
I have been reviled, spit on, screamed at and called "baby killer" because I'm perfectly open about my abortion. I guess I'm just comfortable enough with myself, the decision I made and strong enough in my "self" to tell those people, inwardly *and* outwardly, to go die in a tire fire.
Who I truly pity are those women who aren't strong enough to take that kind of abuse and "moral" judgmentalism. I frequently wish I could help them.
Oh and by the way, I do consider myself "normal" (whatever that is).
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
I did not use the word "regret" in my posting.
I think I was correct when I said "The memories and repercussions of an abortion are lifelong, and should never be casually dismissed."
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
The memories and repercussions of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth are lifelong and should never be casually dismissed. Especially when the pregnancy occurs as the result of a rape. Given that either way, there will be lifelong memories and repercussions, it would be lovely if we could let each and every woman decide which memories she would rather live with.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Yes, I certainly agree with that. But, she should talk to a professional about what exactly is happening before it's done, so that she really understands the possible results of either decision.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
I find it condescending and obnoxious to be told that women need to talk to some "professional" before deciding what to do with her own body and life. Why can't we trust women to know themselves, make their own decisions, seek out information they think is relevant to those decisions, and then live with the consequences after?
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
We are or at least were talking about children, remember?
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
No, this line of the thread was about women who were raped.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
If anyone believes that the law that requires a second opinion, an opinion as to the mental health of a woman seeking a late term abortion, is just a cynical attempt to hinder a woman's right to an abortion, I would have to agree.
That said, in these cases, there is equal cynicism in trying to avoid complying with the law by making inappropriate referrals to unqualified professionals that resulted in harm being done to the very people they were seeking to help. As doctors, they were expected to know better.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
And now we see the truly "pro-life" viewpoint, strange as it is.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) replies…
Jafs, I didn't see the comment before it was removed but I doubt very much it was a true pro-life viewpoint precisely because it was removed. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, they can have well thought out arguments to justify their respective positions. Apparently the removed comment did not fit that criteria.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Yep.
I was being sarcastic, of course.
Many "pro-life" proponents seem to also be in favor of the death penalty and pro-war, which is clearly contradictory to me.
Pragmatron (anonymous) says…
Don't these old white MEN have anything better to do? I get it.
All government is evil except when I say so.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) says…
What would "sharia law" do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_ZWTx...
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
Allahu Akbar!
This is a reposting of a comment I made on February 10, 2012:
I was personally shocked when the exhilaration and thrill of being one of a crowd that was stoning a woman to death was relayed second hand to me.
I knew, although not closely, the man who had participated in that stoning in Saudi Arabia, and I was told he was smiling with happiness and joy as he described his participation in the event. I do not understand that at all.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Many people seem to get a visceral thrill from violence - that's hardly limited to the Muslim community.
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
That's true, and very regrettable. My younger brother and some of his friends used to take great delight in torturing toads and frogs. I thought it was terrible.
Maybe I ought to go be a Buddhist.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I like Buddhism a lot.
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
Under Islamic law, early abortion is permitted, because a soul enters the fetus only on the 40th day after conception. Contraception is always permitted.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
groovy
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
Is it permitted before or after the stone cleansing?
Cappy (anonymous) says…
Freedom of Choice, it's the American Way!
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
how many rapes were reported from these pregnancies?
RonHolzwarth (Ron Holzwarth) replies…
That is a very, very good point. If a young girl gets pregnant, something very wrong has happened and it certainly should be investigated. For a very young girl, it can be a terrifying situation to be in when she is afraid to tell anyone who got her pregnant.
In at least some cases, she would need to be assured and actually get removal from her present living situation and into one that is safe.
cait48 (anonymous) replies…
That is something that you don't know, I don't know and we will never know. Those records are sealed to the public as they involved juveniles. But I would bet my biscuits there were more reported than not. Do not make a blanket assumption that just because these girls ended up aborting that their pregnancies weren't reported to legal authorities. The fact that they aborted is the ONLY reason you even know their pregnancies existed. And that, in and of itself, is a shame.
jjt (anonymous) says…
Same as usual.
I posted my question at 09.00 this morning and at 8pm still no one who says all abortion is wrong has addressed my four questions with a reason as to why there should not be an abortion in each case.
Katara (anonymous) replies…
You won't get an answer just as I never got an answer to my question that I asked 7 times.
My question was for those who claim women who seek abortions are irresponsible and did not take precautions to avoid pregnancy.
I asked how they feel when birth control fails through no fault of the women. I cited the recent birth control pill recall (1 million packets of pills were affected by this).
I, to this date, have not received an answer.
ShePrecedes (anonymous) says…
Just as the Religious Rite wants, abortion is headed yet again to the dirty back rooms, and the churches are headed toward empty pews.
JayhawkFan1985 (anonymous) says…
I'm tired of the right wing hypocrisy. They hate Obama are because it forces them to buy insurance against their will, but they have no problem demanding women have ultrasounds prior to getting an abortion even against their will. They try to gut health insurance policies. They also create a climate of fear and intimidation that resulted in Dr. Tiller's murder. Now they are going after Dr. Neuhaus questioning the standard of care she offered. All the while the GOP guts the social services support system including public education, higher education, emergency services for families in crisis, WIC, food stamps, etc. Hypocrites will spend an eternity in hellfire without repenting...