Bill Clinton needs to tell pro-lifers how to be pro-life.

In 2006 DEMOCRATS rolled out the 95/10 Initiative to reduce the number of abortions. It was promptly shot down by the Republicans who need abortion as a wedge issue in future elections:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060210/news_lz7e10roemer.html

Republicans have done nothing to reduce the number of abortions. If you bring up that "Partial Birth Abortion" business I'll laugh out loud. It never prevented a single abortion.

you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison...

Well, you've gotta give the red man credit for actually calling abortion what it is...MURDER!

Well, he does have a point. If you make abortion murder, the doctor is de facto, the murderer. By consenting to the abortion, the woman would then become an accessory to murder. Therefore, all involved would face serious jail time. Whether you like it or not, that's how the law would have to be enforced if abortion were criminalized under murder.

Dan, pre-Roe, mothers were never prosecuted. Post-Roe, they won't be either, as much as you'd like it so. Doctors are the perpetrators. Prosecuting them, now that's another story.

Jill, thats the case if you dont file it under murder. However, it seems that the pro life side seems to have some new obsession as legislating it as murder. Doing so would make the mother an accessory unless you make abortion a separate crime. Though, in technicality, the mother would always be an accessory to that crime by seeking out those who would perform it.

Thanks, Jill. Sometimes I think when that point is brought up the pro-aborts have their hands over their ears (or eyes) while saying, "blah, blah-blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah".

Well no, in this day in age it is a reality. People want to prosecute anyone who has an association to any crime, it gives the illusion of complete safety and progress, when in all reality it may not be the case.

Dan, pre-Roe, mothers were never prosecuted. Post-Roe, they won't be either

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 17, 2008 9:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Women have been prosecuted for inducing their own abortion even though abortion is LEGAL. Yes, they will be prosecuted.

I don't know how easy prosecutions would even be. How could you prove a woman had an abortion unless you subjected her to a forced examination, certainly never advocated by pro-lifers, and even that would be unlikely to prove anything either.
Even injured women prior to Roe never faced any kind of prosecution and if they refused to name the abortionist, the most likely scenario, you didn't have a case.
All this talk about prosecuting the woman and doctors is so much hot air. Such was not the case for the most part prior to Roe. Yes some abortionists were prosecuted, usually because they killed a woman, but that would be preferable to the situation we have now where abortionists can maim, sexually assault, and kill their patients with little fear of any legal action. Also, chop shops that operated illegally in the past would be closed down. Now they hang a shingle.

I think every woman that has an abortion should be given the death penalty. Just like if I knew someone that killed a baby, they should given the death sentence.

Yes, Laura, hold on to that crutch that women will be prosecuted if abortion is made illegal.

Just another scare tactic.

I think every woman that has an abortion should be given the death penalty. Just like if I knew someone that killed a baby, they should given the death sentence.

Yeah, cause THAT'S pro-life.

Elizabeth, isnt exactly a scare tactic, in today's world its highly probable, if not unavoidable. Otherwise the law system would contradict itself, and those who helped a murderer could bring a case to the supreme court, get the accessory law overturned, and get away with helping a criminal.

Silly Feca L Fascist.
Therapy is what a person needs. Not jail time for being taught by FF that abortion is the only decision about being pregnant.
If anyone trys to self abort, they are in need of therapy.

They weren't prosecuted pre-Roe...why would they get prosecuted NOW? I'm not talking about doctors here, I'm talking about the women.

Elizabeth, its how the law works NOW that matters, not how it worked THEN.

Say abortion is criminalized under the murder statute. From then on, any one involved with the abortion is charged as anyone involved in a murder. The doctor is charge with murder, as he/she performed the act. The mother, on the other hand, did not perform the act but aided the murderer by providing the victim voluntarily, making her an accessory. To not admit otherwise gives those who help murderers, as currently understood by law, the ability to challenge the accessory law on those grounds, which would either lead to the court deciding the mothers must be prosecuted as defined by law, or that those who help murderers can go free.

Dan,

The legal system contradicts itself all the time.
Murderers have walked after being given immunity for their testimony so another criminal could be convicted. Police will overlook the "small fry" to get the "big fish".
One former policeman told me of his contempt for snitches, criminals who's own illegal activities were overlooked because of the valuable info they provided on other criminals. As much as he loathed them he looked the other way.

Just hearing Bill Clinton's voice, AND/OR Hillary's, makes my skin crawl.

Amber Abreu faces prison for seeking an abortion
By Nicole Colson | February 2, 2007 | Page 2

PROSECUTORS ARE calling Amber Abreu a murderer. But the 18-year-old is a victim of restrictions on access to abortion.

Prosecutors recently charged Abreu, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, with “procuring a miscarriage”--a felony that can carry a penalty of seven years in prison. They say they are planning to file additional charges, including a possible homicide charge, against her.

In early January, Abreu, who was between 23 and 25 weeks’ pregnant, took the drug Cytotec, a prescription anti-ulcer medication that is also used to induce labor, in order to induce a miscarriage. On January 6, two days after taking the pills, Abreu gave birth to a baby girl weighing just over 1 pound. The infant died four days later.

Because abortion is illegal in Massachusetts after 24 weeks’ gestation, prosecutors believe they may be able to pin homicide charges on Abreu.

Cytotec and similar drugs are frequently used by women in Latin American countries where abortion is restricted by law. The drugs are seen as a cheap and somewhat safe alternative to expensive and dangerous back-alley procedures. In recent years, there has been a rise in reports of immigrant women in the U.S. turning to such drugs when they are unable to obtain an abortion for various reasons, including prohibitive cost or being too far along to obtain an abortion legally.

In Abreu’s case, she reportedly turned to the drugs out of worry that she and her immigrant mother could not handle “another baby to care for,” said Abreu’s cousin, speaking to the Boston Herald. According to reports, Abreu--who had had a legal abortion previously before--did not feel she could raise the money herself or ask her mother to pay, because the last abortion had cost $200.

Abreu spent three nights in Framingham, a maximum-security women’s prison, before her family could raise enough money to meet the $15,000 bail.

Abreu’s case is one of a number of cases in recent years where prosecutors have sought to punish women and their partners who are desperate enough to seek alternative methods of abortion when they find safe, legal ones out of reach.

In 2005, 19-year-old Gerardo Flores was sentenced to life in prison in Texas after helping his girlfriend end her pregnancy. After being told she could not obtain an abortion, she asked him in desperation to repeatedly step on her stomach.

In 2004, Gabriella Flores, a Mexican immigrant, was arrested in South Dakota for self-inducing an abortion using the same drug that Abreu used. Flores was initially charged with murder and spent four months in jail before the charges against her were reduced to violating a ban on “illegal abortions.”

Massachusetts prosecutors seem ready to punish Abreu for the same thing. “What is clear is that an inner-city teenager who is still studying English made a desperate choice when a safe and legal one proved inaccessible,” wrote Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara. “This tragedy--and it is a tragedy--is less a measure of one teenager’s bad choices than it is an indictment of a culture that tells all women abortion is their legal, constitutionally protected right, but tolerates a lack of access for the neediest women.”

Home page | Current storylist | Featured articles | Back to the top

Immunity is meant to get more dangerous criminals off the streets, thats the point of it. Would you rather someone who killed one person on the street, or 100 people on the street? thats essentially what it tends to come down to on those occasions.

as for the small fry, i assume you mean those who commit petty crime. Often those people arent caught in the act, and its essentially common knowledge a case could be made against them, and both sides know that so they are used as informants in order to maintain freedom. Once again, would you rather have a petty criminal on the streets, or a murderer?

Mary,

Those are good points...I think the police would be more concerned with the doctors than mothers anyway, and would give them immunity in exchange for their testimony.

The point still remains, you cant give every woman who goes for an abortion illegally immunity, otherwise criminals will be up in arms and will certainly have a case. Immunity is also much harder to obtain than a simple plea bargain to a lesser charge for testimony.

Hold up a minute, FF...the woman couldn't raise the money for an abortion...but it only took a FEW DAYS to raise the money for her bail which was $15,000? Sounds a little fishy to me.

Jill, thats the case if you dont file it under murder. However, it seems that the pro life side seems to have some new obsession as legislating it as murder. Doing so would make the mother an accessory unless you make abortion a separate crime. Though, in technicality, the mother would always be an accessory to that crime by seeking out those who would perform it.

Posted by: Dan at February 17, 2008 9:50 PM

Dan,

LISTEN to Jill, she knows what she's talking about!

Abortion is akin to murder but my guess is it would be in its own category, with its own penalties assigned. The woman having an abortion has suffered enough. No one wants to punish her more. Where do you get the idea of an obsession for legislating it for murder? Bill Clinton said it. Not us!

I say slap a BIG FINE on the abortionist ($5,000?) and put him in jail for 6 months for each abortion. If he can't pay, take his business. He'll get the message.

Dan,

I don't think the fact someone has killed one person is any more acceptable than someone who has killed a hundred, anymore than I think one rape isn't as bad as 100 rapes.
I would want all criminals off the streets but I accept the fact that our legal system contridicts itself, we have to hold our noses and swallow our bile where our criminal justice system is concerned, which is my point.

elizabeth, there are the bail bonds as well as cash. I think there just needs to be collateral.

Please...

35 years ago the forensic techniques weren't there to prosecute the mother. Now that mitochondrial DNA can be used to conclusively prove maternity, you could nail her using a soda straw or cigarette butt.
Declare abortion murder and the women involved will be prosecuted.

Laura, you apparently have a problem with prosecuting mothers for infanticide?

Be sure to vote for Obama.

Hold up a minute, FF...the woman couldn't raise the money for an abortion...but it only took a FEW DAYS to raise the money for her bail which was $15,000? Sounds a little fishy to me.

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 17, 2008 10:32 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You need to meet some criminals.
You wouldn't even need to put up property to get a $15,000 bond posted.

Janet, I base it upon the fact of many pro lifers screaming that abortion is murder every chance they get.

and Mary, it comes down to what the legal system thinks is better for society, letting a single murderer go to be able to prosecute a whole gang, etc. There are boundaries in every case where immunity is applied, and its hard to get, usually its a plea bargain. The overlooking is done so more criminals who cause more and greater problems to society can be caught. Its how things have essentially adapted to work. Getting rid of the snitches would only get less done in all reality. However, there is an unspoken line that neither party crosses in the "agreement". Snitches have been prosecuted before, it happens.They then go on to snitch in prisons and tend to get time off for good behavior while essentially adding years to criminals within the criminal community, who would be more dangerous in an outside society.

You need to meet some criminals.

The one I know is the sperm donor of my daughter.

One's enough for me.

You see Dan,
Give each state the freedom to decide exactly what the penalty for a women who trys to procure a illegal act/substance.
Many states prosecute those who use heroin, and many simply get them methadone/needles for their pleasure addictions.
Same law, but different results.
In fact, you would think liberal minds,such as Clinton, would not be so drastic in thinking that women are going to be sent to prison so quickly for trying to obtain a illegal act, when hundreds of liberal think tanks would destroy such laws.
Or are liberals going to push for laws which punish the women for obtaining a illegal abortion? Such as you, Dan?

yllas, I wouldnt. In fact, Im sure Id be out there the next day fighting to overturn the court's decision.

However, if the court rules it murder, it automatically falls under the murder statue of each state, and federally as well. I'm sure liberals wouldnt stand for this and would quickly move to lessen the punishment (most likely for all parties involved) ASAP. However, I do worry some conservative states certainly would punish the mother as much as they could for considering "murder" as an option.

Dan, I've written on this topic before:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49919

What do state abortion laws say that will be reactivated if Roe v. Wade is overturned?

"The rule in virtually all the states was that doctors were prosecuted as the perpetrators of the crime," responded Clarke Forsythe, lead attorney for Americans United for Life, to that question. "I don't know of any prosecution of aborting women in the 20th century."...

We are interested in reducing abortions, not maximizing prosecutions," explained Clarke. "Doctors are the ones who perform the abortion, and they are the ones who are the principals in the crime. Furthermore, if you treat the woman as a principal or accomplice, you can't use her testimony to prosecute the abortionist."

Concluded Mark Crutcher in his book "On Message":

If the pro-choice crowd thinks it's unfair or inconsistent for abortionists to go to jail but not their customers, they need to be the ones lobbying for legislation to put women in jail. Just leave us out of it.

Jill, it depends how specific the judges are upon overturning it. If they refer to it as murder, as the vocal prolife community seems to deem it, then whatever laws currently on the books may not apply. It would all depend on wording of the decision and direction it takes. Its all dependent.

FF,

In the Abreu case she was in violation of Massachusetts 24 week law. Elizabeth makes an excellent point, she had no problem asking her mother and family to cough up $15,000 but she couldn't ask her mother for $200.00? This woman is some kind of a victim? She had a previous abortion so she obviously knew how to go about getting one. Be wary of these accounts FF. I've seen many of them, and there was always a story behind the story.

On the other two cases you don't indicate how advanced the pregnancies were. Were their pregnancies too advanced to obtain an abortion? There may well have been violation of state law concerning viability.
Tell me, if Flores had shot his girlfriend in the head at her request, would you think he should get off the hook?

I have an honest question here:

Is declaring abortion illegal the same thing as deeming it murder?

Janet, I base it upon the fact of many pro lifers screaming that abortion is murder every chance they get.

Dan,

They can call it whatever they want - but I doubt those "screamers" are the ones who will be writing the law and deciding the penalties. They aren't going to let the whole legal system fall apart over it.

Elizabeth,

The short answer is no. Like I said earlier, it would all depend on the Supreme Court's wording in their ruling.

Hmmm okay then..thanks for the answer..I really didn't know on that one.

Janet, true enough, or so one would hope. Who knows what the political scene/make up will be when it happens.

Dan, 10:37PM

I'm aware of this. In your 10:11PM post you talk of how the justice system would have to contradict itself. I'm just pointing out that contradictions in our legal system, for whatever reason, exist, always have and always will. Our "justice" system requires a great deal of nose holding and bile swallowing.

Well Mary, it can come down to that, but some of the stuff they force through court is a lot more frivilous than some of the stuff they should be trying to get through the courts. Prosecuting someone for having a joint, or an 18 year old for having sex with his 16/17 year old girlfriend, etc, and so on. They could focus more on rape and murder investigations, but instead they seem preoccupied with things that, in the scheme, really shouldnt matter as much.

Laura, you apparently have a problem with prosecuting mothers for infanticide?

Be sure to vote for Obama.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 17, 2008 10:35 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I like to side with a winner.
Who is Renee Kosel endorsing?

Well Dan, are you for allowing individual states the ability to decide the deterent for a illegal act?
Some states have a different legal age for marriage. Some will have different laws concerning the women who trys to obtain a illegal act.
Clinton is constructing a strawman to blow around in his mind and actually is fear mongering. And you Dan? Is fear of the future decisions of individual states,decided by a democratic vote, arousing fear in you? Freedom of the choice in how to decide a future law concerning punishment is now to be feared?
Hmm, I thought fear mongering was the domain of those so called conservatives.

Dan,10:57PM

I can certainly agree. I have an issue with an accused rapist being freed on his own recognizance after two rapes because the judge didn't think he was violent,(he raped and murdered his third victim), but someone with a joint gets jail time. Not to mention the drunk drivers who get their wrists slapped again and again, until they kill someone.
DO NOT get me started!! Just be prepared to hold your nose and swallow your bile.

My sis put up an interesting post on "choice" and feminists:
Feminist pro-life

I thought it might interest some of the PL's on this site.

yllas, no, they do have every right to write those laws however they wish so long as they are within the bounds of the constitution. However, punishing women, as I could see many states doing, is a terrible thing and I would fight it as is MY right, every step of the way. It's absolutely ridiculous, as is overturning abortion to begin with, but thats a whole other argument.

I do fear the U.S. would sink backwards, as I feel those laws would do. However it is my right to fight it using my voice, my right to petition, my right to protest peacefully, and my right to vote. Legislators may make the decision, but new ones can change it. My voice, as well as the voices of all others, will be heard if they choose to make it so. If one makes their voice heard, politicians truyl have no choice but to listen unless they want to lose their position come election time.

Dan, pre-Roe, mothers were never prosecuted. Post-Roe, they won't be either, as much as you'd like it so. Doctors are the perpetrators. Prosecuting them, now that's another story.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 17, 2008 9:48 PM
...................................

Pre-Roe, abortion wasn't murder. Doctors were prosecuted for performing an illegal procedure. Odd how you have suddenly abandoned your murdering babies mantra.
Finally getting a clue that your radical views won't float with anyone including your so called brand of conservatives?

And I think the country has fallen backwards since "abortion" was decided by only 12 individuals.
But, one thing you can count on, is the so called wise men dressed in black, have been wrong in their decisions many times.
Since your for allowing individual state rights, allow them to do the most democratic act, and vote on laws concerning abortion and then be a liberal and tolerate the results.

Dan,

Believe me, as a medical person I am telling you that prosecuting mothers would be virtually impossible. Unless the woman has had complications, and her doctor is willing to report them, how are you going to prove anything?

I'm wondering why Clinton would even make a stop in the town of Steubenville, OH, home to one of the most orthodox Catholic colleges (Franciscan University) in the country? Did he think he'd be welcomed with open arms?

And I think the country has fallen backwards since "abortion" was decided by only 12 individuals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What? Nine Supreme Court Justices and their three drinkin' buddies?

Bill Clinton, no doubt, has personal investment in abortion being legal. He doesn't exactly have the greatest fidelity record.

Since your for allowing individual state rights, allow them to do the most democratic act, and vote on laws concerning abortion and then be a liberal and tolerate the results.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Worked in South Dakota.

Bill Clinton, no doubt, has personal investment in abortion being legal. He doesn't exactly have the greatest fidelity record.

Posted by: Elizabeth at February 17, 2008 11:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The unwed mother is making value judgments!

Mary, DNA is easy to use now. That simple.

Janet, every dem vote counts, even in Repub areas. She wins that district with the few dems there, she wins that count towards a delegate.

yllas, you mistakenly use liberal's use of tolerant to mean tolerating injustices, the one thing we pride ourselves on not being able to do. Prosecuting mothers if abortion were made illegal would certainly be one of these. If liberals so easily tolerated laws, they wouldnt exist and everyone would be conservative.

as for supreme courts being wrong many times,they dont often overturn decisions they have previously made. I know of two major cases off the top of my head that were overturned, Dred Scott Decision, of course, and then the case which gave birth to the phrase "separate but equal." It isnt exactly a common occurrence or an easy thing to do, especially given that precedence is taken in as a good portion that leads to the end result.

Lol, Hello Laura...I didn't say that..there IS another Elizabeth who comments on this board.

MY, my,
it's my name sake, Sally.
Now, we have a expert on deathsex, and the most qualified person concerning punishment for having sex that results in death, Sally.
What say you Sad Eyed Sally, what punishment for those who have sex and then make it a death act, by the future laws, which make abortion illegal?
I would consider Sally for making the punishment of a "illegal abortion", nothing more then a PTSD that requires therapy. Are you thumbs up for therapy, Sad Eyed Sally?

But on that note...I'd rather be an unwed mother than an abused wife/girlfriend or divorced mother.

Yep, there are worse things in life to be....like you for example.

Dan,

Who's going to know the woman had an abortion and take a DNA sample? Also, will the abortionist donate a dead fetus for testing?

Dan,

I believe the case that sanctioned segregation was Plessy v Ferguson.

Mary, the fetus will be evidence, thus providing the DNA sample required. Search for log books, then finding each woman upon whom he performed a procedure, and bring all the women in for questioning. Charge those that admit it, hold and interrogate those that deny it, and request DNA to go with any evidence they may have. If refused, go for a search warrant based on the logs that were found.

Mary, you're right, ti escaped me. I could remember Brown v Board of Education, but not that. Thank you very much.

Ah Dan,
that appeal to not tolerating injustice is such a antiquated concept, which has the stench of absolute truth.
Remember, this is a post modern age where your "self defined injustice" is my liberty and freedom to act decided by my conscience.
Please refrain from such appeals to your individual thoughts on injustice and just fear the future when "abortion" is allowed to be decided by a vote.

FF, 11:35PM

You have an issue with what you think is Elizabeth's "value judgment". I would say you're making some value judgments as well with some of the snide comments you have made and continue to make about Elizabeth.

Yes, act upon your conscience, that is all well and good so long as its within the confines of the law.

I will appeal to whatever I choose to appeal to, just as you can tell me to essentially sit down and shut up. There is freedom of speech, and I can and will utilize however I see fit, just as you do it however you see fit.

Dan,

Please, an illegal abortionist is going to keep log books? He's going to save evidence and keep it in pristine condition for DNA testing? He's going to be anxious to do prison time? This is also evidence that would likely be heavily contaminated and worthless for DNA testing.

Mary, he has to dispose of it somehow, and its very likely it will end up seen and found in the end. Kinda hard to hide fetus'

As for log books, they are going to have to keep track some how, not if just for payment but to be aware of medical histories, etc. Not to mention, it could be a bargaining chip if the doctor is willing to hand over the women who had come in repeatedly or the unfound log book.

As for DNA evidence, its fairly difficult to damage completely, esp if its within a body. That's why it can be so damning to criminals who thought they cleaned up after themselves

Strange,
I am having Dan state that I, yllas,in using my conscience is "well and good", "so long as its within the confines of the law".
Try again, Dan, laws may be broken if the conscience allows for the law to be broken.
And Brown v. Board of Education is a example.
And many more decisions of this nation's highest court.

yllas, and then the law changed as the makeup of society at large changed.

There are murderers who think their murder is justified because of their conscience. Thr truth is that that isnt true unless the jury nullifies the case to show they dont support the law, or that the supreme court overturns the law. You can break the law if you wish, be my guest, but be prepared for jailtime if the country disagrees.

as for Brown v Board, that was based on the idea that separate but equal isnt really equal, not on conscience alone. It was based on the belief that the legal precedent had been found to be incorrect and thus invalid.

Will Hillary still be a senator in NY if she loses? Anyone know?

Dan,

How much easier would police work be if all criminals were thoughtful or stupid enough to keep their paperwork in order and evidence readily available and in the best condition for testing. I'm sorry Dan, but illegal abortionists keeping logbooks and medical histories exposing their illegal activity is wishful thinking on your part.
Disposal of aborted fetuses is simple enough. Toss them down the disposal, put several of them in a garbage bag and burn or bury them. Any evidence found, which is highly unlikely, would be heavily contaminated and worthless for DNA testing. Assuming of course you know who disposed of it and can prove it.

@Dan: Don't bother conversing with yllas. It's like staring at the sun and trying not to squint...pointless and all it does is hurt you in the end. :-p

And be prepared for jailtime Dan, if abortion is made illegal and you perform a abortion.
In fact Dan, your reaching, with making me not know that murder is illegal except for the state allowing it by execution.
Maybe you should convince some abortion doctors that think they are not murderers and use their conscience to decide they are not murdering.
See Dan, you have a herculean task, in the feared future where abortion is illegal, and change the conscience of abortion doctors as "laws changed as the makeup of society at large changed".
Then again, you'll keep telling those murderers, they're not murderers from your conscience, Dan.
Right? Will you tell them(abortion doctors) to break the law, Dan.
After all, it will cost you nothing, but a thought, Dan.

Ah Dan,
The conscience forms what one believes. Your own sentence; "It was based on the belief".
Or the other sentence; "based on the idea", only proves my point about conscience Dan. Try again Dan.

For the sun blinded ari chan.
A riddle.
They are allowed when a senseless tragedy is being remembered.
They are banned when a happy act is being remembered.

At kills when these Democratic politicians say "I am against abortion". Did I hear him say politician has done more then him to reduce the number of abortions? What laws did he pass to reduce the number of abortions?

On the last thread I posted this:

# the killing of a human being by another human being
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being. It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide

homicide

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are both examples of criminal homicide.

I'm pretty sure prosecuting the women for homicide instead of murder would solve the problem.

The doctor could still be charged with murder.

You all are living in a fantasy land. In less than two years, the Freedom of Choice Act will be signed into law.

Uh, SOMG. 7:51am

I wouldn't hold my breath.

The Freedom of Choice Act was supposed to be signed 15 years ago when Bill Clinton took office. In his 8 years it never got signed. Why is that? Maybe he was too busy not having sex with interns.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I can't stop laughing at Bill!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He needs to start stand up comedy as a new career. he said:

"I reduced abortion."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The only way he was able to reduce the number of abortions was to remove the entire state of California from the statistics! That is how he "reduced" abortions. Give me a &^&* break! The state of California made up appx 17% of all abortions before that - and the numbers went down by over 20%! It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out!

FF -

"In 2006 DEMOCRATS rolled out the 95/10 Initiative to reduce the number of abortions. It was promptly shot down by the Republicans who need abortion as a wedge issue in future elections:"

95/10? You're kidding right? First of all they are basing their information soley on Guttmacher's research. This is the same organization that contracted itself in it's own 10 question quiz! They can't even make 10 statements in a row without contradicting themselves! How pathetic is that?

The 95/10 wants a higher level of sex ed. Of Course they do. Let's do a history lesson shall we?

Margaret Sanger who was the leader of the Birth Control League wanted BC to be available to all. Not just married women who were the only ones who could get BC in select states. AFTER we approved BC on demand what happened? You got it! Abortion on demand! The more contraceptions we pass out, the more abortions we have. Imagine that? Amazing? How can that be? Because BC is not 100% affective and well over 1/2 of the unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion are from women who said the BC failed. Wow! More sex ed - more sex - more BC - more unwanted pregnancies - more abortions! History has never lied.

Also, the second part of the 95/10 is hysterical! The are claiming to want to provide help to women in crisis pregnancies. Well, then why don't they support the legislation that the democrats are successfully stalling that actually do this? hmm?

And example is the Elizabeth Cady Staton Student parent and pregnancy act. The beloved Pro-Life Democrat that supports the 95/10 is helping to stall a bill that would do exactly what he claims he wants. This bill is supported by both pro-life and pro-choice but the dem's can't have that now can they? It would mean a reduction in abortions in college towns! It would provide the group that has the highest number of abortions nationwide prenatal care and daycare etc. at colleges. Right now the only 'choice' a college woman has is abortion or drop out. They have to drop out because there are no special provisions for a pregnant woman to receive prenatal care on college campuses. if she has complications in the pregnancy and has to miss classes - forget it. Who wants to pay for a bunch of incompletes. oh - and if you deliver during the semester and not during break - forget it - no time off for you! This is what the dems consider a choice!

Mary, you wrote: "The Freedom of Choice Act was supposed to be signed 15 years ago when Bill Clinton took office. In his 8 years it never got signed. Why is that? "

It's because the republicans had enough senators to filibuster it.

After the 2008 election, there will be (at least) sixty pro-choice senators in the senate. That's enough to quash a filibuster.

Hmmm... looks like Clinton stays on top of the latest question-begging arguments in favor of abortion. When he discusses ESCR, I wonder if he uses the "fire in the fertility clinic" scenario...

Milemimama-

I LOVE FFL! That article is great.

SOMG,

Clinton had a sizable Democrat majority in the House and Senate. Expectations were high that FOCA would pass. Two years later the Republicans were in control. But hay, wasn't he supposed to sign an executive order permitting gays in the military and cure AIDs too?

SOMG -

HAHAHAHAHA

You're so funny!

The Freedom of Choice Act will have to actually tell the truth in its own act before consideration.

In it they maintain that there were 1.2 million illegal abortions a year before Roe. That has been debunked so many times - however the stats still show the inaccuracy of that statment. It wasn't until 1979 that the number actually reached 1.2 million. It wouldn't take 6 years for legal abortions to reach the amount of illegal abortions.

It also says that 5,000 women were dying a year because of illegal abortions however no state statistics can support that. They are also quoting form "one" source on that. Scare tactics extradonaires!

It compares figures between developed countries and undeveloped countries which was the only way to come up with scare tactics on illegal abortions.

And there is more, but I think you get it.

However, I do LOVE that in that bill it states that 87% of US counties don't have an abortion provider - this is at the same time PP is closing small abortion clinics and building mega ones. They are doing this because of "lack of money". Doesn't that mean those counties don't need their services? Considering they made over 50 million dollars last year the only reason to close because of loss of money would be because loss of business.

I have a friend at Franciscan. I wonder if she was at the protest.

yllas,
Crosses?

Valerie,

Dr. Bernard Nathanson stated in his book "Aborting America" that the leaders of the early abortion movement were well aware that the illegal abortion death rate had been steadily declining for years and was at an all time low in 1972, the year prior to Roe. I read one stat that said it was less than 200, another that said it was 36. He said he and the other leaders deliberately inflated these numbers, sometimes actually making them up, to win support for their cause even though they were well aware these inflated figures were a total falsehood.
The abortion leadership could count on their supporters in the media to promote their fallacies and the bigotry against the Catholic Church, also initiated by the leaders of the abortion movement.

Mary, you wrote: "Clinton had a sizable Democrat majority in the House and Senate."

Yes, but not a filibuster-proof majority. After 2008 there will be a filibuster-proof pro-choice majority in the Senate, and FOCA will pass.

Valerie, I trust you will love it even more when it is law.

SOMG,

Like I said SOMG, FOCA and gays in the military were going to be a shoo-in in 1993.
You are also going on the assumption all Democrats support abortion, they don't.
There's also all kinds of ways to stall legislation.

Again SOMG, don't hold your breath.

Also, keeping Bill from not having sex with the interns may keep Hillary busy as well. I haven't counted her out at all.

"Is declaring abortion illegal the same thing as deeming it murder?"

Many many people at this site said it should be illegal BECAUSE it's murder. If it's murder, both mother and doctor should be prosecuted. If they're not, if it's simply an "illegal procedure," can we please stop throwing the "murder" word around so much?

Mary, if there is a majority of Dems, and a Dem president, I would think overturning Don't Ask Don't tell WILL be a shoo in. That doesn't cause much division among Dems at all and will probably be agreed upon fairly quickly, assuming, as SOMG says, there is a filibuster proof majority.

FOCA is a lot harder to predict the future for, as so much is tied to that bill. We'll see.

Mary -

The CDC reports that in 1972 there were 39 deaths from illegal abortion. This was after several years of researching death records. There were 24 deaths from legal abortion and 2 "unknowns" which were deaths that were quite possibally the result of abortion (have not been able to find out if legal or illegal) so they were included in the numbers.

From 1972 to 2003 there were 386 reported deaths from legal abortions.

SOMG -

You are aware that there are several congressional seats that are a part of the election this year right? So, there just may be enough to filibuster after all is said and done.

Also, the dems don't want the freedom of choice act to go through. They will lose their moderate votes according to the last gallop poll - which was taken just a couple years ago. It will never pass as is and most people know that. Of course, that doesn't stop them from re-wording it a making minimal changes.......

Valerie, you are whistling in the dark.

Dan,

I think "don't ask don't tell" was a compromise since Bill would not keep his pledge to sign an executive order, he got much too much flak.
I'm not certain this is even a law or know that much about it.
I'm certain gays have served long and honorably in our country's military and its really not an issue to me. I understand most of Gen. Eisenhower's female military entourage in WW2 were lesbians and I believe Von Steuben (?), a German military commander who aided the Americans in the Revolutionary War, had a 17 y/o male "interpreter" who couldn't speak English.

You're right about FOCA, that could stir up one big hornet's nest.

SoMG -

Well, since neither one of us will know who is whistling in the dark for several years, we will have to remember each other when one of us becomes right.

Any bets on who will win braggers rights?

;-)

If abortion becomes illegal in the US,there
be absolutely no way to enforce the law.
No country that has made it illegal anywhere
has ever been able to,and what makes you think
that America will be able to stop it.
How will you stop women who can afford it
from going abroad for abortions? Put up
blockades at borders and every airport?
Examine all women for possible pregnancy?
How will you stop poor women from trying to
asbort themselves,and dying or being
grievously harmed in the attempt? Put up
cameras in every home? Arrest them soon as
they try? Come on.Be realistic.
And there are anti-choice fanatics who want
make contraceptives illegal.This is idiotic.
This would only INCREASE abortions and
create a black market in contraceptives.
And conservatives don't want the government
to help the poor by giving them financial aid
to take care of children.This is pure
hypocrisy.

Robert Berger,

Please name for me one criminal offense that laws have completely eliminated. People who want to do anything desperately enough will do it, so why do we have laws?

Legal abortion did nothing to close the gap between rich and poor. The rich continued to fly abroad or see their private doctors for abortions, the poor went to unregulated clinics, which were little better than back alleys. You should check out the posting on the Chicago abortion clinic investigation of 30 years ago.
I gave an example on another thread about a nurse who told us how she would abort herself if she was pregnant. She certainly wasn't poor and she had access to legal abortion. I knew a nurse who worked in NY city and saw women attempting to abort themselves. The nurse assured me that any woman, no matter how desperate her circumstances, could get a legal abortion in NYC.
So why would these women self abort when they had access to legal abortion? Likely protection of privacy and convenience. Or maybe they're just plain stupid. People do stupid things.

No help for the poor? Welfare is still with us. We have all kinds of programs in our state. As I recall Robert, abortion was going to eliminate poverty and welfare dependency. Why hasn't it?
Its been my experience that many of these young mothers are abandoned to lives of welfare dependency and poverty by men who feel their obligation to their pregnant partners begins and ends with an offer to pay for an abortion. If she refuses their generosity, then her circumstances are "her" problem. It seems abortion has better enabled men to have their fun and walk away from their responsibilities.

Jennifer Flowers had an abortion at Bill Clintons request. Bill Clinton is a low life radical feminist. He's a pathological liar too.

"Is declaring abortion illegal the same thing as deeming it murder?"

Many many people at this site said it should be illegal BECAUSE it's murder. If it's murder, both mother and doctor should be prosecuted. If they're not, if it's simply an "illegal procedure," can we please stop throwing the "murder" word around so much?
Posted by: Hal at February 18, 2008 9:21 AM

Hal,
I suspect the word "murder" is used by most pro-lifers in their arguments against abortion - as a generic term for "killing" - to emphasize the SERIOUSNESS of abortion when all other attempts at getting our point across have failed. We wouldn't have to use the word "murder", if you'd concede the truth - abortion kills babies.

Put them to death. If a woman drives to the clinic and has the abortion, she is killer. Put her to death. The doctor isn't guilty. The doctor just sold her the gun. If she doesn't get in the car and go to the office, murder does not happen.

Vote Republican this year so more people in the middle east can die! That is the real ticket. Kill more people. Who would jesus kill?

Mary, 10:51,

Amen!

This video has made it near the top of DrudgeReport.com, and has received several hundred comments within the past hour.

Mary -

People like Robert are living in a deluded state. There are no illegal activities that we enforse by putting up blockades or invading privacy by watching women in their homes. Why would we do this if abortion became illegal? Salvery was once legal, did we enforce the anti-salvery laws by preventing slave owners from going to brasil? Did we prevent them from coming back when they no longer owned slaves? No. Why would we do it with abortion?

He is deluded by thinking making something illegal means we think it will never happen. He is showing that he thinks we are stupid.

I like the thought that making contraceptions illegal (something I do not support) would increase abortions. I find that funny considering abortion has been increasing ever since contraceptions became legal not when they were illegal. Why does he think women are that irresponsible? That we would still have sex even though we are not protected in any way? This is why I do not like the Pro-Choice belief's about women. They think we are too stupid to be able to make logical decisions on our own.

I also love the belief that conservatives don't want to take care of the poor. That is the furthest thing from the truth. The difference between conservative and liberals when it comes to the poor is that conservatives believe the poor are capable of taking care of themselves and all they need are the resources to do it. This is why there are many educational grants (like the pell grant) for the poor. So they can get an education and get a good job. The liberals just want to give the poor everything leaving them with little self-esteem because they are not learning the trades on how to get out of poverty. Conservatives believe that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

They love to use scare tactics. However, these tactics are beginning to unravel and now they are in a panic.

Huh. I just watched the youtube video. Whoever the ABC news flack was who "couldn't keep up" probably needs to be replaced with someone competent. I had no problems understanding what he was saying at all.

I don't get this recent MSM theme that Bill Clinton is always losing his cool. Or I guess I get it, but I think it's dishonest.

Every time they report that he "lost it" I watch the video and wait patiently for the point where he "lost it"....and I wait...and I wait...and I wait....and it doesn't happen. I see him speak firmly and stand up for himself and his wife, and apparently that's "losing it". Huh. Reporters must have remarkably peaceful lives filled with nothing but quiet meditation and harmony.

Go Valerie!

Hieronymous -

I've thought the same thing about Bill "loosing it". I think it is his body language and the way he can't seem to get a thought out fast enough. Something that Bill usually doesn't do. He is usually very calm and knows how to address people with saying the right things. But in the "loosing it" cases he become a bit rigid and repeats himself.

At least, that is my take on it - but it is nothing compared to many other people "loosing it" that I've seen on the news.

Valerie (11:35),

I also love the belief that conservatives don't want to take care of the poor. That is the furthest thing from the truth. The difference between conservative and liberals when it comes to the poor is that conservatives believe the poor are capable of taking care of themselves and all they need are the resources to do it. This is why there are many educational grants (like the pell grant) for the poor. So they can get an education and get a good job. The liberals just want to give the poor everything leaving them with little self-esteem because they are not learning the trades on how to get out of poverty. Conservatives believe that if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.

They love to use scare tactics. However, these tactics are beginning to unravel and now they are in a panic.

This is off-topic, but relates so well to your point about helping the poor. The TV show "60 Minutes" had an inspiring piece last night about Gustavo Dudamel, a 27 year old Venezuelan, who will be taking over as conductor of the Los Angeles Philharmonic next year. His town in Venezuela has this amazing program that teaches all young children to play a musical instrument, giving children a way to study music and find their way out of poverty. Gustavo, a child prodigy himself, is planning to bring this Venezuelan teaching model to the U.S. in hopes of establishing a similar program to help the poor children of Los Angeles. Awesome.

I don't know, maybe it's the bright red color he turns while he's speaking at and pointing at people that makes us think he loses it.

Janet -

I know that there are some inner city schools that have implemented that kind of an idea for their schools.

From what I've read it has improved grades and self esteem in the kids.

It is an awsome idea and I hope more schools would pick it up. Hopefully the 60 minutes exposure along with the success in Venezuela will get some school districts thinking. I would have no problems having my tax money going to help fund musical equipment to the public schools. Music can be a wonderful way to lift the spirits and calm the soul!

"Dan, pre-Roe, mothers were never prosecuted. Post-Roe, they won't be either, as much as you'd like it so. Doctors are the perpetrators. Prosecuting them, now that's another story."

Drug dealers aren't the only people who are arrested, the buyers are too.

Yes if I really thought abortion was a woman selfishly murdering a baby I would seek the death penalty. It blows my mind that people who believe abortion is murder aren't out there bombing clinics and murdering doctors.

Ex - if i knew someone tortured and killed a hamster the least I would do is beat them senseless.

Jess1:01,

Yes if I really thought abortion was a woman selfishly murdering a baby I would seek the death penalty. It blows my mind that people who believe abortion is murder aren't out there bombing clinics and murdering doctors.

I note a hint of sarcasm. How long ago was the last clinic bombing in the U.S? How long has it been since an abortionist has been murdered?

Yes if I really thought abortion was a woman selfishly murdering a baby I would seek the death penalty. It blows my mind that people who believe abortion is murder aren't out there bombing clinics and murdering doctors.

With as many women as are forced into abortions against their own will, and as many women really don't know that their baby is not a "blob of tissue", etc.... I don't think it's always about selfish intent of the mother.

If someone killed a relative of mine by accident or in cold blood, killing that person myself would NOT be the solution. Even though it would seem like a natural thing to do, it is still does not help solve the problem. Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

The same goes with people who have abortions. We see the evil that they commit every day but the solution is not to kill them, but to start laws which will make it a crime to kill unborn babies. If we kill them, we're doing a second wrong, and two wrongs just don't make a right.

Put them to death. If a woman drives to the clinic and has the abortion, she is killer. Put her to death. The doctor isn't guilty. The doctor just sold her the gun. If she doesn't get in the car and go to the office, murder does not happen.

Posted by: PeachPit at February 18, 2008 11:22 AM

PP,
Wrong. Your analogy makes no sense. The doctor is guilty. The woman came in to the clinic, bought the gun and the doctor pulled the trigger.

Will Hillary still be a senator in NY if she loses? Anyone know?

Posted by: Janet at February 18, 2008 12:28 AM

Janet, I'm not sure if someone already answered but I don't think she's up for re-election this year. If she doesn't win, she'd keep her seat as Senator. If she wins the nomination she'd be a Senator until the election, when she'd either lose - and keep the seat - or win (heaven forbid) and then the governor would appoint someone until the next election. Some states would hold a special election but I'm not sure if New York is one.

Janet I wasn't being sarcastic.

If I really thought the doctors were murdering babies I would stop them. I don't get why you don't. You know these doctors know what they're doing why don't you try and stop them from killing what you think are babies?

Sandy, I have to disagree with that.......If she doesn't drive to the office, the baby doesn't die. The doctor won't come to her house. I don't know of any forced abortions. The murder begins when she starts making her way to the clinic.

If I really thought the doctors were murdering babies I would stop them. I don't get why you don't. You know these doctors know what they're doing why don't you try and stop them from killing what you think are babies?

Jess, read my 1:18 post.

I think all of this talk about women dying in the streets from trying to commit self abortion is waaaaaaayyyyyyy overexagerated.

Let's take a look at some positives that can come out of making abortion illegal.
It will force women to act more responsibly in the first place and make better decisions about their sex lives. It will make them be accountable to themselves and take a pill every day to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or use a condom or two when they have sex, or maybe not "hook up" with every Tom, Dick, or Harry they meet at a bar. The STD rates would plumit.

Mary has pointed out that the deaths from illegal abortions had fallen to an all-time low. So don't go there. In 1972 I bet more people died from falling off a roof cleaning their gutters. Back in 1972, birth control was not as widely available and acceptable as it is today.

What positive impact has making abortion legal had on our society?

Sandy, I have to disagree with that.......If she doesn't drive to the office, the baby doesn't die. The doctor won't come to her house. I don't know of any forced abortions. The murder begins when she starts making her way to the clinic.

Posted by: PeachPit at February 18, 2008 1:40 PM

I am not saying the women does not bear responsibility here. You stated the Dr. is not guilty. I say he/she is. He/she could refuse to do it.

I disagree with some of my fellow pro-lifers, there should be some penalty for the woman seeking an abortion.

Sandy, you wrote: "What positive impact has making abortion legal had on our society? "

Making abortion legal in the USA has completely solved a deadly problem: The Problem of the Black Market in Illegal Abortion Services, which killed many women, maimed many more, and humiliated and criminalized many more above that.

A penalty like a chance to hear some options and change her mind? Prayer? Compassion?

Making abortion legal in the USA has completely solved a deadly problem: The Problem of the Black Market in Illegal Abortion Services, which killed many women, maimed many more, and humiliated and criminalized many more above that.

Posted by: SoMG at February 18, 2008 1:57 PM

No problems solved here SOMG. It has created a more deadly problem. Since 1973 50 million babies are now dead.

You have seen on this site too many times to count how the black market illegal abortionists just moved their locations to legal storefronts. Since abortion was legalized, women are still being maimed, humiliated, and killed.

Kristen, 1:28,
Thanks for the info!

I'd like to point out that if the speaker had been President Bush, and the demonstrators had been in any way even slightly opposed to his policies, they would never have been allowed within sight of him. Such is the current state of our "democracy," as presided over by Republicans.

And Mike at 10:21 PM, I used to look forward to hearing Bill Clinton's State of the Union addresses. He was an intelligent and articulate speaker. Hearing President Bush's cretinous voice doesn't make my skin crawl, it makes me wretch with dry heaves.

SOMG,

Its been pointed out time and again that women were not dying like flies from illegal abortion. How much better does it get than a steadily decreasing death rate down to the point of an all time low of 39? If only we could say the same about car accidents or the country's murder rate.
Also, the thread that discussed the undercover investigation, occuring 6 years after Roe, showed that the "black market" wasn't put out of business, but rather they could conduct their business legally and openly in a nicer neighborhood. Women were killed and maimed and it was going unreported.
Our city abortionist would never admit to the press that he performed abortions, though everyone in the city had known this for years. Why not? Why shouldn't he proudly proclaim his line of work?

"Our city abortionist would never admit to the press that he performed abortions, though everyone in the city had known this for years. Why not? Why shouldn't he proudly proclaim his line of work?"

Maybe he doesn't want protesters outside his house on Christmas Day?

I'd like to point out that if the speaker had been President Bush, and the demonstrators had been in any way even slightly opposed to his policies, they would never have been allowed within sight of him. Such is the current state of our "democracy," as presided over by Republicans.
Posted by: Ray at February 18, 2008 2:25 PM

Ray,
I would like to point out that Hitlery Clinton has had plenty of people removed from her public speaking engagements that don't agree with her. Forcebly, I might add. So don't think this is just a republican tactic. Can you really be so naive?

Ray,

When the president, and that includes then President Clinton, gives a speech, security is tight and the number of people admitted is limited. Clinton also visited our city as president and security was just as tight and people admitted to hear him speak equally limited. Not surprisingly, protestors remained outside as well. Those protesting will likely not be admitted more for security reasons than anything.
When President Bush visited our city protestors lined the streets, he would have had to have been blind not to see them.
So much for the state of democracy in this country.

You had a problem with Bush's "cretinous voice".
I have a bigger problem with Bill Clinton discussing the situation of our troops in Bosnia with a congressman while Monica is tending to his crotch. So much for respec for our service men and women.

Hal, 2:24PM

You missed an important point in my post. The whole city has known for years and there have been no protests outside his home on Christmas Day.
If legalizing abortion has made it so respectable, why doesn't he proudly acknowledge what he does?

Mary,
You have been "HOT" with your posts this last week. Keep up the good work!!!

Mary,
Great point. I have a hard time even looking at him without thinking of a stained blue dress, a doe eyed Monica, or a cigar. That's his legacy.

Good for Bill for getting a hummer in the oval office. It was none of our business to begin with, and nobody died because of his denial of it.

Incidentally, where were the hordes of people protesting for his impeachment? There weren't any!

And sorry folks, but the amount of restraint, arrest, and ejection of protestors, even peaceful ones, both inside and outside of venues where the president has public speaking engagements, has been unprecedented under the Bush administration.

Sany,

Thank you. You've done very well yourself.

Isn't it great that 1st graders across the land learned what oral sex was from Bill? Another part of his legacy.

Ray,

Spare me. The leader of the free world, discussing the situation of our troops while some woman barely older than his daughter services his crotch.
Unlike you Ray, I believe our service men and women are deserving of considerably more respect than this.

His impeachment had nothing to do with his sexual escapades, but rather his lying under oath and obstruction of justice. Even feminist lawyer and Clinton supporter, Gloria Allred, felt he should face impeachment for these offenses. She claims she was no longer welcome as a guest commentator on some news program because of her stand. Not that the media supported Clinton or anything.

You better keep an eye on your girl Hillary, she doesn't sound like she's too tolerant of protest from what Sandy says. Ever hear how she sent her attack dogs after the women who accused Bill?

I was in 3rd or 4th grade when Bill Clinton got impeached I think...

I didn't know what oral sex was until high school.

And believe it or not...I went to a public school.

Mary,

Bill's impeachment had everything to do with a Republican establishment that just couldn't stand the idea of a Democrat in the oval office. And the funny thing about it is that Bill ended up doing a such a good job running the country with one hand tied behind his back in the form of the absurd Whitewater investigation, that he made it look easy.

I say again, he should never have been asked the question in the first place. Ken Starr managed to turn investigating a simple failed land deal (in which the Clintons were exhonerated of any wrongdoing), into a multiyear fishing expedition that cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. And for what? So he could ask Clinton under oath whether he had gotten a bj from an intern? We were the laughingstock of the world, and I, for one, want my money back.

Incidentally, just how respectful of the troops has the current occupant been to keep them, ill equipped, in the middle of a meatgrinder of a civil war, and then to cut benefits and VA funding when the get home?

Massachusetts prosecutors seem ready to punish Abreu for the same thing. “What is clear is that an inner-city teenager who is still studying English made a desperate choice when a safe and legal one proved inaccessible,” wrote Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara. “This tragedy--and it is a tragedy--is less a measure of one teenager’s bad choices than it is an indictment of a culture that tells all women abortion is their legal, constitutionally protected right, but tolerates a lack of access for the neediest women.”

Home page | Current storylist | Featured articles | Back to the top

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 17, 2008 10:21 PM

This is really more about infanticide. It is also about illegal drug use.

The child was healthy and very close to being able to survive. The woman was seven months pregnant. What is two more months? She could give the baby for adoption.

Roe v. Wade allows states even liberal Massachusetts to draw the line somewhere.

If the folks of Massachusetts want to make elective abortion for all 9 months legal, they could. They didn't.

Do you really have a problem with prohibiting elective abortion after seven months of pregnancy?

Ray,

Dispense with your Republican plot claptrap will you Ray?
If Clinton hadn't been stupid enough to have some young intern, upon who's discretion he couldn't depend, tend his crotch he likely would not have been in this mess. The damned fool knew he was being investigated already. Come on Ray, admit it, it was freaking stupid of him. Here was a man at the pinnacle of his power and career and he doesn't have more sense than this?
He lied under oath and obstructed justice. Those are impeachable offenses. He was impeached by the way, he was not convicted. I believe he was also disbarred in Arkansas. Oh, and he had to pay off that lady he flashed as well.
How good a job he did running this country is open to debate and not one I plan to start here.
In case you haven't watch the news Ray the surge is working, the fatalities are down, and Iraq is more stable. The insurgents are forced to send mentally challenged women as suicide bombers. Even our media has had to swallow its bile and admit this.
The irony Ray is that our troops are likely safer over there than you are on the streets of some of our major cities.

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors
Goldman Sachs $421,763
Ubs Ag $296,670
Lehman Brothers $250,630
National Amusements Inc $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP $226,491
Citigroup Inc $221,578
Exelon Corp $221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420
Jones Day $181,996
Harvard University $172,324
Citadel Investment Group $171,798
Time Warner $155,383
Morgan Stanley $155,196
Google Inc $152,802
University of California $143,029
Jenner & Block $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp $119,245
Credit Suisse Group $118,250

Percent of Contributions Coded:

(How to read this chart / methodology)

Coded

$53,444,310

(71%)

Uncoded

$22,251,690

(29%)

Total

$75,696,000

© Copyright 2008. Center for Responsive Politics. All rights reserved.

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Why (and How) We Use Donors’ Employer/Occupation Information

METHODOLOGY

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Friday, February 01, 2008. (Help! The numbers don't add up...")

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
Top Contributors

DLA Piper $471,750
Goldman Sachs $413,361
Morgan Stanley $362,700
Citigroup Inc $350,895
Lehman Brothers $241,870
JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880
EMILY's List $213,266
National Amusements Inc $210,010
Kirkland & Ellis $179,676
Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800
Skadden, Arps et al $167,796
Merrill Lynch $165,042
Cablevision Systems $145,313
Time Warner $144,977
Microsoft Corp $143,459
Bear Stearns $141,835
Latham & Watkins $138,598
Patton Boggs $137,200
Ernst & Young $126,865
PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

Will these contributors be getting their money's worth?

Will they fulfill the promises they made to them or the promises they make to the public?

And sorry folks, but the amount of restraint, arrest, and ejection of protestors, even peaceful ones, both inside and outside of venues where the president has public speaking engagements, has been unprecedented under the Bush administration.

Posted by: Ray at February 18, 2008 2:53 PM

Source please???

Mary, quit your lying.

US Casualties INCREASED in January. 36 to 23.

Iraq government has met 3 of the 18 stated goals.

Nothing has been rectified politically and you cannot count de-bathification as success.

STOP LYING you GOP puppet. If it is so safe,go over there and fight.

Good for Bill for getting a hummer in the oval office. It was none of our business to begin with, and nobody died because of his denial of it.

Posted by: Ray at February 18, 2008 2:53 PM

Ray,
Are you serious? It is our business. My taxes went to pay his salary. It wasn't earmarked for office sex. I have no idea what you do for a living, but would you ever consider having oral sex in your office while on the phone conducting business? If you were caught would you seriously think you would not be fired?

Ray,
PS. I want my money back.

Ray -

Clinton's legacy has already been wrote. He was impeached, found not quilty by only several votes (the obstruction of justice was 50 for and 50 against) - so much for his complete "innocence".

He was also found quilty of contempt of court for lying under oath in a Federal Judges courtroom which caused him have is Arkansas Law Licensed suspended for 5 years and a $90,000 fine.

Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement AFTER the charge of harrassment was dismissed and under appeal.

The economy was in shambles when he left. Terrorists were running all over us - Remember The Cole? Clinton had made us "the blow job Country" and gave us a morally corrupt reputation.

PeachPit,

For your information I'm an Independent.

Casualties increased from 36 to 23?

Iraq has met 3 of its 18 stated goals? That's more than you can say for the US congress which might explain why their approval rating recently climbed to 20%.

Do your research PP. When even the media has to admit the surge is working, that says something.

I didn't say it was safe, I said its safer than most of our major cities.

The surge was not intended to only curb violence. It set benchmarks for 18 political goals in which 3 have been met. But you of course glossed over that with a funny quip about our congress.

In December 2007, 23 US Soldiers died. In January 2008, 36 soldiers died.

The surge has helped De-bathify the country which in turn has turned some folks a little sour on the process.

You are CRAZY to think it i safer than some of our major cities my little country bumpkin. Ask that to the soldier that comes back and has to walk our streets, see what his opinion is. See what he/or she thought of walking down a street not knowing if the next person walking by or car going by was going to EXPLODE. How naive of you.

Tell the 36 families that don't have a dad or sister or brother anymore that it is working....The surge is working from your living room. The same living room where you have had to sacrifice anything to fight the war. The death toll goes up. The national debt goes up. And more of neighbors die because we messed up.

Now I know you have that nice ribbon sticker on your car but lets not be so naive that you believe it is working.

PeachPit -

Whose the puppet?

icasualties.org/oif/

The major casualties that are going down are that of the Iraqi security forces and civilian deaths. In one year they went from 1,800 to 426.

And I guess you don't care that Iraqi's deaths have significantly decreased since Suddam's removal. I guess you don't care the girls are able to go to school now. I guess you don't care that people aren't afraid to vote. I guess you don't care that the Iraqi government is in place and that the US troops are only there to help them establish their laws. Which, by the way, bears no resemblance to ours. I guess you don't care that all Iraqi hospitals are open now and have proper medication and proper equipment. I guess you don't care that people can actually walk on the streets and feel they are safe when they see the Iraqi police. I guess you just don't care do you?

Suddam killed more people per year in his reign and also committed Genocide. You're right - we should have let him continue to run the country. What better way than to eliminate the Kurds, huh?

If you find no justification in helping out the Iraqi's while under cruel dictatorship and being murdered in the streets by Suddam's police, how can you find justification in helping out Darfur? One was a cruel dictatorship, the other is a civil war gone horribly wrong. Both had/have murders, rapes, people being displaced, tortures, beheadings, no trials but convictions - etc.

What is the difference? One doesn't have many Christians in it. I find that ironic, don't you? Iraq doesn't have many Christians but Darfur is about 40% Christian. Discrimination anyone?

PP -

"The surge was not intended to only curb violence. It set benchmarks for 18 political goals in which 3 have been met. "

Your kidding right? Goals that OUR congress gave to the Iraqi government aren't being accomplished. Imagine that? Isn't it the same congress that go elected by saying they were going to bring our troops home no matter what? The same congress that said they were going to withdraw the money? They same congress that won't get re-elected if the Iraq war actually goes in favor of the Iraq government?

Yea, right....... Go by that instead of actual reports to decide if the war is going bad or not? Don't think so.

PP,

Far from being a country bumpkin I was raised in a major city. By the way, this city has a 47to 100,000 murder rate, though not quite as bad as Gary Indiana with a 48 to 100,00 homicide rate.

Let me see, New Orleans had a 30 percent increase in homicides from 2006-2007, or about 71 to 100,000 people.
Interested in taking an evening stroll by yourself in any of these cities? That's only the murder rate, I didn't look up the robbery, assault, and rape stats.

The quip about Congress is true, hardly funny. Actually that approval rating is up from 11%, so maybe there's hope.

One of the goals of the surge was to curb violence which it has succeeded at, by approximately 80% Without that little else could be accomplished. Do you wonder why insurgents must use mentally challenged women as bombers? Maybe because they are losing support.

More on Clinton in Steubenville
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-clinton-in-steubenville.html

You guys tired from carrying the water of this administration yet...keep spewing your lies and enlist.
It was only a matter of time before you brought up the genocide, rape, etc...all the things that didn't get mentioned. I"m sure Saddam would of killed 4,000 Americans between now and then. And in one fell swoop we ticked off more people.

Ok, you have me convinced, the surge is working. How would you puppets say it? Mission Accomplished?

Let's just stay there for 100 years. I'm voting for McCain so we can. WOOO HOOO.

"Is declaring abortion illegal the same thing as deeming it murder?"

Maybe, maybe not.

Anonymous.
Correct.
Only when a cross is associated with a senseless tragedy, such as NIU, is there no protest or threat of a lawsuit by atheist.
All over the net, were images of six crosses being displayed on the state property of NIU.
Not a word of protest from any atheist.

I'm confused. Someone help me out.

I can't remember who is running for President.

Is it Bill Clinton that's running or Hillary? Someone tell me, I have lost track here...

Yup. Billary is running for Pres.

yllas,
Blows your mind, doesn't it? It always takes me back to 9-11 and the week after. It was all prayer and God. Our country was devastated & we knew it. We cried out as a nation to God for His comfort. Ironic how when we slip farther & farther away from that day, so do our memories of how much we need God.

It was all prayer and God.

Nope.
......

Our country was devastated & we knew it.

No, and hindsight reveals the true extent of it. Was it a "different" thing for us, having almost never been attacked? Yes. Was it "devastation"? No.

Doug