Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, November 29, 2012

Feds want answers from Kansas anti-abortion activist

November 29, 2012

Advertisement

— The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to order a Kansas anti-abortion activist to answer questions about her relationship with the convicted murderer of abortion provider George Tiller.

The department also wants to compel Angel Dillard to admit she made statements to The Associated Press in which she said she admired Tiller's killer.

The Justice Department has accused Dillard of sending a threatening letter to a Wichita doctor who was training to offer abortions.

A federal magistrate on Thursday extended until Dec. 5 the deadline for the defense to file a response to the Justice Department's request.

The government has argued the relationship and Dillard's public statements are related to the letter she sent. Dillard contends the demands violate her First Amendment freedoms.

Comments

geekin_topekan 1 year, 4 months ago

Anti-abortion activists have no answers, they are strictly reactionary.

No initiative means no accountability, right?

0

John Kyle 1 year, 4 months ago

she needs to worry about the 5th amendment more than the 1st amendment.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 4 months ago

Did she set him up? meaning did she play a role as to where Tiller would be shot?

0

Armored_One 1 year, 4 months ago

I was asked once why I refuse to condemn abortion.

Being my usual sarcastic self, I replied, "Got a mirror?" Sadly, it went over better in my head than in public.

The reality of it the definition of life, which is by no means defined. What constitutes it? How is it exemplified? Entirely too many unanswered questions to make any sort of a definative answer, one way or the other. Then, just to make the mudhole a bit murkier, we toss in religion, which is about as quantified as what's at the center of a black hole.

For the personal conviction aspect of the issue, yes, by all means, include your religion. You are making a decision that involves what you think is right and wrong, and usually your religion plays a part in those definitions.

Law, however, should be devoid of religion. There are dozens, if not hundreds, or examples in human history where religion was not part and party to law, and frequently either gutted the concept of law, or at least just ignored it's existance. I'm sure people like Torquemada would be overly enthusiastic about religion supplanting law again, but any rational person should be against the idea.

While there is nothing written in the Bible pertaining to abortion, using the Bible to justify the need for laws against abortion either makes a mockery of the Bible or opens the door to undo generations of progress.

If you doubt me, either direction, read Colossians 3:18 and ask yourself if the US has been better for having the E.R.A., or should this facet of the Bible also be enforced? 3:18 has basically been shot down, fully and completely, in this country, with good cause I might add. Read the comments from the fools discussing rape, namely politicians. Are their words diametrically opposed to 3:18, or are they too close for comfort?

0

Liberty275 1 year, 4 months ago

Make no deals and plead the fifth.

Better yet, just answer the questions. Thank whichever god got you into this mess you are an American, otherwise you would be in Gitmo.

1

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 4 months ago

By the way, given the typical shortening of an article the LJW usually gives to what it considers "controversial subjects", people might be interested in the far longer and more in depth article at the Wichita Eagle. http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/29/2584888/feds-want-answers-from-kan-anti.html

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 4 months ago

I personally want answers from Cheryl Sullenger and Troy Newman as well. Not that I'm going to get them.

1

Amy Heeter 1 year, 4 months ago

She did not kill him. It should not matter how she feels about it. Also she is not alone. Further k would day there are extremist on the pro choice side too.

0

Greg Cooper 1 year, 4 months ago

"Dillard contends the demands violate her First Amendment freedoms."

Right, and the murder of the doctor didn't viloate any of his constitutional rights?

You people have no clue as to constitutional rights of living people, do you?

9

Commenting has been disabled for this item.