Sebelius reimbursed for Tiller party only 10 days ago

tiller and sebelius.jpgI reported May 29 on a private party pro-abort KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius hosted for late-term abortionist George Tiller and staff on April 9, 2007.

Whoops, the plot thickens, as it always does when involving KS and abortion.

Timeline:

April 28, 2008: Operation Rescue requests receipts for the event via the Open Records Act.

May 23, 2008: The Greater KS City Women's Political Caucus reimburses the state $848 for the event.

May 23, 2008: Governor's office sends OR the receipts with a cover letter stating...

reimbursement.jpg

Wow, May 23, what a day of coincidences.

Gotta say Sebelius is cool like Obama. No wonder she's on his list for VP. Here's Sebelius being interviewed May 28 acting dismissive, stating, "the woman's political caucus paid for the event," but not mentioning it had only been 5 days prior, over a year after the fact. Click on graphic below to link to video:

sebelius cool.jpg

Sebelius' spokesperson, Nicole Corcoran, explained the oversight was "due to staff turnover and the length of time between the purchase of the auction item (September, 2005) and the date the reception was scheduled (April, 2007)."

Corcoran said Sebelius staff is now poring over other past events to find more oversights, but "no other errors of this type have surfaced," according to the Kansas City Star.

This was just another in a long line of nothings having to do with nothing. Sebelius never intended taxpayers to foot her pal Tiller's caviar. (I'm told he loves caviar.) Just forget about this. Honest mistake.

[Photo of Tiller and Sebelius at party courtesy of OR]


Comments:

Jill,

This story is indeed a "nothing".

And I have already "forgotten about it".

Posted by: Anonymous at June 3, 2008 2:37 PM


From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 3:48 PM


Let's see -- Guy brazenly breaking the law. Poured bigbucks into gov's campaign, both directly and through channels. Every time anybody asks for him to be held accountable somebody either appointed by the governor or owing him big favors of massive influx of campaign contributions. Gets lavish party at governor's mansion at taxpayer expense.

When gov gets caught giving paybacks for all guy's kind help getting her and her friends elected, a mutual friend ponies up the dough and they claim it was just an oversight.

We have a word for this. It's called "politics".

As Robert A. Heinlein said, an honest politician is "one who stays bought."

Sebelius is exemplary in that respect.

Posted by: Christina at June 3, 2008 4:17 PM


Well, it's rather obvious that they searched and searched for the most plausible excuse to feed the gulible masses as to the reason this little get-together for her good friend has occurred.

Posted by: xalisae at June 3, 2008 4:20 PM


SoMG, when you start caring about real women being raped, injured, and killed by legalized quackery now, I'll believe that your lamentations about "the bad old days" are about the suffering of the women and not the fact that butchers faced prison then instead of getting speaking engagements as they do now.

Posted by: Christina at June 3, 2008 4:22 PM


SoMG, I guess then, by the same logic, we should provide drug addicts with legal means to acquire "safe" drugs. After all, if they are going to do drugs, then shouldn't those drugs be administered in the safest manner? Let's have new clinic built so that addicts can bring in their street drugs in, trade them for clean medical grade narcotics, and provide a safe place to get high!

Sadly, the argument presented in the article presents only a red hearing to the real issue: the taking of an innocent life.

Posted by: Charles at June 3, 2008 4:32 PM


Oops. Tried to correct a typing mistake before it posted and ended up with a double post. Please nune the first of the two seemingly-identical comments, Jill!

And BTW, SoMG, thanks for the link! I'll blog about how much nicer abortion is now that it's only performed by caring, high-quality physicians!

Posted by: Christina at June 3, 2008 4:33 PM


Charles, you wrote: " I guess then, by the same logic, we should provide drug addicts with legal means to acquire "safe" drugs. "

That's a good idea but here's a better one: just legalize the drugs; let the addicts pay for their own fixes.

Government has no business telling people which substances they may consume and which they may not.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 4:53 PM


Christina, you wrote: "when you start caring about real women being raped, injured, and killed by legalized quackery now..."

Two points. One: rape, injury, and death associated with abortion are all rare. Two: abortion is not "quackery"; it works as it's supposed to almost all the time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 4:55 PM


Two points. One: rape, injury, and death associated with abortion are all rare. Two: abortion is not "quackery"; it works as it's supposed to almost all the time.

Well I guess that all depends on what you mean by doctor and quack. Some of us believe that doctors should heal and save lives, while other people think they should play God and take lives. It's really just a matter of an accepted definition being pulled out from under our feet, and changed to mean exactly the opposite of what it's always previously meant. You know like marriage, fetus...

Posted by: mk at June 3, 2008 5:26 PM


MK, according to wikipedia: "Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe unscientific medical practices. Random House Dictionary describes a "quack" as a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.""

Abortion is not "unscientific". Nor are abortion docs "pretenders to medical skill" or "charlatans".

Posted by: Anonymous at June 3, 2008 5:35 PM


Oops, that was me.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 5:37 PM


If that's the definition then "Quack" seems to fit an abortionist to me.

Posted by: Kristen at June 3, 2008 5:53 PM


Kristen, you seem to be unable to read. Or else you are grossly misinformed.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 5:56 PM


SoMG, it's 100% if it happens to you. But you can afford to be callous, can you not? If I recall correctly, you are possessed of a Y chromosome and thus will never be the one who climbs on the abortion table. You're not risking getting your bowel pulled out through your vagina and ending up crapping into a bag on your belly for the rest of your life.

Posted by: Christina at June 3, 2008 6:05 PM


Anon, killing babies is quackery. It heals nothing. All it does is destroy. That's not medicine. Any doctor worthy of the name would no sooner get into abortion than teachers worthy of the name would molest students or parents worthy of the name would pimp their kids.

Slimbags fall into every field of endeavor. That doesn't make them role models. And any doctor who aspires to be an abortionist has something fundamentally wrong with him.

Posted by: Christina at June 3, 2008 6:08 PM


Two points. One: rape, injury, and death associated with abortion are all rare. Two: abortion is not "quackery"; it works as it's supposed to almost all the time.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 4:55 PM

Yup, always AT LEAST one dead patient and maybe if the "doctor" is lucky more....

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 6:24 PM


Patricia, for an abortion doc, the fetus is not a patient.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 6:48 PM


SOMG,
Abortionists are not doctors and they should have restraining orders put on them not to come withing 1000 yards of pregnant women.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 3, 2008 7:37 PM


Patricia, for an abortion doc, the fetus is not a patient.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 6:48 PM

I'm well aware of that SoMG and neither is the woman otherwise the diagnosis and treatment would be vastly different.

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 7:49 PM


SoMG: stop perpetrating the lie that injury and death from abortion are rare. You know as well as I that the complications due to abortion are well documented.
It's pointless debating you on this point because you refuse to be intellectually honest something very disturbing but not surprising considering your involvement in abortion. Keep up the lie SoMG if you feel you must but keep it to yourself.

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 7:54 PM


"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Abortionists are not doctors"

What a stupid thing to say. Yes, of course they are, in the USA they are all MDs or DOs, licenced by the state to practice medicine (except in a few states where underling health professionals (nurses, NPs etc) are allowed to do early abortions if they are backed up by a doctor. Even in those states, MOST abortion providers are docs.) This is the sort of goofy remark that promotes the stereotype image of right-to-lifers as silly people disconnected from reality.

Patricia, you wrote: "I'm well aware of that SoMG and neither is the woman"

OF COURSE the woman is the patient. All you show by denying this is that you don't understand what the word "patient" means.

You wrote: "stop perpetrating the lie that injury and death from abortion are rare. You know as well as I that the complications due to abortion are well documented."

You are right that they are well-documented, and one of the facts about them which is well-documented is that they are rare. Very much more rare (for instance) than complications from the childbirth which the abortion prevents. (If you count a c-section as a complication, that's more than one in five.)

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 8:23 PM


Websters

Doctor:
2 a: a person skilled or specializing in healing arts

Healing:
curative: tending to cure or restore to health;

I cannot consider an abortionist a true doctor because their goal in every abortion is to destroy human life, not heal it.

And pregnancy is not a disease to be cured of.

Posted by: Bethany at June 3, 2008 8:38 PM


Christina, you mentioned: "risking getting your bowel pulled out through your vagina and ending up crapping into a bag on your belly for the rest of your life."


That risk is a reason to keep abortion legal. Injury and death from ILLEGAL abortion do NOT appear to be rare although all data from places where abortion is illegal are difficult to collect and all estimates (not just the ones from the seventies) are suspect.

In 1995, South Africa liberalized its abortion laws and documented a rapid 90% drop in the incidence of abortion-related complications.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 8:39 PM


Bethany, you wrote: "2 a: a person skilled or specializing in healing arts"

So then are those MDs who specialize in preventing illness and injury rather than healing them, dieticians, diabedicians, people who treat, rather than healing, chronic diseases like rhumatoid arthritis or parkinson's disease, are those MDs not "doctors" either?

Abortion is preventative medicine. Not healing medicine. Both are valuable.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 8:44 PM


OF COURSE the woman is the patient. All you show by denying this is that you don't understand what the word "patient" means.

No, in fact it is the abortionist that distorts the meaning of what it is to be a patient. The abortionist refuses to acknowledge that he has two patients, engaging in doublespeak and using such words as "products of conception" "fetus" (which no one else uses) and "termination". To further the delusion they define pregnancy as "implantation". How many 1000's of years have women been getting pregnant at conception and now here we learn we've all been wrong and we are not pregnant until we are "implanted". Sweet!


Abortion is a preventative? Really, now you really show who specializes in semantics. How can you prevent something that has already occurred ?-i.e. the conception and creation of a new life - a child.Pregnancy is not a disease as you would like it to be viewed as SoMG. It is a normal condition and part of a woman's life whether that woman wants it or not.

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 9:01 PM


And by the way, "patient" is a latin word which means one who suffers. If you think people don't suffer from undesired pregnancy, you are (again) denying facts which are patently obvious to everyone.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 9:02 PM


And by the way, "patient" is a latin word which means one who suffers. If you think people don't suffer from undesired pregnancy, you are (again) denying facts which are patently obvious to everyone.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 9:02 PM

So if the purpose of the doctor is to alleviate the suffering how does killing the baby inside the woman do this? Instead it breeds only more suffering. Most women KNOW this is not the answer they seek.

Let's face it SoMG, abortionists are not concerned about alleviating the suffering of women from unwanted pregnancy, they are interested in alleviating the woman from the hundreds of dollars in her pocket. Hence the million dollar homes they all live in.

A far better answer would be to help the woman through the pregnancy and provide her with alternatives after the birth of the baby.
You delude no one but yourself with your circular reasoning, quotable latin and otherwise..

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 9:10 PM


Goodnight. I need my r & r more than I need to debate your circular reasoning SoMG
Happy delusions.....

Posted by: Patricia at June 3, 2008 9:12 PM


Patricia, you wrote: " The abortionist ... has two patients"

Wrong.

You wrote: "How can you prevent something that has already occurred ?-i.e. the conception and creation of a new life - a child."

Abortion prevents labor and delivery, not conception. Similarly, chemotherapy prevents or delays the end result of cancer, not the cancer itself, which has already occurred by the time chemtherapy is applied.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 9:18 PM


And once again Somg fits the definition of a Nazi Doktor. Healing by killing.
Second. "The government has no business telling(what a word to use) people which substances they may comsume". Such great writing and thinking from Somg.
What a loon. What a idiot considering the amount of misery spread by people being "told" not to put a liquid substance in their body if they are going to drive a automobile, and after being "told" by the government not to do that, they do, and murder/kill 25,000 Americans a year, by driving DUI.
So, Somg, guess MADD is not doing the right thing by your ignorant writing that the government should not be "telling" people what substances they should put in their body.
Are you a drunk pro murdering abortionist Somg?

Posted by: yllas at June 3, 2008 9:22 PM


Bethany, you wrote: "2 a: a person skilled or specializing in healing arts"
So then are those MDs who specialize in preventing illness and injury rather than healing them, dieticians, diabedicians, people who treat, rather than healing, chronic diseases like rhumatoid arthritis or parkinson's disease, are those MDs not "doctors" either?
Abortion is preventative medicine. Not healing medicine. Both are valuable.

medicine: (medicine) something that treats or prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease

Like I said, pregnancy is not a disease.


Posted by: Bethany at June 3, 2008 9:48 PM



Abortion prevents labor and delivery, not conception. Similarly, chemotherapy prevents or delays the end result of cancer, not the cancer itself, which has already occurred by the time chemtherapy is applied.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 9:18 PM

Abortion attacks the product of conception and kills it just as chemotherapy attacks the cancer and kills it. That's about the only parallel I see between the two.


Posted by: Janet at June 3, 2008 10:03 PM


Patricia, for an abortion doc, the fetus is not a patient.
Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 6:48 PM

And by the way, "patient" is a latin word which means one who suffers. If you think people don't suffer from undesired pregnancy, you are (again) denying facts which are patently obvious to everyone.
Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 9:02 PM

So you say yourself that there are two patients in an abortion. The suffering woman with an undesired pregnancy and the fetus who suffers termination.
If you don't think a fetus suffers termination, you are denying facts which are patently obvious to everyone.


Posted by: Janet at June 3, 2008 10:09 PM


Janet, SOMG actually does think abortion is unfair for the unborn babies -I think he said he even feels sorry for them - but he thinks it's still a right for women. He calls it "justifiable homicide". This is sadly the type of person we're dealing with here.

Posted by: Bethany at June 3, 2008 10:25 PM


As Robert A. Heinlein said, an honest politician is "one who stays bought."

Gotta love Heinlein. Good going, Christina.

Posted by: Doug at June 3, 2008 10:36 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "So if the purpose of the doctor is to alleviate the suffering ..."

No, the abortion doc's purpose is to PREVENT pregnancy-related suffering, not to alleviate it. The ones who ALLEVIATE pregnancy-related suffering are mostly obstetricians and anaesthesiologists. We PREVENT it.

You wrote: "...how does killing the baby inside the woman do this?"

Have you ever gone through (a difficult) labor and delivery? Watched a (difficult) birth? Watched a patient recover from a c-section? Talked to a woman who was forced by her government to grow a pregnancy she didn't want and to give birth to a baby she didn't want? Talked to a survivor of complications from an illegal abortion (which do NOT appear to be rare in places where legal abortion is unavailable, as far as our best attempts to measure it have been able to tell)? In each case, was she suffering, yes or no? That's what we prevent.

You wrote: "abortionists are not concerned about alleviating the suffering of women from unwanted pregnancy..."

Wrong. That's the main motivating factor. That and preventing injurious self-abortion attempts.

You wrote: "..., they are interested in alleviating the woman from the hundreds of dollars in her pocket...."

Actually, abortion is not one of the greedy specialities, although I do know people who say they went into it after doing ob/gyn residency because they liked working with women patients but malpractice rates for delivering babies were too high to get started. Right now the number one greedy speciality (the career choice for MDs who say they are most interested in getting as rich as possible) is, believe it or not, dermatology, because there is still a national shortage of derms and they are still able to charge speciality-fees per procedure and to do more procedures per unit time than any other speciality doc because most skin procedures take very little time. How long this will last--how long before they get enlisted into organized, fixed-salary medicine like everybody else is anybody's guess so we'll see who gets the last laugh.

Other greedy specialities include mostly the high-tech stuff: ophthalmology, radiology, industrial research (an MD degree can substitute for an MBA and/or a PhD in several industries), orthopedic surgery (but here again you face daunting malpractice insurance costs, especially getting started) in fact I would say all specialty surgeries, head-and-neck tumor oncologists and people like that who do fellowships after their residencies and get consulting fees. (Some chemotherapist-oncologists can charge outlandish fees for the simple service of intravenously injecting medicine which could easily be done by the patient or a lower-ranking person). It can be very difficult to succeed in these fields though.

Less single-mindedly greedy ones who nonetheless want to earn well and/or acheive tenure go into things like ER, so-called "general" surgery, neurology, epidemiology, and way-out stuff like sleep specialists. The ones that don't care at all about money go into primary care--medicine, peds and general geriatrics. Some of these get forced to specialize by the need to pay overwhelming student loans.

You wrote: "Hence the million dollar homes they [abortion docs] all live in."

Ha ha.

You wrote: "A far better answer would be to help the woman through the pregnancy and provide her with alternatives after the birth of the baby."

That's up to the patient.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 10:37 PM


Janet, the fetus may be A patient but he/she is not MY patient.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 10:39 PM


I forgot to include in primary care: Adolescent medicine, which is becoming increasingly important.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 10:50 PM


Bethany, you wrote: "medicine: (medicine) something that treats or prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease ... Like I said, pregnancy is not a disease. "

First of all, you are quoting the definition of medicine as a chemical substance, "something", not someONE, as in the phrase "take your medicine". This is a different thing entirely from the PROFESSION called medicine, which was what I was referring to. Skipping lightly over this, according to your own definition of medicine as treatment or prevention of the symptoms of disease, orthopedic surgeons, who (mostly) treat injury not disease, would not be "doctors" either. Neither would obstetricians, surgical anaesthesiologists, or trauma surgeons.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 11:11 PM


Janet, you wrote: "Abortion attacks the product of conception and kills it just as chemotherapy attacks the cancer and kills it. "

That's right.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 11:18 PM


Old Somg.
"The abortion doc is to prevent pregnancy related suffering".
Patient; I'm suffering.
Killing Doktor; From what?
Patient; From being with a human being, that makes me suffer.
Doktor; Well, you've come to the right Doktor. I will heal your suffering by killing a human being.
Patient; Is killing a human being against the law?
Doktor; No, I have a license to murder/kill human beings that makes people suffer.
Patient; Who gave you that license?
Doktor; Well, the healing profession of medicine does not offer a license for killing human beings normally, but the government, or more specifically, some guys in black robes gave me the right, and have given me the license to heal suffering by murdering human beings.
Patient; Can you hurry, this human being I have created, with another human being , is making me
suffer more and more every minute of the my life.
Doktor; Got any money?
Patient; No, well 20 bucks maybe.
Doktor; Suffer then.

Posted by: yllas at June 3, 2008 11:25 PM


Some of you were quoting Heinlein a while ago? Here's some for you:

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it. [Notebooks of Lazarus Long]"

Much more here:

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_RHeinlein.htm

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 11:27 PM



"History does not record at any time that science fiction has any rational basis. Science Fiction is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people have a fiction of science and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it".
Arnold the Terminator.

Posted by: yllas at June 3, 2008 11:52 PM


SomMG, you said: "Government has no business telling people which substances they may consume and which they may not."

That along with socilized medicine/health care? Right?

Posted by: Charles at June 4, 2008 12:03 AM


Charles, those are two completely different questions. At first glance I see no connection or similarity between them at all. Maybe you can explain why you put them together.

Posted by: SoMG at June 4, 2008 12:06 AM


A test of intellectual integrity and propaganda.
Somg, wrote that government has no business telling people what substances they may consume...".
Care to retract that statement, Somg? AS in, I wrote a poorly reasoned statement.
Or are you going to defend a statement that denys a reality that does not allow hunderds of substances to be consumed by the government, and the medical profession?
By what authority do write such ignorant, foolishly reasoned statements Somg? The authority of Jack Daniel's?

Posted by: yllas at June 4, 2008 12:20 AM


Please stop making atheists look bad. I don't need a make-believe deity to tell me that killing our babies in the womb when we should be nurturing and protecting them is overwhelmingly wrong, and certainly shouldn't be allowed by law. And also, my mother used to do some bookkeeping for an ob. who performed abortions, and says they were quite lucrative, so don't try to feed me this b.s.

Posted by: xalisae at June 4, 2008 12:28 AM


Xalisae, how long ago was that and how lucrative? Planned Parenthood pays between $50.00 and $100.00 per abortion. No one pays more than $500.00 except to late-termers who are very few.

Posted by: SoMG at June 4, 2008 12:44 AM


Hey Somg.
Since your business is licensed by a state authority, do abortion m.d,s have to take a continuing education course to keep their m.d license approved and not revoked/suspended by the state licensing authority for abortion m.d's?
Even a plumber or electrician, or insurance adjuster, must take continuing education courses, which he/she pays for, to continue their professional career.
Or do abortion doktors, have no state agency assuring that the professional killer of human beings, is keeping up with the continuing science of killing human beings as a m.d.?

Posted by: yllas at June 4, 2008 12:52 AM


Yllas, I usually ignore you because your posts are incoherent and combative but since you have asked a real question I will answer: Licencing requirements vary from state to state.

Posted by: SoMG at June 4, 2008 1:25 AM


SoMG: oh, the old religion is a crutch argument.
PLeeeaaase give up on that one. It's so passe.

Posted by: Patricia at June 4, 2008 6:12 AM


Hey, I wasn't the one who started quoting Heinlein.

Posted by: SoMG at June 4, 2008 6:21 AM


Yllas 11:25, exactly!

Posted by: Bethany at June 4, 2008 6:48 AM


Have you ever gone through (a difficult) labor and delivery? Watched a (difficult) birth? Watched a patient recover from a c-section? Talked to a woman who was forced by her government to grow a pregnancy she didn't want and to give birth to a baby she didn't want? Talked to a survivor of complications from an illegal abortion (which do NOT appear to be rare in places where legal abortion is unavailable, as far as our best attempts to measure it have been able to tell)? In each case, was she suffering, yes or no? That's what we prevent.

As a matter of fact, I have gone through a difficult labour AND I have been so glad to have come through it. Most women I know care about the baby and that the baby is all right. They would gladly suffer to help the baby.

You "prevent" the above by the death of the other patient. YOu PREVENT NOTHING.You don't use your skills to heal but to destroy. Face it SoMG - that's what YOU DO.

My question to YOU: have you ever met and talked with women who have suffered as a result of LEGAL abortions?
Have you talked to the women who can't have babies because they are now sterile from what YOU did to them?
Have you spoken with those women who have spent agonizing YEARS regretting their abortions?
Have you answered those who are say they were pushed back down on the table, lied to, coerced into aborting their babies by doctors, clinic staff, parents, and partners? Or do you just blow them off with more proabort rhetoric like the stuff you use on this board?
Do you stand up to their faces and quote your statistics about how many women died from illegal abortion before Roe? Do you tell them they are the lucky ones because their abortions were legal and safe?
I dare you SoMG to personally go to a rally where there are women present who regret their abortions and TALK to them. Tell them what YOU do and what YOU support. Hear their perspective and their stories. I DARE YOU to do this.

Posted by: Patricia at June 4, 2008 7:23 AM


SoMG,

Which procedure do you prefer to perform, surgical abortion or administering RU486? Which do you find easier on the adult patient, surgical abortion or RU486?

Posted by: carder at June 4, 2008 7:29 AM


I second what Patricia said and would direct those same questions to anyone on this board who supports abortion.

Posted by: Carla at June 4, 2008 7:30 AM


Patricia,

SoMG is not one to act on dares. I recall almost a year ago another poster (Christina?)who dared him to name one good abortionist for every bad abortionist that she would post.

We're still waiting.

Posted by: carder at June 4, 2008 7:32 AM



Somg.
Which states, demand as a condition to keep their m.d. license "state approved", a "continuing education" course on the medical science of abortion? Name one, and then direct me to the board that offers such continuing education for abortion science as a condition of keeping a medical license.
Your the expert, and you should have named any courses a m.d must take, as a continuing education course, to keep his license approved by the state concerning abortion science.
Also, ignoring the fact that you wrote a logically incoherent statement concerning government and "telling people what substances they may consume", is why I ignore your post. The ranting of a person who is a professional killer of human beings, and who has no intellectual integrity to correct a falacious statement, allows one to conclude your a third rate propagandist.
Now you third rate propagandist, for the murder of human beings, there are no continuing education courses concerning the science of abortion as a condition of a m.d. to keep his license approved by the state.
Which is why the doktor that "services", and practices abortion is at the bottom of the science of medicine. There are no state requirements to continue being educated in the science of abortion. Any continuing education, a m.d. "gets", is offered by the manufacturers of abortion medical equipment. What a joke.
A person who services and "practices" refrigeration, services and practices plumbing, services the dead, and on and on, must take courses to keep a state approved license.
All states demand a professional to take continuing ed. to keep a license "state approved". But, not those that murder human beings as a "practice".



Posted by: yllas at June 4, 2008 7:35 AM


SoMG,

Which procedure do you prefer to perform, surgical abortion or administering RU486? Which do you find easier on the adult patient, surgical abortion or RU486?

Posted by: carder at June 4, 2008 7:29 AM

WELL, I can answer that one for SoMG. The RU-486. He doesn't have to face what he's done - only the woman does. She goes home and bleeds the baby out.

Posted by: Patricia at June 4, 2008 7:39 AM


work calls. Have a nice day, all.

Posted by: Patricia at June 4, 2008 7:47 AM


SoMG, you said: "Charles, those are two completely different questions. At first glance I see no connection or similarity between them at all. Maybe you can explain why you put them together."

If you want the governmnet to allow individuals to legally inject drugs into thier system, then tell me, who pays for the medical care and social costs for this? I'll tell you who, the taxpayer. When a person engages in those recklace activities it is the innocent members of society that pay the price. Today, we pay this indirectly through health care premiums; but at least have the govnernment to condone and punish the costly activity. But if you open the floodgates, and allow everyone to do drugs, then the healthcare providers and society are going to get killed on premiums caring for the after affects. Now, with socilized medicine, we see the same behavior; since there is nothing in that type of system to reward healthy members of society who do not take risks. e.g. smoking

Posted by: Charles at June 4, 2008 9:28 AM


SOMG 1:25am

Obviously. Apparently the state of Kansas does not require that abortion clinic personnel like Tiller's, who supervise aborting patients in hotel rooms and administer drugs as they see fit, be properly trained and licensed. Hiring people off the street to do this is considered acceptable.
I can't imagine any other circumstances where this would be the case.

Posted by: Mary at June 4, 2008 10:09 AM


Janet, you wrote: "Abortion attacks the product of conception and kills it just as chemotherapy attacks the cancer and kills it. "

That's right.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 11:18 PM

My point being that abortion is not preventative medicine as you stated earlier. It is an intervention, IMO.

Abortion is preventative medicine. Not healing medicine. Both are valuable.

Posted by: SoMG at June 3, 2008 8:44 PM


Posted by: Janet at June 4, 2008 11:32 AM


The abortionist SoMg, when confronted with legitimate questions...who is always so willing to defend his "work", suddenly VANISHES.

WHY would I expect anything less?

Posted by: Mike at June 4, 2008 10:28 PM


Mike,

Maybe he's pulling double shifts?

Posted by: carder at June 5, 2008 7:52 AM


Carder, 7:32, from what I recall, we never even saw ONE name provided.


Posted by: Bethany at June 5, 2008 8:11 AM


Carder, you wrote: "Which procedure do you prefer to perform, surgical abortion or administering RU486? "

I'm pretty much indifferent between surgical vs medical abortion. It's up to the patient. But for surgical abortion I prefer methotrexate over RU-486 because 1. We know more about methotrexate, it's been around longer, 2. If the patient's pregnancy is tubal, methotrexate will take care of it but RU-486 will not.

You wrote: "Which do you find easier on the adult patient, surgical abortion or RU486?"

Surgical abortion is much less uncomfortable. Medical abortion causes mild-to-severe cramping.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 3:28 PM


Bethany, I have no problem providing a FEW names of good abortionists: David Grimes, Phil Darney, George Tiller, Warren Hern, Suzanne Poppema. I'm just not willing to post the names of my collegues on a right-to-life site--I don't think they'd appreciate it if I did that.

You don't research lists of bad abortionists either--you copy them off other right-to-life sites which do the work for you.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 3:32 PM


Mary, I don't know anything about the licence-renewal laws in Kansas.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 3:35 PM


Patricia, you wrote: "My question to YOU: have you ever met and talked with women who have suffered as a result of LEGAL abortions? "

Sometimes women like this come and give talks to Students for Life or whatever and I have talked with some of them. The funny thing is, (in my experience at least) they have ALL been members of right-to-life cults or sects which have open political agendas and the ability to exert at least SOME control over what their members think. So I wonder, which is the true cause of these women's suffering, the abortion or the religion/cult/sect? I have NEVER met a woman who said she regretted her abortion and was NOT a member of a right-to-life cult or sect.

"Have you talked to the women who can't have babies because they are now sterile from what YOU did to them? "

Sterility as a consequence of abortion is very rare. Although I don't have numbers at hand right now, I would bet that it is more or less as rare as sterility from complicated childbirth.

If any of MY patients ever became sterile because of the abortion I did for them, they never told me. This makes me suspect that there aren't any--if there were, I'd expect them to sue me.

You wrote: "Have you spoken with those women who have spent agonizing YEARS regretting their abortions? "

See above.

"Have you answered those who are say they were pushed back down on the table, lied to, coerced into aborting their babies by doctors, clinic staff, parents, and partners?"

I know of no such cases. Only internet rumors spread by right-to-lifers. But if you are really concerned about coerced abortion, then you ought to support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee on the federal level every woman's right to keep her pregnancy if she wishes to do so.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 3:48 PM


Charles, you wrote:"If you want the governmnet to allow individuals to legally inject drugs into thier system, then tell me, who pays for the medical care and social costs for this? I'll tell you who, the taxpayer. "

The taxpayer also pays the cost of keeping non-violent drug-only offenders in jail. I'd have to look it up to be sure, but I have heard that it costs more today to keep someone in jail than to send them to Yale. Additionally, people contract chronic diseases in jail (AIDS is only one of them) which must be treated at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. Also, putting non-violent drug-only offenders in prison where they are exposed to hard-core criminal culture carries an enormous social cost. It's a recipe for turning non-violent criminals into violent ones.

Which costs the taxpayer more-- jailing non-violent drug-only offenders or legalizing all drugs-- is currently an unanswered question, not the obvious one you seem to think it is.

Finally, I would argue that the institution called government has no RIGHT to tell people which chemicals they may consume and which they may not. This is an ethically non-permissable violation of intrinsic human freedom, disallowed by higher moral law regardless of what the consequences are.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 4:09 PM


Janet, you wrote: "My point being that abortion is not preventative medicine as you stated earlier. It is an intervention, IMO. "

Just because it's an intervention doesn't mean it's not preventative medicine. Profilactic bilateral mastectomy on a patient with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer is certainly an intervention but it is also preventative medicine.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 5:23 PM


Bethany, another high-quality abortion doc who I don't think would mind having his name posted on this site (although he has a Napolean complex and is not always polite to his colleagues): Richard U. Hausknecht of NYC, who was one of the first to use methotrexate. He may have retired though.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 5:32 PM


You don't research lists of bad abortionists either--you copy them off other right-to-life sites which do the work for you.

Well, I kind of think all abortionists are bad...not just some on a list, but you are right that I get my list of those police records and court cases about different abortionists from pro-life websites.

Thanks for listing names. Out of curiosity, why do you include George Tiller on your list, when he obviously involved in many illegal activities?

What in your opinion makes him "good" other than he's "good at what he does" (which you could say about a rapist, a pedophile, a thief, etc- 'he's good at what he does')...What makes him "good"?

Also, can you tell me how many of your colleagues are what you would consider "good abortionists", and without using their names, maybe you could explain what makes them "good" as opposed to what you consider to be "bad" abortionists. I am genuinely curious as to your thoughts.

Posted by: Bethany at June 5, 2008 6:37 PM


Bethany, "bad" abortion docs are first and formost dangerous abortion docs, those who leave fetal or placental tissue behind frequently (more than the background rate--everyone misses some occasionally), those who perforate the uterus (again, more than background rate--everyone perforates the uterus sometimes). And someone like Lawrence Reich who tried to have sex with his patients, I'd call him a bad abortion doc. I guess any characteristic that makes a person a bad doctor will make that person a bad abortion doc.

A good abortion doc is one who is not dangerous to patients and who behaves like a good doctor.

I have no colleagues who are bad abortionists. I wouldn't work with them.

You wrote: "Out of curiosity, why do you include George Tiller on your list, when he obviously involved in many illegal activities? "

First of all, as a matter of legal fact, whether or not Tiller is or has been involved in any illegal activities is yet to be determined. If you published the above sentence today without inserting "allegedly" he could sue you for libel and win. It is more objectively descriptive of the facts to say: he's being investigated by a right-to-life goon who hopes to increase his future campaign fundraising ability by becoming known as Tiller's enemy, regardless of whether or not he thinks Tiller is guilty of anything, and who was voted out of the Attorney General's Office by the irritated citizens of Kansas and has unfortunately recurred like a case of genital warts. Secondly, if he (Tiller) has broken any laws the constitutionality of those laws is still in question, or was at the time he allegedly broke them. Thirdly, the laws he is alleged to have broken have nothing whatsoever to do with his medical competence. I have known MANY very good docs who broke or ignored the laws that are supposed to govern their profession. Mostly surgeons, especially trauma surgeons. I'm talking about first-rate pros--people I'd choose for my own care if I needed someone to do what they do.

To answer your question, I (and so far as I know most members of the medical community who have interacted with him) consider Tiller a good doctor for at least three reasons:

1. He's very good at his job. He's reliable. Your patient is very unlikely to die or suffer lasting harm under his care.

2. He has helped improve abortifacient technology, he's a leader in his field, and

3. He continued to practice even after being shot by a right-to-life terrorist. Gotta admire his guts.

Another reason people admire him which has nothing to do with abortion: he conquered a very challenging addiction to opiate painkillers and now serves on the medical board (I forget its name) which deals with drug-impaired physicians.

Posted by: SoMG at June 5, 2008 9:34 PM


Thanks for your reply, SOMG. I think I understand your point of view...although I disagree (but that goes without saying, I guess).

" I guess any characteristic that makes a person a bad doctor will make that person a bad abortion doc."

I agree that is the case, but I disagree that you mean this statement, exactly as said. Because one quality that would definitely make any other doctor "bad" would be the fact that this "doctor" was using his skills to kill a human being every day, purposefully.

Also, this statement I am curious about:

I have no colleagues who are bad abortionists. I wouldn't work with them.

How do you know Doctor Defense, who seems to share a computer with you at times?

Posted by: Bethany at June 6, 2008 7:24 AM


"History does not record at any time that religion has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people have a fiction of religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it".

Fixed. Now is perfect.

Posted by: Jurgen at June 6, 2008 9:54 AM


"Posted by: yllas"

How stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 6, 2008 10:08 AM


Bethany, Doctor Defense is not an abortionist.

Posted by: SoMG at June 6, 2008 8:59 PM


Really? I guess I just assumed he was, since you share a computer...also, I thought I remembered you saying that you two work together?

Posted by: Bethany at June 7, 2008 4:49 PM


Bethany, is that another "Detective's Secret Decoder Ring" I see on your finger?

Posted by: Doug at June 8, 2008 10:22 AM