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

Greg Cooper 2 years, 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?

optimist 2 years, 4 months ago

For what it's worth there is an incongruity in your argument. The Constitution is a limitation on the government. The penal code addresses crimes committed by one citizen against another. Just saying... While she should be punished if she actively participated in a crime against another citizen the Government can not compel her to act against her interests and incriminate herself.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

I agree.

That would be her "5th Amendment" rights that would be violated there, not "1st Amendment" ones.

Greg Cooper 2 years, 4 months ago

I understand, and agree. However, I did not accuse her of murder, or even of incitement to murder. My comment was that the person who DID murder the doctor very strongly violated his constitutional right. Her right to freedom from self-incrimination should be held inviolate.

That being said, this investigation needs to be vetted thoroughly, and all concerned, in any way, punished to the full extent of the law.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Ok.

But they're trying to force her to talk about her relationship with the guy.

The 5th Amendment protects her from doing that, if I understand it correctly. She's incorrect about asserting 1st amendment protections, and should really assert 5th amendment ones, I would think.

july241983 2 years, 4 months ago

There is caselaw that says that compelled speech violates the First Amendment. She might not want to say it violates her Fifth Amendment rights when she talks about it to the press because then it would imply that she would say something incriminating. Of course, she should assert her Fifth Amendment rights if she is brought in for any questioning by the Justice Dept.

roadwarrior 2 years, 4 months ago

exactly. her comments may be a matter of denial on her part, won't matter once the law sets her straight. STOP THREATENING PEOPLE !! LOL. It's called harrassment.

Amy Heeter 2 years, 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.

Derek Neibarger 2 years, 4 months ago

if someone sends a threatening letter to another person, while at the same time openly approving the murder of a similar person for similar reasons, it absolutely does matter. any sensible person would agree.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

Are you saying that you approved of the murder of George Tiller?

deec 2 years, 4 months ago

"Further k would day there are extremist on the pro choice side too. "

Thanks for translating, cait. I had no idea what that meant.

I'd love to know how many pro-birth activists have been shot, killed, or had their homes or businesses bombed by pro-choice extremists, though. I'd have thought that sort of thing might have gotten mentioned in the press,

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

You know, Deec, you bring up a very good point. I don't think I have ever heard of a pro-forced birth activist ever being even verbally threatened, much less fire bombed, assaulted or murdered. What's amazing is this is despite the fact that the pro forced birthers know how to push buttons and have given all kinds of reasons for that to happen. At most, you will see some pro choice demonstrators show up to counter demonstrate in front of clinics and provide escorts to clinic patients. (This really infuriates the pro forced birthers because it blocks them from their choicest targets.)
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/cait48/2012/sep/29/scare-tactics/
Heck, weekend before last picketers showed up at the private homes of the Trust Women coalition that's reopening Dr. Tiller's Wichita clinic. (Didn't see THAT in the news, did you?)

Katara 2 years, 4 months ago

I checked your link (How kind of you to do the work for me!). Not one credible news source is listed. All of them are pro-life blogs or websites. I didn't see anything there that would validate their claims.

I even went so far to Google "violence against prolifers" and again, just prolife websites & blogs. You'd think if there were actual attacks against prolifers, some news channel somewhere would have talked about it.

Amy Heeter 2 years, 4 months ago

I believe I clearly established how I feel about it the day it happened. Feel free to look ar my comments. Send them to the feds if you want. I can feel any way I wish to and I'm more than willing to support my beliefs to anyone. You who support the murder of children are hypocrites.

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

" You who support the murder of children are hypocrites."

Some obvious problems being the definition of "child" and "murder". I won't bicker over the murder of children, as that is obviously wrong, morally and ethically. What we may not agree on is the definition of "child". Also, using the word "murder" to describe a legal act of killing is inaccurate and recognized as hyperbole.

I appreciate your zeal.

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 4 months ago

Hyperbolize much? Liberty was being polite when they called it "zeal"...more like idiocy.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

No more hypocritical than a person who supports the murder of a living, breathing human being and calls themselves "prolife". The irony. It burns.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

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

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 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

Liberty275 2 years, 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.

Armored_One 2 years, 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?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

I only have one small comment. The ERA was never passed. To date there is no amendment to the US Constitution granting full equality to women. It's because of this that the Republican party has gotten away with refusing to pass the Violence Against Women Act and the Fair Paycheck Act.

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

How can you not derive your equality from this? You want legislation when you already have a constitutional amendment?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 4 months ago

It should be that simple and straight forward. There is a school of judicial thought, though, that focuses on the original intent of the drafters. These judges and justices would look back to the drafters of the 14th Amendment and recognize that those men clearly didn't mean that women should have full equality, property rights, voting rights, etc., and so the amendment should not now be interpreted to include full gender equality. The ERA would have helped with that problem.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 4 months ago

If these strict constructionists had won the argument, then only free white men would be voting, owning property and enjoying full equality. Clearly, that isn't the case. For whatever reason, and absent a Constitutional Amendment, those rights have been extended beyond what the original drafters intended. So why the need for an ERA?

Then again, what would have it hurt? Nothing, as far as I can tell. So if it's only real purpose was symbolic, but important enough that half the population would benefit, if only symbolically, then it should have been done. The failure to pass the ERA was not some great failure. But it was a failure.

ebyrdstarr 2 years, 4 months ago

It's originalism, not strict construction. And the equal protection clause has been interpreted to be less protective of gender discrimination than of racial discrimination.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

It's all a bit bizarre, since the founders didn't intend it to apply for black folks as well, right?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

I don't know, L275. Why don't you ask that of African Americans prior to 1963?

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

I weren't born prior to 1963 and my time machine needs a flux capacitor and a DeLorean.

Armored_One 2 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, not sure what I was thinking about, but you are definately correct, cait. Yet more proof that crotchety old men making 2-10 times what the vast majority of Americans make, in terms of pay, should sit down, shut up and make way for new people...

Granted, there was a proposed amendment that would have done exactly that, but it somehow died under mysterious circumstances... Imagine that...

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

"crotchety old men making 2-10 times what the vast majority of Americans make, in terms of pay, should sit down, shut up and make way for new people..."

Why?

Armored_One 2 years, 4 months ago

Well, for starters, how about the fact that the really real world has changed massively since the ones that have been there the longest were actively a part of it. How many of them run uncontested, or run against someone else that has all the name recognition of Roger Williams, one of the Founding Fathers. I'd, personally, feel better if the vast majority of Congress was within a decade of my age, not my parents' ages or higher.

If you, in truth, have no need to concern yourself with your retirement, health care or anything else that would normally come with retirement or losing your job, can you honestly say you are on the same level as most American citizens?

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

" world has changed massively"

I don't find that an acceptable reason for anyone to sit down, shut up or make way for anything.

" How many of them run uncontested, or run against someone else that has all the name recognition of Roger Williams"

No. You don't get to force your adversary out of the race because you can't find someone to run or that person you find cannot campaign. You have the problem, the other side is not punished for it.

" I'd, personally, feel better if the vast majority of Congress was within a decade of my age"

And how do you think the guy 40 years older feels? Do you think being the age you are entitles you to preferential treatment? I can tell you right now that it does not.

You have severe problems with the concept of democracy.

"can you honestly say you are on the same level as most American citizens?"

I'd say average. I'll work until I can physically no longer work. I'll get a government pittance and some 401k money. I'll live accordingly.. In the end I will leave more behind than I started with.

Armored_One 2 years, 4 months ago

Uhmm, I'm sure that this is a bad time to mention it, but we are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, but at any rate...

It does entertain me, however, how you berry pick out this sentence or that snippet, instead of just responding like a rational human being. Do you have some allergic reaction to presenting a whole and cohesive thought, or do you somehow think it makes your commentary more... dramatic, I suppose would be an apt description.

Maybe you respond to posts and reasoned responses the way you to to make it more difficult for the other person to actually formulate any kind of a response. Personally, it makes you sound like a politician, at best, and a fool, at worst. There truly isn't much difference between your method of posting and people like Limbaugh and Coltier, or however you spell her name. Latch on to a specific set of words and launch into a diatribe, instead of responding to the entire message/response.

Irritating you enough to get you to respond is a tad bit entertaining, but attempting to follow the crooked path your logic follows gives me a migraine. I'm asking you to please stop and try actually responding instead of pretending to be a pundit.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 4 months ago

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

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

If you're talking about Sullenger, I believe so, but there's no way to prove it. The woman in the article didn't meet Roeder until he was already in jail for the murder. Read the article I linked to that's at the Wichita Eagle.

John Kyle 2 years, 4 months ago

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

geekin_topekan 2 years, 4 months ago

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

No initiative means no accountability, right?

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

I'm pro abortion, but I'll play devil's advocate.

So now I'm pro-life. Here is my answer. Abortions should be available to rape victims and women that are put at risk by pregnancy or if the child is confirmed to have a severe defect. Regardless of the case, a judge must allow the abortion if the circumstances fit the wording of the bill.

Any abortion performed outside of this system is punishable by a mandatory prison term for all parties directly involved.

See if you can argue better for your beliefs than I can against my own. It will be fun.

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

"mandatory prison term for all parties directly involved"

You could have started there. A woman could be forced to have an abortion. Should we send her to prison? No. So change it to:

"Any abortion performed outside of this system is punishable by a mandatory prison term for all consenting parties directly involved."

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

  1. This means you are actually pro-choice, just pro YOUR choice and not pro HER choice.
  2. Given the conditions you have set down, those conditions will have to be met in a court of law prior to the abortion or the woman will risk a prison sentence. Who will determine the conditions were met or not met? How long will that take? What if the woman draws a anti-abortion judge who simply refuses to make the decision in a timely manner? What are the conditions for determining a woman has been raped? Do you take her word for it? Do criminal charges have to be filed? Does she have to have proof she was assaulted in the form of bodily injury? Must she prove that she fought her attacker?
    Do you see the inherent problems with this?
    I suggest you read this post from a seasoned prosecutor facing these very problems. She is somewhat emotional and angry about it and drops the occasional F bomb but it's worth the read.
    http://thedeadauthorsclub.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/fetal-personhood-and-criminalizing-abortion-a-prosecutors-perspective/

Liberty275 2 years, 4 months ago

"Do you see the inherent problems with this?"

Do you see the inherent problems I just created for the right in my devil's advocate plan? Do you not know those people consider killing a human to be murder from the moment of conception. Look at what they are giving up, then you decide what you will give up in compromise.

Do you want a plan or not? There are people with opinions different from yours and they have to be addressed as equally as your's.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

"There are people with opinions different from yours and they have to be addressed as equally as your's."
No I DON'T have to address them, sir. My position is that a woman has complete and total autonomy over her body just as any man does and is as equal, under the law, as any man. Why should I even consider or compromise with people who desire to make decisions for others that effect their bodily integrity? How would YOU like it if I believed that your sperm was public property, in the interest of the state, and forced you to undergo state mandated harvesting and preservation? How would you like it if I forced you to undergo DNA testing at birth to be kept in a centralized data bank for state use and tracking? Although not exactly the same, these things are close enough to be used as comparisons.

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

Too simplistic for me.

A growing fetus inside a woman's body is not equivalent to the things you mention.

Why do both sides have so much trouble seeing the ambiguity and complexity of pregnancy?

If you and I are involved romantically, and you get pregnant, is that "your" child growing or is it "ours"?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 4 months ago

That would depend on if she is willing to actually share her body with you. If she refuses to do that, you have no right to force her to do so. That would be slavery. That's why it's called "autonomy".

jafs 2 years, 4 months ago

That's silly.

If you get pregnant and I want nothing to do with "your" child, will you exempt me from any and all responsibilities towards it?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.