Tonight on NBC's Law & Order: Late-term abortionist shot in church

NBC, Law and Order, late-term abortion doctor murdered in church 2.jpg

Friday night, NBC's Law & Order , which follows the headlines, will dramatize this one: A 3rd trimester abortionist is shot in church. The episode will air at 8p ET/7p CT.

Preshow reviews...

From Entertainment Weekly:

The episode called "Dignity" begins with the murder of a doctor who performs abortions - he's shot while praying in church.

NBC Law & Order, Richard Thomas, abortion.jpg

The killer is represented in court by an anti-abortion league lawyer played by Richard Thomas with perfectly calibrated restraint. Indeed, this is the performance NBC should be touting this week: Thomas is nuanced where everyone around him is encouraged to take sides and squabble. It's all rather too neat: The show's 2 cops, Lupo and Bernard, and its 2 Assistant District Attorneys, Cutter and Rubirosa, each take either a pro-life or pro-choice stand... at least, initially.

I don't want to give more away; let me just say that by the end of this Law & Order, the drama runs more deeply, more effectively, because characters behave like humans. They think and reconsider; they debate and shift their positions slightly, this way and that. And I think you'll be surprised at the low-key but still quite shocking final scene.


REASON TO WATCH: An episode that deals with abortion, with surprises. One of them - a starring role by Richard "John-Boy Walton" Thomas.

NBC, Law & Order, abortion, shocked pastor.jpg

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: In the opening scene, a man is greeting parishioners at a church, and when he enters the church alone, the camera reveals he is hiding a gun under his belt. Moments later, he takes a seat when - bang - he's dead. Someone has come up from behind and shot him.

NBC, Law & Order, abortion, carried out on stretcher.jpg

The man turns out to be an abortion doctor - someone who specializes in late-term abortions, to be exact. Could the killer be among the opponents of abortion who have picketed his practice? Or perhaps the anxious father who tried to prevent his daughter from aborting her fetus that has a rare but possibly fatal genetic disease? This is an episode where "moral dilemma" is writ large - even larger than usual.

BOTTOM LINE: Abortion-rights advocate or opponent of abortion? What position would you expect someone like Det. Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) take? How about assistant district attorney Connie Rubirosa (Alana De La Garza), or her superior, Michael Cutter (Linus Roache)? Or, how about you? This is an episode where the characters reveal their own inner turmoil on the question. The episode, "Dignity," can be a bit preachy and speech-y, but it's also surprisingly emotional. Meanwhile, whether you're an abortion-rights advocate or an opponent - at least the late-term debate gets an intelligent hearing.

Finally, the New York Times:

NBC, Law & Order, pro-life protest, abortion.png

Law & Order, the long-running NBC series about crime and punishment, rarely shies away from inflammatory topics, and Friday night it takes on one of the most contentious - abortion - for just the third time in the program's 20 seasons.

In the show's customary ripped-from-the-headlines style, the new episode focuses on the murder, in a church, of a doctor who performs late-term abortions. Though the episode... begins with the disclaimer that the story "is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event," its outlines closely track the case of Dr. George Tiller, a prominent provider of late-term abortions who was shot and killed in a church in Wichita, KS, on May 31.

Leading up to what is essentially a character-driven debate about abortion, NBC has tread a fine line between promoting the episode and its topic to attract viewers to an otherwise slow night of television and trying not to draw too much attention to it....

NBC, Law & Order, abortion, shocked woman.jpg

Dick Wolf, the creator and an executive producer of the series... called it "the most controversial episode of the series" since it first addressed the topic in its debut season.

Law & Order has twice before addressed abortion, in 1991 with "Life Choice," a first-season episode about the bombing of an abortion clinic, and in 1995, its fifth season, with "Progeny," which also focused on the murder of a doctor who provided abortions.

Friday's episode does weave some significant twists of plot and character into the drama, with police officers and assistant district attorneys sometimes taking forceful stands on one side of the abortion debate or the other, only to later express doubt when their involvement in the case becomes more personal.

Abortion has been a sensitive topic for networks and advertisers at least since 1972, when an episode of Maude on CBS wrestled with the topic. The broadcast drew many complaints and most advertisers shunned the episode when it was repeated during the summer....

I'll be in the air when this show airs tonight, so I'll be interested in your reviews. I expect the show will throw ideological bones to both sides but ultimately come down favoring pro-aborts.


Law & Order has had some really messed up plot lines degrading pro-lifers in the past.

Hopefully this one kind of makes up for it.

Kind of.

Posted by: Ezek1319 at October 23, 2009 1:03 AM

Maybe they'll do an episode about a pro-life activist shot while demonstrating, too.

Posted by: bmmg39 at October 23, 2009 1:30 AM

Kathy Shaidle always maintained that more abortionists are shot on Law and Order than in real life. Looks like she's right.

Posted by: Louise at October 23, 2009 5:54 AM

As a ['duh dunhk'] Law and Order fan who has watched the show from it's inception, I have always enjoyed the overall quality of the production.

Having said that, Law and Order has been, in all it's permuations, predominantly liberal and abortion friendly in it's presentation.

If the chararacters are pro-life, conservative, or christian or any combination of above they are seldom presented in a positive light.

If the characters are aboriton rights advocates, liberal, or anything but christian, they are presented in a more balanced way.

The producers and writers probably have very few pro-life, conservative, or christian friends. That is why characters who are any of the above are more like 'sterotypes' than real people.

You know, eerily like Hollywood and the lame scream media.

From an artistic standpoint Law and Order has produced very few lame episodes. But I would not be surprised if tonights episode fails to meet their usual artistic standard.

The bigotry will kick in and it will compromise their usual high standards.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 23, 2009 6:48 AM

That's what I had said about LAST week's episode, because part of the plot involved the murder of an abortionist, but they managed to make the rest of the episode about something else. I love the show, but there is an OBVIOUS bias against Christians, Pro-Lifers and Conservatives. Too bad they can't just make a t.v. show and leave their own 'politics' out of it. :(

Posted by: Pamela at October 23, 2009 9:37 AM

"We're dealing with an issue here that goes to the very history of our existance."

That line gives me hope that it will depict fair and balanced arguements for both sides, as opposed to just making those who are pro-life look like discompassionate, bible toting crazies.
Hopefully they won't disappoint....

Posted by: Stephanie at October 23, 2009 9:43 AM

Won't be watching lib television milking Tiller's corpse in order to fertilize their ratings.

Posted by: pharmer at October 23, 2009 9:44 AM

I'm with you on that pharmer. Why watch something that marginalizes, ridicules, or misrepressents my views? Come to think of it, that sounds like most shows on television . . .

Posted by: Phillymiss at October 23, 2009 11:41 AM

Phillymiss wrote:

Why watch something that marginalizes, ridicules, or misrepressents my views? Come to think of it, that sounds like most shows on television...

You're not kidding! A small portion of "fasting" from what we otherwise enjoy might be in order, here. This reminds me just a bit of the classic story of the "dog poop brownies", where people say, "But I so-ooooooo want to watch it, cuz it's so-ooooooo good of a show, y'know? I won't be affected by the pro-death taint, because--so long as I know about the problem beforehand--I'm never affected by shows that I watch religiously and can't miss and would die if it were canceled!"

Seriously. Take a night off, and re-read Tolkien, or go swimming, or actually talk to your spouse, or something!

Posted by: Paladin at October 23, 2009 12:27 PM

"against Christians"

i.e. 'how certain people define being one'

Posted by: Joe at October 23, 2009 12:41 PM

As to the 'liberal' nature of the show ... it favors the prosecution and provides a continual caricature of defense attorneys as gleeful schemers always ridiculing the prosecution, which on the other hand is consistently a nuanced bunch that often are the ones that protect the innocent accused. The police also are far from consistently liberal.

A completely "liberal" show would not suggest the people are protected by "two" groups -- the police and prosecutors.

Posted by: Joe at October 23, 2009 2:59 PM

Don't look for any accuracy or objectivity in this episode. Law and Order makes no secret of its bias when it comes to abortion.
I saw "Life Choice" and it was so ridiculous it insulted the viewers' intelligence.

A clinic is blown up and a young woman who was apparently carrying the bomb was killed in the clinic. She had come for an abortion and it was unlikely she knew she had a bomb.
In the course of their investigation the detectives determine she was a teacher at a Catholic school(big surprise). Just to make certain the viewer knows this there are at least 15,000 nuns running on the school set.
Also, just in case you didn't notice the 15,000 nuns and couldn't figure out for yourself the woman was Catholic, the detectives search her room which is swamped in Catholic religious artifacts.
Someone needs to tell the producers that religious stereotyping can be a tad overdone and that their bigotry could be considerably less blatant.

Her parents are totally indifferent when told of their daughter's death. I can't recall if they thought she got what she deserved as she planned to have an abortion or they were glad she blew the place up. Whatever, it didn't matter. They couldn't care less that she was dead. Typical pro-life parents. Again producers, the overdone stereotyping is beginning to border on the ridiculous!

Anyway, the detectives come across a picture of her at her brother's construction company. Dahhhhhh, wanna guess what that tells the detectives. Think hard. Bingo, she has access to dynamite!!!

Uh, producers, this is becoming simple minded. I must tell you I have seen "The Three Stooges" solve more complex crimes and in far less time.

Now who pray tell put the dynamite in the package she was carrying?? Of course we check out the local pro life organization. Its run by a woman who looks like a cross between the late J.Edgar Hoover and and a pitbull with all the charm and personality you would expect from such a cross.

Anyway, they question the package she was noted to have carried on the day the clinic blew. She even stopped for tea. Turns out it had the bomb in it. This lady has quite a set of steel cojones.
She gave it to the Catholic woman I don't recall under what pretense, perhaps a gift, knowing she was on her way to have an abortion.
The Catholic woman, a member of this PL group and of course a rank hypocrite as are most PL people, supported clinic violence and supplied the dynamite expecting it to be used to blow up a clinic, presumably not one she was in. Poor dear, she didn't realize she would be the mule carrying the dynamite into the clinic. Ya see, she didn't think anyone suspected she was pregnant and having an abortion. Nothing escapes the leader of the PL group who not only has cojones of steel but is apparently clairvoyant as well.

The PL woman is tried and it comes out that she is indeed guilty. On the stand she is asked if she realized that by killing the Catholic woman she was killing her unborn baby as well. A real Perry Mason moment. The woman looked dumbstruck, dahhhh, really her expression seemed to say? It never occured to her. Puh-leeze.

A co-worker of mine who described herself as totally neutral on abortion had only one comment about the show: Oh,wasn't that ridiculous?"

That's as unbiased an opinion as you can get.

Posted by: Mary at October 23, 2009 3:31 PM

Instead of griping about what we all know is coming, we need to ask ourselves: WHEN IS EWTN GOING TO DO MORE THAN BROADCAST CHURCH & THEOLOGY DISCUSSIONS? Why are there no excellent dramatic television shows being produced for EWTN that would exceed "Law & Order" in intelligence & quality, not to mention a concept for a show that could eclipse "Touched By An Angel" in popularity?

I personally don't want to waste my time crying over bad entertainment on TV if no one in the entire conservative world can come up with an alternative that is watchable.

Posted by: MEL at October 23, 2009 5:28 PM

ALSO--it seems by the advertisement that they made up a convenient fictional ending as they usually do to confuse people into thinking that the entire show was "ripped from the headlines" beginning to end. Pro-lifers need to clear up the confusion of reality & fiction that L&O deliberately creates.

Posted by: MEL at October 23, 2009 5:32 PM

Hmmmm.Just got done watching it and I was surprised. I would say the pro life points were there. And right before the vote on Health Care reform with taxpayer abortions.

Posted by: Maria at October 23, 2009 8:02 PM

Invites Phillymiss,Paladin and all others to the 'blow up your TV club'.

My Phun is on the internet. The boob tube is so worthless, we have never gotten cable, and the screen is really there for movies, and some old sci fi.

Mary, how did you manage to sit through that ????

Posted by: Pharmer at October 23, 2009 8:08 PM

Hi Pharmer,

Believe me, it wasn't easy. I was more bothered by the complete disregard for the intelligence of the viewers, mine included, than anything. The overdone stereotyping was almost laughable. The "police work" wasn't worthy of "The Three Stooges".
The producers are so caught up in their own bigotry they don't realize how ridiculous they make themselves look, sort of like Archie Bunker.

Posted by: Mary at October 23, 2009 8:25 PM

Well, I was wanting to watch it, with hesitancy (I cringed when I saw the headline of your post), but alas, we don't have cable & can't pick up NBC or CBS on our antenna & so missed that episode.

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 23, 2009 8:43 PM

I only watched the first 1/2 hour of it, but I missed the "murder" in the beginning. I wasn't too impressed, and didn't have an urge to watch the rest of it. I watched the Hal Lindsey report instead. Pretty interesting stuff...

While the US is going on and on about healthcare reform, there's a big thing that will probably happen (IMO) on December 14, 2009. Don't know if you've heard about it or not, but for those who are interested in bible prophesy, this one's a doozy.

Lord Christopher Monckton, who is a well-established critic of global warming, addressed an audience in St. Paul a couple of weeks ago and made these remarks, which were transcribed by Walter Scott Hudson, at the blog Fightin' Words, from an audio recording: CHILLING.

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!"

(my comments)

Now, the treaty still has to be ratified by 2/3ds of the Senate, but what are the odds of the senate going against Obama and the climate change fanatics?

A One World Government is closer than we may think. This is going to be very interesting to watch. December 14, 2009 may be a very dreary day. I pray the President does not sign it....

Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 8:44 PM

I couldn't watch it..I just couldn't. I watched about 5 minutes of it, and that was enough for me. I made sort of an 'oops' in my earlier post. I watch LAW & ORDER: SVU, I don't usually watch the other L&O versions. They ARE usually 'skewed' to the liberal view.

Posted by: Pamela at October 23, 2009 8:57 PM


I had read about the treaty as well and J.R. Church covered it on Prophecy in the News. Redistribution of wealth worldwide orchestrated by "climate debt" payments to third world nations. Diabolically clever. Devilishly ingenious. I visited a site about the Copenhagen conference to glean more & it says the treaty will go into effect in 2012.

Posted by: klynn73 at October 23, 2009 9:01 PM


I could never figure out how a one world government could possibly be formed. I've been wondering how alot of things lately, that I used to think could NEVER happen, actually do happen.

Do you think Obama will sign it?

Even if he doesn't get the two-thirds senate vote on it, can he sign it anyway like Al Gore did with the Kyoto treaty? My understanding of it, is that if we sign it, we're bound to it by the world, not by our constitution. There won't be a darned thing, once it's signed, that we can do to get out of it.

What do you think?

Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 9:07 PM


I believe if you look back over history, at least in the 20th century, most if not all the 'events' and/or 'personalities' were at hand to satisfy the then popular understanding of the 'end' as christians understood it at the time.

When that time comes, however we understand it or more likely misunderstand it now, Holy Spirit, will not let us be caught 'unawares' to use the King James terminology.

Now we may hear and choose not to listen, but I do not believe the 'end' will come with the body of Christ in some sort of state of bewilderment about what is transpiring.

HE alone is able to make us stand. (Eph 5:25-27, 1 Cor 1:7-8, 1 Thes 3:13, Jude 1:24-25.)

Our responsibility as I understand it is to grow in love for God, for ourselves and for one another and for those who have not yet been born again of the Spirit and baptized into the body of Christ by Holy Spirit.

We should all take note of the spirit of fear, who is ministering fear, out of fear as opposed to the ones who minister faith, hope and love.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 23, 2009 9:18 PM


With all due respect, I don't understand what you were trying to tell me in your post. I'm sorry. Can you clarify?

Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 9:30 PM


A great point. Maybe an elderly PL person peacefully carrying a sign who's gunned down in front of a school, also putting students at risk, would be a great scenario.

Posted by: Mary at October 23, 2009 9:37 PM


Men and women who have to come up with something fresh every week often resort to 'fear' to keep their audience coming back week after week so they will not miss a key clue to Christ's imminent return.

The 'inside information' is often intriguing.

The point, if I really had one, was that God is perfectly capable of communicating with each one of us individually and/or corporately without an intermediary or a medium like the radio, T.V., movies, internet, etc.

You know GOD and you are a student of the 'book'.

Take note of the 'fear' merchants. Though they may possess a head knowledge of the book, they lack a heart/spirit knowledge of the AUTHOR.

Paul wrote the scriptures were a tutor to lead us to Christ/Jesus. But there was no bible when Paul wrote those words. In fact there was no bible for about 300 years (I believe.) There were no dedicated buildings. No phones, faxes, internet, T.V., radio, cell phones, etc.

So how did the body of Christ manage to spread the good news of Jesus Christ and the gospel of the kingdom of God?

Jesus, whom you know, promised HE would send Holy Spirit and H.S. would lead us, teach us, counsel us, guide us and abide with us and in us.

There is a prophecy teacher who has a daily radio show and with each new discovery/development Armagedon is the next foot to fall.

(I am 'hyping', but just a little bit.)

For what would you trade the kingdom of God, if as Paul wrote, the kingdom of God is not [rules and regulations] about meat or drink. [The kingdom of God is not the 'law'].

The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy and in and out of the Holy Spirit. If something impinges on or robs you of any of these three Spiritual realities, then it is probably not from GOD.

While B.O. may be 'an' anti-christ, he has not yet produced the 'bona fides' to qualify as 'the' anti-christ. Though some of his admirers may want to elevate his status to that of a 'god', B.O. has demonstrated no measureable proof that he possesses any understanding nor proficiency in spiritual things.

He is all boots and no beef.

B.O. does practice deception, but without the assistance of the msm even that would not be effective.

Can you imagine what would happen if B.O. signed the treaty you mentioned and the Senate actually showed signs of ratifying it. There would be a lot more than million people marching on D.C., especially if the economy is a bad or worse than it is now.

Jesus says be aware of the times, watch and pray, be of good cheer. I AM in your midst. No one can snatch you from MY hand and nothing can separate you from MY love.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 23, 2009 10:34 PM

I saw the middle twenty minutes of the program and was happily surprised to see the TOTAL SHOCK on the (prosecutor's?) face when told by an ex-employee of the abortuary that the abortionist delivered a live baby and asked the mother if she wanted him to finish the job (or wording to that effect) - meaning kill the BORN 7-month old. The mom said "yes", so he did.

I hope our President and government leaders were watching had had the same look of shock on their faces. Lord have mercy.

Posted by: Janet at October 23, 2009 10:59 PM


I hope our President and government leaders were watching and had the same look of shock on their faces.

Posted by: Janet at October 23, 2009 11:02 PM


Thank you for that. I really appreciate you taking the time to write all of that for me!

I'm not scared, though. I anticipate Jesus' return with great joy. It's my blessed hope!

I don't think Obama is the antichrist either.

I don't know the day or hour, but I do know that Jesus will return soon. I find it fascinating to watch bible prophecy unfold before my eyes. I'm not saying that the one world government will begin on December 14th, but it is intersting to watch. And I do believe it's a chilling development. I'm saddened for what is going to happen to the country I love.

At some point in time, these things will happen. If anything, it gets my rear in gear to talk to unbelievers about Jesus more than I ever have, and pray more, too. In fact, I used to be reserved with talking about Jesus in public. I wasn't ashamed...just reserved. Now, if an opportunity arises to share the Good News, I'm on it!

Thank you so much again for sharing that. I'll have to remember what you said here - it really resignated with me:

"The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy and in and out of the Holy Spirit. If something impinges on or robs you of any of these three Spiritual realities, then it is probably not from GOD."

Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 11:08 PM


To answer your question, I believe he will sign. Congress? We don't need no stinkin' Congress! The biggest obstacle to a one world government is nations' resistance to yielding sovereignty. Do the words "never waste a good crisis" ring a bell? And if one crisis isn't good enough, create another. The idea of climate debt payments hadn't occurred to me, but Monckton's underlying thrust was that the unscientific so-called threat of global warming is just a tool to accomplish the goal of global governance. There are certainly other crises that make people more willing to trade sovereignty for "peace and safety", of course. With the Chinese holding 25% of our national debt, the Japanese another 20%, and the gov't spending like and entire fleet of drunken sailors (to borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan), the economic outlook for the US is questionable.

I don't say any of these things in a spirit of fear, and it is regrettable that some teachers of prophecy try to jam events into a pet scenario. However, one fifth of the Bible is prophecy, God regards it highly (the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy Rev. 19:10) and believers are not to be caught unaware: "But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Luke 21:28

I agree with Ken that personalities have been around and events have aligned for potential Armageddon in the recent past, as well (I say recent because Israel had to be a state again, first). If Jesus said only the Father knows the timing, Satan certainly does not know and has groomed many in preparation. My response to world events unfolding in harmony with prophecy is awe and reverence for the word of God, and a renewed spirit of urgency. What would the world look like if every believer served God and carried out the Great Commission as if every day were one day nearer to seeing Jesus Christ? The bad humor of the bumper sticker Jesus is coming, look busy turned into a sincere desire to do one's utmost with the time left (however long that may be).

I was going to bed and then read an article about abortion laws proposed in OK and the rebuttal from the proaborts and idiocy from the author himself were so pathetic, I had to share:

Asking the women to fill out a LENGTHY questionnaire, no! Not that! The aborting mothers spend 4 to 5 hours at the clinic where I volunteer--lengthy isn't an issue. The real gem, though, comes in this bit about an ultrasound law: "The law would require a doctor to use a vaginal transducer in the earliest stages of pregnancy, since that provides the clearest image when the fetus is small. The method is more invasive than the abdominal ultrasounds most pregnant women undergo"


Posted by: klynn73 at October 23, 2009 11:17 PM


Thank you for that! We are SOOOO on the same page! It's refreshing to hear someone other than myself and a couple of other people talk about it. With current events lining up so quickly, I'm shocked that more people are not talking about it. BTW, I think he'll sign it, too.

I read the article you posted. Unbelievable. I couldn't believe this line: "Opponents of the laws say they were drafted to make a woman's already difficult decision to have an abortion even more difficult." and this one: "It often makes a difficult decision even more painful."

I don't understand how it's difficult and painful to make that decision, and then the difficulty and pain suddenly goes away after their "problem" is solved. You would think that opponents of this law would want to find out as much information as possible as to why a woman would have an abortion so that no other woman would ever have to make such a difficult and painful decision again. Do they even listen to themselves?

Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 11:44 PM

Oh, and I don't believe I have ever heard of a woman who chose to have her baby describe her desicion as "difficult and painful" (maybe the labor, though!).


Posted by: Marie at October 23, 2009 11:49 PM

The scene with the witness on the stand who had her baby after deciding against abortion, who was then asked by Cutter if she believed a late-term abortionist was providing "essential medical services", and then said yes[!], was completely ridiculous. And so were a few other scenes.

But I'm of the opinion that whenever the MSM deals with abortion, we have to set the bar very low, and keep our expectations realistic.

That said, prior to watching, I feared Jill would be right (i.e., that "the show will throw ideological bones to both sides but ultimately come down favoring pro-aborts").

Yet after watching it, I don't think pro-lifers could have expected to have as many bones thrown to us as there were. I'd also be curious to see what strident pro-aborts have to say about it. I reckon this episode may cause not a few of them to work themselves into a lather about how Law & Order is "selling out" or something.

Posted by: John Jansen at October 24, 2009 12:01 AM

I am a pro lifer... and a L&O fan for 2 decades.
I just got done watching... and I am absolutely shocked this actually made it on TV.

This is the most pro life drama I have ever seen. I was in tears watching the nurse talk about the botched abortion.

For a day, I can't complain about NBC. This was bold bold stuff.

Honestly, I think this show changed some minds tonight... even saved lives.

Good work NBC. THank you.

Posted by: Tony at October 24, 2009 12:49 AM

I was so amazed at the pro-life message on Law and Order last night!

I was so impressed! I fully expected the show to sympathize with the abortionist. I was wrong!

I only caught the last half of it but plan on watching the entire episode online soon as I can.

NBC, thank you!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 24, 2009 7:55 AM

I was more bothered by the complete disregard for the intelligence of the viewers, mine included, than anything. The overdone stereotyping was almost laughable.

I think this started in the 1960's for TV. Why are you so surprised?

Posted by: angel at October 24, 2009 7:56 AM

Wow, thanks for the reviews! Can't wait to watch it!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 24, 2009 9:09 AM


I wasn't surprised, in fact it was exactly what I expected for that time.
In the 1960s you at least knew not to take TV too seriously. I must admit I loved Bewitched and The Munsters.

The difference being that L&O episode I saw was an effort to be serious and factual and that is what made it insulting to the viewers' intelligence. For the most part I am a fan of L&O though I have heard snide remarks directed at PL people and conservatives. I feel many of their episodes have been very intense and have really made the viewer ponder the decision of the jury and the actions of the prosecutors.

I've cheered more than a few defense lawyers on that show!

That's why I viewed "life Choice" as bordering on laughable. It was beneath the standards I expected.

Posted by: Mary at October 24, 2009 9:11 AM

Hi Jill,

Like you I am pleasantly surprised by the reviews. NBC(!) of all people. I stand corrected in assuming this show would most likely be very biased.
My past experience with Law and Order and the abortion issue had not been too encouraging.

Posted by: Mary at October 24, 2009 9:18 AM

klynn73@ 11:17PM,

Have these folks never gone to the doctor?

One doesn't fill out questionnaires, review literature, and sign forms?

One doesn't have x-rays, ultrasounds, MRIs, CAT scans, etc. and the results discussed and pictures shown to them?

Physical examinations aren't invasive?

The doctor doesn't use anantomical models to explain what is going on in your body?

Having to wait for results and making repeat visits isn't an inconvenience for everyone?

So what's the issue where abortion patients are concerned??

Posted by: Mary at October 24, 2009 9:27 AM

Janet 11:02PM

Don't hold your breath where Obama is concerned.

As a sociopath he is a master at portraying the facade you want to see. You have to be highly skeptical of any "emotion" this man portrays.

Posted by: Mary at October 24, 2009 9:33 AM

TivOed and just watched last night's Law &Order episode. In twenty years of watching this show, I've never seen such a balanced presentation of the abortion issue. Folks, the tide has turned pro-life in this one of the character's on L&O last night pointed out. Keep fighting, keep praying.

Posted by: utahagen at October 24, 2009 10:20 AM

I'm just glad that everyone in this epesode was not aborted because we might not have been able to Watch it. I really though the man playing the preist was "HOT".Keep useing him.

Posted by: frank conigliaro at October 24, 2009 12:41 PM

I saw a law and order recently that was not neutral AT ALL. This guy killed an abortion doctor (woman) but it was just a girl he met at a bar. But when they interviewed him, they used his values against him:

Detective: "What are you, pro-choice or NO choice?"
Guy: "I honestly couldn't care less. I didn't even know she worked at a clinic."

So they go to her clinic and HECKLE the one pro-life person in front of the clinic.

Girl detective: what about rape?
Christian lady: I believe God wants all pregnant women to have their children and they can be a blessing.
Girl detective: You have no idea what having a rape baby does to women. How insensitive of you!

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2009 4:04 AM

Well, taking a look at the replies to this episode from the authors & commentor's over at the Abortion Clinic Days blog, even pro-choicers found it to be too pro-life! :-)

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 25, 2009 9:11 PM

Rachael C.,

Wow, I just read the commentary at the Abortion Clinic Days blog. While they have a right to their opinion, what a bunch of baloney!

"A pro-choice perspective makes room for each woman to come to her own truth. Any other perspective forces someone to compromise their own integrity."

According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, they define "integrity" as an unimpaired condition. Why in the world do they think we should take THEIR opinion on abortion, but allow no one else's?

Another example of convoluted reasoning:

"NBC concocted a dreadful hybrid that bears no resemblance to this truly amazing doctor. And they concocted a story that bears no resemblance to the complexity of the issues involved in abortion, let alone late abortion. NBC cannot hide behind the words, “The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event when they begin their story by having a doctor murdered in his church. "

On the one hand, they admit this is not the way the Tiller story went AT ALL, but that NBC can't assert that it is a fictional show?? Do all abortion stories on TV have to stop because Tiller has died? This is a timely show because the country is more pro-life than ever. They are going to have to come up with better arguments for ending the public discussion of abortion than these.

Posted by: Janet at October 25, 2009 9:52 PM

I can't vouch for its accuracy (since I did not see the whole episode) but I found a recap at:

I also googled "Law and Order Dignity" and it appears that you can buy the episode on iTunes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

If you don't want to pay for it, it will most likely air again. If we're lucky, maybe it will be advertised ahead of time!

Posted by: Janet at October 25, 2009 10:09 PM

I take issue with most of the perspectives at that blog, but especially this quote "A pro-choice perspective makes room for each women to come to her own truth. Any other perspective forces someone to compromise their integrety(sp?)" Really? Does the pro-choice perspective allow for negative emotional reactions after abortion, respect the values & beliefs of & support the woman who grieves her pregnancy loss after her abortion or the woman who, based on her experience, feelings, & beliefs comes to the conclusion her abortion was the wrong decision, without trying to frame her abortion into something positive or into the pro-choice perspective? How do they allow women to come to their own truth when they don't allow for other perspectives outside their own narrow political viewpoint?

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 1:25 AM

Wishing all of you a pregnant 14 year old daughter.

Posted by: Dema at October 26, 2009 10:35 AM

Hi Dema.

" Wishing all of you a pregnant 14 year old daughter. "

Suppose that when my daughter turns 14 she does become pregnant. We agonize over "what to do", and even though I have preached against abortion my entire life, I decide that my daughter needs to get an abortion. How does it follow from this that abortion does not unjustly take the life of an innocent human being?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 10:45 AM

"Wishing all of you a pregnant 14 year old daughter."

How interesting, as your tone takes on that of disgust towards pregnant teens, you speak of it as if's it's horrible thing. I'm not saying that it won't be a challenging time in a teen's life, but out of every crisis, comes opportunity, opportunities to make good decisions and steps towards positive changes in one's life. Now, I've heard a number of pro-choicers speak of abortion as the "responsible" choice in a teen pregnancy and speak of horribly of teen mothers (where's the choice in that?) See this comment thread for one such example. Yet, there are a number of young teens who've been pregnant and made something of themselves, shame on you for degrading the real challenges of teen pregnancy and parenthood to nothing but rhetoric and cheap shots!

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 26, 2009 11:44 AM

Deam 19:35am

You're not making sense. What has this got to do with a 14y/o becoming pregnant?

BTW, my nephew married an incredibly beautiful and classy young woman, also an incredible mother, who was born to a 13y/o mother. This young woman has travelled the world over with her husband who is also a millionaire.

Do you think she would have preferred to have been aborted? Did the circumstances of her birth determine how her life would turn out??

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2009 12:55 PM

Wishing all of you a pregnant 14 year old daughter.
Posted by: Dema at October 26, 2009 10:35 AM

If my daughter ever got pregnant at 14 years old, I would welcome that new life into the world and into my family. I would not condone what she did, but a new life is never anything but a blessing!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 26, 2009 1:43 PM


Posted by: J.ALEBICK at October 28, 2009 5:02 PM