How you keep up with all this, Jill, I don't know.

Will you be in Aurora on Monday to live blog the hearing?

Carder, I get good information from the people directly involved, who are very patient with me by explaining and reexplaining things so I understand so as to try to relay the information sans legaleze.

I'm not attending the meeting Monday, but I expect Eric Scheidler will live blog again, as he's been doing lately, and I'll have a report Monday night or Tuesday.

Page 3 of Alayne's challenge:

The final result of the review was a conclusion that all procedures were followed properly, and
no material misrepresentations were made.

HUH? Wow...she is nuts!

AB Laura - she is out of her mind. You know what they say, the more you tell a lie the more you begin to believe it yourself.

yawn.

Tara, TRUE!

Hal, keep yawning away. Let me put the landfill on the lot next to your house! Then let's see if you will be yawning away.

Man, I can't WAIT to see what happens.

Off topic, but have y'all been hearing about the storms hitting No. Cal??

It's just as bad as it sounds...

In fact, I think I just saw Toto fly past my office window...

Hooves,
Stay safe! sounds really bad....winds 70-150mph??? (I just read that on weather.com). Maybe you should go home early today?

Actually, I stayed home to begin with and my husband left work after 1 hour and 3 power outages (his office complex is right near the levee for the Sacramento river and he said the whole area looks like a warzone). Our power here at home just came back on for the first time today. It IS crazy bad and is just now starting to simmer down a little for the first time since around 4am (1:30 here now...) We are both of the bunker-mentality, survivalist bent so we’ve got enough food, water, candles, guns and ammo to sit out quite a siege if need be…sure is nice to have on hand even if not needed because instead of worrying we just made sure everything was laid out, battened down and accessible, cranked up the hand-crank radio and stayed tuned in while we nibbled snacks and played Yatzee by the light of the storm!

Hal,

I don't understand you...your logic is elusive, your explanations vague, your posture on your privacy defensive and all you want to do is dribble little “hints” at things that are wrong (fishing for sympathies that you know you will get here?) and then get irritated and standoffish when people ask for more definitive information.

I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t the same bored, low-level PP marketing rep named Larry that I suspected was actually writing the Emily X blog….just cruising this site for distraction?

May sound harsh…but come on—put up or shut up for crying out loud.

And as for the topic at hand, call me a cynic but my money is on corruption scoring another win….unfortunately.

Hooves, don't concede so easily to corruption. This is far, far, far, from over. I have been following this story pretty closely and it will probably end up in state court and then may even head to the supreme court. The Weisner/Weingartz comedy show will come to a head and explode. The PP debacle is just a part of their incompetence. It is kind of like Laura's posts, just when you think it can't possibly get any more wacky they end up outdoing themselves. I will try and make it to the Monday meeting to see first hand the incompetence of the Aurora legal council. It would be funny if it weren't so sad with the mockery of justice the city of Aurora presents.

In the first ZBA hearing on the issue, the board chairperson represented the status of the ZBA as a "quasi-judicial" body that was able to issue subpoenas in the course of carrying out its mandate. At the time this was uncontested by Aurora's counsel.

Now however it is a different story. The city is desperately trying to evade the legal standing of the ZBA and pretends that the ZBA has no authority in the matter. Obfuscation is their only hope.

It is kind of like Laura's posts, just when you think it can't possibly get any more wacky they end up outdoing themselves.

LOL—touché!

Seriously though, my cynicism isn’t necessarily about whether or not the mill is eventually shut down, but the fact that it will be allowed to remain open for business while the inevitable suits are pending….I just don’t see the ZBA having the giblets to shut the doors. And in the meantime more lives are destroyed.

I pray God that they do…have the giblets, I mean.

"may sound harsh…but come on—put up or shut up for crying out loud."

Ok, I'll shut up. I never tried to get sympathy here, but I'm sorry if it appears that way. Good luck in getting abortion outlawed.

Best wishes to the rest of you, on both sides of the issue.

'Bye Larry.

Good luck in getting abortion outlawed.

Good luck in getting over your pity party.

*Gratuitous sarcasm riposte*

Hooves, I will have to disagree with you about Hal. He was being genuine on the other post. We have asked him repeatedly about his wife. He was only responding to our requests for info. He has been one of the most respectful prochoicers on here. I don't agree with Hal's positions on abortion, but I have enjoyed getting to know him. We will have to agree to disagree about Hal. Sorry.

Carrie,

We can certainly agree to disagree on Hal--no need to say "sorry"! I take no offense to a difference of opinion. I did not find him disrespectful, but I did find his elusiveness and lack of being able to provide substantive answers to direct questions very suspicious in the end….as was said on one of the threads, something was “wrong” with either him or his situation as he was presenting it. I think he either wasn’t being totally honest, was flat out making things up as he went, or just wouldn’t back up what he was putting out there. I find that annoying after reading post after post after post trying to pin him down to answer a question. Doug spars with mk all the time, but at least he will answer the question, and I think he makes a genuine attempt to be direct even if his arguments seem circular to me. Like I said, we can agree to disagree but Hal puts it out there and then wants to dodge and dodge and dodge….I was just telling him how weird that seems to me….it puts my suspicion antenna on high alert, that’s all. And like he said, “fine, I’ll just shut up then…” no engagement, no rebuttal…just a sarcastic fare-thee-well. Not on me if that’s how he chooses to deal with the direct approach. Which, after following his posts for a while, would appear to be how he deals with a lot of things.

No problem Hooves. I have been on here too much today. I think I am going to take a break this weekend. This place is very addictive. :)

I know whatcha mean!! Have a nice evening!

Hal and the rest just beat themselves up so bad trying to convince people it's o.k. to kill babies.

And good riddence to the abortion mill.
ZBA, take the permit away.
ZBA, take the permit away.

Bethany, in an unrelated question to this thread, how do you know that the young girl pictured where you said "Zeke," is really Zeke?

It seems mighty farfetched to me.

Doug

Hal and the rest just beat themselves up so bad trying to convince people it's o.k. to kill babies.

Heh, that was from "Truthseeker." What a laugh.

You're wrong about Hal.

Doug

This place is very addictive. :)

Ha! Carrie, I hear that. IMO the internet is "made" for lots of people.

The action is a little slower here, and the responses tend to be a little longer, but these boards are like a chatroom.

First time I got into a chatroom, back in 1996, I stayed 36 hours straight. It was such a great time.

Slept for 7 hours, then got back up and chatted for another 13 hours. (It really helps one learn to type.)

A little later, in that same chatroom, I met my wife-to-be. She was in NM, me in OH. visited her a couple times, and she came to see me when I was working in Baltimore in the first few months.

Less that five months after we met, she moved in with me, and prior to getting online I would have scoffed at such a thing.

Here I am, 11 years and a week after meeting my wife "in real life" (the Albuquerque airport), with her, and thank goodness for the internet.

We just left that same Albuquerque airport just yesterday....

Best,

Doug

Hey Doug,
Here is Hals post from the Manger blog:
******************************************
"What kind of a beast are you?"

the kind that doesn't see anything wrong with a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

Posted by: Hal at January 2, 2008 6:20 PM
*******************************************

Seems "What kind of a beast are you?"

the kind that doesn't see anything wrong with a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

Posted by: Hal at January 2, 2008 6:20 PM
*******************************************
Sounds pretty much exactly like someone punishing themselves and beating their head against the wall trying to convince people it's o.k. to kill babies. What was your take on it?

Bethany,
Thanks for the Kudos

Hal and the rest just beat themselves up so bad trying to convince people it's o.k. to kill babies.

Posted by: Truthseeker at January 4, 2008 10:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know of someone who's killing babies?
CALL 911 RIGHT NOW! KILLING BABIES IS AGAINST THE LAW!

Laura - Please see http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/02/baby_rowan_911.html

Doug,

At one point you stated that late term abortions were rare, and done for very serious reasons. Now granted, these abortions were done 16 weeks and later, and your def. is 24 weeks or later, but note the reasons given...

United States

See also: Reasons for abortions.

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

* 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
* 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
* 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
* 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
* 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
* 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
* 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
* 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
* 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
* 11% Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

Also look at the restrictions on late term abortions. The reason there are more of them is not because they are illegal, but because doctors with an ounce of common decency won't perform them.

You know of someone who's killing babies?
CALL 911 RIGHT NOW! KILLING BABIES IS AGAINST THE LAW!

Posted by: Laura at January 5, 2008 3:15 AM--------------------- Abortion is legalized murder. You know what we are saying. Speaking of 911, did you know that abortion clinics HATE to call that #? Even if the woman is on death's door, they are still hesitant. It's bad for business.

They don't care if she croaks. Just don't croak on the abortion table.

Let's review, shall we?

Patient lays dying, abortionist gets a hem

According to an Associated Press article: Abortion clinic owner target of probe, police noted that Arizona abortionist, John Biskind became angry when the clinic staff interrupted his lunch after they noticed patient, Lou Ann Herron's, condition was deteriorating.

Clinic employees told police she, ?suffered in a recovery room for three hours, bleeding heavily and complaining of numbness.?

The judge in the case, carefully instructed the jury that a finding of manslaughter would mean that Biskind "must have been aware of a substantial risk to his patient and consciously disregarded the risk" or that "Biskind's conduct would cause the death."

News reports indicated that the woman bled to death after Biskind punctured her uterus. Reports stated that Biskind was paged later in the day as concern about the woman increased.

Biskind responded, "Well, what do you want me to do? Call 911."

The reports went on to state that at one point Biskind testified to leaving the clinic to go to his tailor while the abortion patient lay bleeding.

Prosecutors also blamed Stuart-Schadoff, the clinic administrator charging that she didn't schedule a registered nurse for the clinic on the afternoon of the abortion patient's death and later delayed a call to 911 after Herron's condition deteriorated.

During an interview for 20/20's report, A woman?s right, a woman?s risk (03/8/99), Theresa Jensen, a Medical Assistant recounted the conversation in the recovery room between the staff,

"What should we do?"

And she said, "I don't know. What should we do?"

And I said, "I don't know either."

She told 20/20 that the patient was, "laying in a thickness of blood. Bleeding heavily from the waist down, to her toes. She lay there like that for three hours."

It was then, according to the police report, another assistant went to get Biskind, who was having his lunch. Jensen continued, "She came back to me, and she said, ?He's (the abortionist) mad. He didn't want to be disturbed.? And then, as the day went on, Lou Anne didn't get any better. When the last abortion was performed, the doctor punched out. He left."

Finally, another medical assistant insisted on calling 911, according to the police report, over the objections of the clinic administrator. The attorney for the woman?s family stated, "There's a hospital right across the street. They chose not to call the ambulance, not to call 911, when they knew she was in jeopardy."

Paramedics were ultimately summoned by clinic staff and stated that they found the woman lying on blood-drenched sheets. She had apparently already been dead for some time.

Abortionist John Biskind arrested

Prosecutors convinced the jury to convict abortionist Biskind of manslaughter because Biskind left the clinic and then refused to return even after being told that Herron had no pulse. Herron was left bleeding at the clinic for three hours and by the time paramedics were summoned to the clinic Herron had lost 2 to 3 liters of blood nearly the total of her body. Biskind was sentenced in May of 2001 to five years in prison.

Jensen told 20/20 that, "We were told that if anybody asks what happened to say that it didn't really happen, it's just a lie that the protesters made up."

Below is a portion of the 911 Call:

911 Dispatcher: 911. What is your emergency?

Clinic worker: Well, one of our patients is unconscious. She?s lost quite a bit of blood and she?s pale.

911 Dispatcher : Is she breathing OK?

Clinic Worker: No, she's not.

911 Dispatcher: OK, do you have oxygen on her?

Clinic Worker : No, we don't.

911 Dispatcher : Do you have oxygen available?

Clinic Worker : Hmm. Can we get it on? I don't know if we have any in there. Could we have you come to the side doors, right on 10th street, and try not to use no sirens?

I'm the doctor here, I'll make the decisions

An Alabama woman died following her abortion by abortion doctor Tommy Tucker. Canadian Business and Current Affairs report, Why doctors are fleeing the carnage (11/21/94), stated that Tucker canceled an ambulance that was summoned by one of his staff, and had the girl brought to a back room so she "would not disturb the other clients."

One nurse testified that she,

"sent for the abortionist to come back in the room. There was a lot of panic, a lot of confusion. We were running around, trying to resuscitate her, trying to do everything we could to stabilize her. And the other patients that were waiting to have abortions were in the very next room.

When the doctor walked in the room, he got angry, because we were making so much noise. He told me to get that patient out of the room and take her to the back recovery room so the other patients could not hear her or us. I took her to the back recovery room. I stayed with her and did everything I could do to stabilize her, but then she started bleeding.

She was bleeding uncontrollably, I couldn't stop it. I ran back to the doctor and I said, 'You've got to help me. She's bleeding and I don't know what to do.' He said to take her to the examining room, examine her, find out why she's bleeding and stop it. 'It's that simple.'

When the doctor found out that I called the ambulance, he was furious. He canceled the ambulance. He told me, "I'm the doctor here. I'll make those decisions. We cannot send this patient to the hospital in this condition. They'll hang us. Now try to stabilize her.And I did. I tried. At this point she couldn't talk. She was in such serious condition that all she could do was just look at me with very frightened eyes -- just look at me. And I tried so hard to help her. Blood was just pouring out of her like a faucet and I couldn't stop it.

So I ran back to him and said, 'Please help me. If you don't help me she's going to die.'

He said, 'Fine. Call the ambulance. I have a plane to catch.' And he left the building. I called the ambulance. It took twenty minutes for them to get to the clinic. During that twenty minutes I realized that I was not a doctor and it scared me to death to realize that I was put in that position -- that I let myself be put in that position -- to try and save a life that I was not qualified to try and save.

So they transported her to the hospital.

I felt relieved that she was just gone and that the responsibility had been taken off of me. I then received a phone call from the hospital, which informed me that she had died.

At that point I started having nightmares. Every time I would close my eyes I would see her face. The guilt and the anger that I was experiencing was overwhelming, it almost destroyed me."

Abortionist waits three hours to call ambulance

The Hartford Courant reported, abortionist Steven I. Weber was investigated when he waited three hours to call an ambulance for a patient whose womb he had accidentally punctured during a routine abortion at his office. The woman lost her uterus and nearly died.

25 minute delay for abortion ambulance:

According to the Los Angeles Sentinel?s article, Family Files Abortion-Related Wrongful Death Suit (11/8/95). The attorney of a woman, who died from an abortion she received in LA, stated "We are claiming negligence by the clinic staff who were not present when she began vomiting and ultimately delayed 20-25 minutes before calling for emergency help."

And don't bleed all over the upholstery:

The LA Times story, State board charges doctor with negligence in botched abortions (7-2-1993), recounts a lawsuit detailing the injury of a women who received an abortion from abortionist Saihd S. Halil alleged that when the patient began hemorrhaging after the botched abortion that Halil sent her to a nearby hospital by car, rather than ambulance. The doctor at the ER testified that that the woman should have been taken to the hospital by ambulance paramedics.

He stated that Halil's failure to call an ambulance indicates a "total disregard for the patient's life and safety."

yes. Let's keep abortion safe and legal. Ho-Hum.

Posted by: Charles at January 5, 2008 8:20 AM

I went to the link and the video isn't available any longer. Just like the comments said... :(

Cries and excessive bleeding, just another day

The Associated Press reported that a lawsuit filed against the Delta Women’s abortion clinic stated,

"Though she was bleeding and crying out in agonizing pain from O'Neill's botched procedure, O'Neill neither rushed her to a hospital nor called an ambulance for assistance."

The woman's mother later took her to a local hospital.

911 not called in abortion injury

In New York, a woman was rushed to the hospital after an abortion she received at a free standing abortion clinic, according to a report by the NY Daily News, A near fatal abortion botch (6/30/96).

Police show only an anonymous call was made to the police station, rather than 911, to report the woman’s need for assistance. Police point out that a 911 call would have summoned a fully equipped ambulance rather than patrol cars with no medical staff. One reason for this supposed mix-up is that calls to 911 are recorded and can be used as evidence in court.

Baby's head left inside woman

In an article titled, Woman dies after abortion; Moreno clinic doctor has been under probe (12/19/69), the Press Enterprise reported a 34-year-old patient underwent an abortion to terminate a 15- to 17-week pregnancy and that the abortionist, Bruce Steir, was unable to determine if he had removed the entire fetus.

He then allegedly discharged the patient without informing her of this fact or arranging appropriate follow-up care. Two days later, the patient was admitted to Physician's Community Hospital with a fever, severe abdominal pain and nausea.

Physicians discovered a perforated uterus and performed a hysterectomy. In addition, Doctors removed a fetal skull found protruding through a rent in the uterus.

OOPS!

Did that sound funny or was it just me?

While performing an abortion in 1990 on a patient "B.J." Missouri abortionist Scott Barrett perforated her uterus. Instead of calling an ambulance, Barrett carried B.J. to her car and asked the woman's friend to drive her to a hospital while a nurse held her head in her lap.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (An abortionist’s trial of tragedy records detail botched operations that; finally brought state action 08/02/92) the state commissioner found that:

''The degree of damage that Barrett caused to B.J. was almost unheard of. Barrett was utterly oblivious to the fact that he was suctioning B.J.'s abdominal organs out of her body. Then, having nearly eviscerated his patient and with her clearly in critical condition, he sent her to the hospital in a private car during rush hour. By the time she reached the operating table, she was moments away from bleeding to death. A more egregious example of incompetence and gross negligence is difficult to imagine.''

Abortion patient screams in back of the office

According to Maryland Board of Physicians case # 2005-0499, in December of 2004 a 26-year-old woman came to abortionist Gideon M. Kioko for an abortion. .
There was a myriad of events that combined to make this the worst day of her life. First, there was no one other than Kioko was present for the procedure. Next, the electricity kept going on and off during the abortion.

At noon, the patient reported that she began to feel dizzy and hot and asked Kioko for her cell phone to call her emergency contact. Kioko refused to give it to her. The patient later began to bleed profusely and Kioko told her that he would have to "Cut the baby up" to get it out, but he was unable to get the baby's head.

Sometime after 2:00 pm, The patient then told abortionist Kioko that she could not breathe and she kept passing out, she asked Kioko to call 911. Instead of calling 911, Kioko called his wife into the clinic.

At 3:50 pm when the bleeding continued, Kioko finally called 911. When emergency officials arrived on the scene, they heard a woman screaming from the back of the office.

They told the board that:

"The woman was bleeding heavily and the baby?s head was still inside her. They reported seeing her naked from the waist down rolling back and forth on the table screaming. She was covered in blood, her legs were bathed in blood, and there were heavy streams of blood spurting from her vagina."

She was transported to a hospital and where she had to undergo numerous surgeries to correct the procedure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safe and legal. Uh-hu.

Clinic owner kills woman with abortion

The Orange County Register printed an excerpt of an Orange County California grand jury hearing that outlines the prosecution's case against abortion clinic owner, Alicia Ruiz-Hanna. Hanna was charged with killing abortion patient Angela Sanchez during a botched abortion. Hanna was not a licensed physician, but she beformed the abortion on the unsuspecting woman anyway. This appeared in the 08/24/93 article, Clinic owner prevented 911 call, aide says.
As Sanchez lay dying in the next room, Hanna, wrestled the phone away from a receptionist who was trying to dial 911. Receptionist Irasema Mendoza testified:

"I told her to call the paramedics. I took the phone to call the paramedics but Alicia grabbed it away from me and hung up. She told me not to call them because I was going to get her into problems."

The women died at the clinic and when relatives of the dead woman arrived to pick her up, they witnessed Hanna stuffing the dead woman's body into the trunk of her car.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court shuts down clinic, abortionist flees:

As several Los Angeles Times articles show, Handful of abortion clinics put poor at risk for the record (04/05/98) and Abortion patient’s death shows license system flaws (03/21/95), abortion will remain a place that attracts the worst in the medical field.

These articles use the case of San Diego abortionist Suresh Gandotra, who fled the country after the District Attorney filed manslaughter charges against him following the death of one of his patient’s to show just how dangerous walking into an abortion clinic can be.

What you don't know can hurt you, like the fact abortionist Gandotra had no hospital admitting privileges at any facility. Not that he would let a detail like that stand in the way of making a profit.However, you would think he would know where the hospital was located.

After he botched an abortion on a patient, Gandotra failed to immediately call an ambulance. In fact, according to the Medical Board's court filing, the abortionist asked for directions to the hospital by car, and planned on sending the patient in a car to the hospital despite her deteriorating condition.

He was told to summon an ambulance immediately. He tried to request a private ambulance, but failed so he finally called 911. Due to the abortionist’s delays, Paramedics didn’t arrive until over an hour later, at which time, they found the woman bleeding, in cardiac arrest and with no pulse. The woman bled to death.

Gandotra remains at large.

Heather,

wow, this is unbelivable. Why do these lousy creeps not even get help for the Mother after they messed up the abortion. It must take a cruel soul to be an abortionist.

Abortions are safe, right? That does not appear to be the case.

Heather:

People died from plastic surgery all the time as well.

People die from routine medical surgeries as well.

hi there midnite and jasper. midnite, I agree with you, but I think that most plastic surgeons would call 911 if they had to.

Also,

One of my mother's friends in high school died while getting her wisdom teeth pulled. He apparently had an adverse reaction to the anastisa (sp?).

Heather:

Not necessarily. A lot of plastic surgeons do their procedure in their office (mush like an abortion clinic does) and does not conduct said surgery in a hospital. I've heard many a stories where woman had botched plastic surgery in an office and the doctor did nothing to help b/c he did not want his malpractice insurance to go through the roof.

midnite, here is the difference. I have seen so much news coverage about botched plastic surgery. The media has no problem exposing such things, but you NEVER hear about these botched abortions on your local news. Why not?

Sorry about your friend. I hope you had a good New Year. I am having foot surgery on Monday.

jasper, It's because they only care about themselves and their money.

OB/GYNs are the most-sued physicians in any specialty. They pay the highest malpractice premiums of any specialty. That's because they're the worst practitioners in medicine.

If we outlaw pregnancy and childbirth, these quacks will no longer be allowed to prey on women.

Only people who hate women would want pregnancy and childbirth to be legal so that more women could be butchered by those quacks.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OB/GYNs!! We are talking about abortionists!

Why doesn't the media ever talk about this? Don't we want the corruption exposed?

Um...a lot of OB/GYNS are abortionists.

Heather, what are the DATES of these incidents? I'm willing to bet that they're all very much apart.

Heather,

You make a good point. I've seen all sorts of coverage and warnings to the general public concerning checking a plastic surgeon's credentials and exposing the quakery and malpractice of those who have harmed patients. Great! I want to see this done whether its an oral surgeon, plastic surgeon, and yes, an abortionist.
Not too long ago we heard of a little girl who died in the dentist office. I don't know the details but I heard it was not proper monitoring. I wholeheartedly support a thorough investigation and whatever follow up legal action is deemed appropriate. The point is though, we HEARD about it.
Yet, we hear virtually nothing about abortion clinics. No TV exposure of malpractice, unsafe office practice, or mutilated and dead women.
When have you heard women advised to check the credentials of their abortionist or the people on his/her staff?
Several years ago it took an undercover operation by reporters to expose appalling malpractice and unsafe conditions in clinics that stood in some of Chicago's most exclusive neighborhoods.
Also, abortionists have the huge advantage of secrecy. The woman showing up at the abortion clinic is mainly concerned about one thing, not exposing the fact she is pregnant. However horrific her experience, she wants only to leave and put the experience behind her. These are not women likely to come forward and appear on "60 Minutes" or E!Television exposes.

Yeah, I see only one that happened in the same YEAR as another incident. Considering how many abortions happen per year, the percentage of those complications is totally insignificant.

Mary, An abortion clinic in my state was closed due to numerous health code violations. It only received about 5 seconds of attention on the local news. The abortionist almost killed a woman.

Laura,

I've posted before the reason OB/GYNs are sued is people see them as easy prey and think they're getting something for nothing from insurance companies that are bottomless pits of money.
Our society demands perfection, any child born with any anomoly must be the fault of the OB/GYN. Cerrebral palsy has been around since creation, yet OB/GYNs are sued when these children are born. No one is even certain what causes it. It takes a slick lawyer, a gullible jury, sympathetic parents, and a severly afflicted child to equal millions. I well remember the days when this was simply viewed as an "Act of God".
Modern technology is a double edged sword. OB/GYNs are now expected to have prophetic powers. Any problem at all will likely result in a lawsuit. I know an OB who performed an emergency hysterectomy to save a woman's life after delivery. She had placenta acreta. She tried to sue the OB. When the OB asked the lawyer to tell him what his other options were, besides letting the woman die, he had to drop the case.
The lawyer was so desperate to sink his teeth into this case, and likely saw millions and early retirement, that he wasted no time on any kind of research.

Yet, we hear virtually nothing about abortion clinics. No TV exposure of malpractice, unsafe office practice, or mutilated and dead women.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excuse me? Heather gets most of her little anacdotes from news stories. All of those cases were reported.

The only OB/GYN malpractice story I've heard about in the last three years was the whole Heparin incident. ONE story when SO MANY OB/GYNs are flaming incompetents and more suits are getting filed every day?

Shouldn't more of these OB/GYN stories be reported so that more women can make an informed choice about continuing a pregnancy? Their lives are in DANGER at the hands of these quacks!

Ohio Abortion Clinic Closed For Over A Dozen Health Violations
Cleveland, Ohio The Ohio Department of Health has ordered that a late-term abortion clinic close due to over a dozen code violations. The Center for Womens Health in Cleveland was informed that its license would not be renewed after inspectors discovered that the clinic was not meeting even the most rudimentary of standards, such as taking a patients temperature and blood pressure before risky late-term abortion surgeries.

Abortionist Martin Ruddock, who ran the abortion mill that would do abortions including partial-birth abortions through the second trimester of pregnancy, did not believe his clinic should have been subject to the state laws that regulate ambulatory surgical care facilities, even though his ads described his clinic as such.

Ruddock did not have an emergency transfer agreement with a local hospital, and endangered one woman with abortion complications when he had difficulty finding a hospital to admit her.

Ruddock?s clinic is one of nearly a dozen abortion mills to close across the country since June. Most were closed by various state authorities, which had uncovered violations that included the delivery and alleged murder of a live baby, workers aborting women without medical licenses, and the misuse of the hazardous abortion drug RU 486, among other charges.

The closure of Ruddocks clinic shows that the implementation of standards are effective at stopping abortion until it can be banned nationally. Standards are useful tools that are putting abortionist clinics out of business in droves,? said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. ?As a result, our land is not only a safer place for women, but also for the child in the womb.

Arrogant abortionists, such as Ruddock, will never adhere to the laws because they somehow think they are exempt from the same rules everyone else must follow. Their unwillingness or inability to follow the law has become their undoing, said Newman.

Here is the story.

Erin,

Its likely you are seeing only what was reported. The woman or her surviving family members may want this kept quiet. These women are in a very compromised situation, a huge advantage to the abortionist.

I've posted before the reason OB/GYNs are sued is people see them as easy prey and think they're getting something for nothing from insurance companies that are bottomless pits of money.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...Or maybe they're just hopeless quacks who harm women and children EVERY DAY!
I'm sorry that you don't care about the lives of women and childrem!
(Dramatic chords: dun Dun DUN!)

I know lots of women who had their children murdered by Ruddock.

Um...a lot of OB/GYNS are abortionists.

Posted by: Erin at January 5, 2008 11:12 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not really. MANY GYNs have completely abandoned the OB business. It costs beacoup to maintain malpractice insurance:

Doctors getting out of the baby business
(2005)

LEE COUNTY— Having a baby is getting tougher in Southwest Florida. Many doctors are leaving obstetrics and fewer residents are choosing the specialty because of the skyrocketing cost of liability insurance as well as the fear of being sued for malpractice. Florida has some of the highest liability premiums in the country. Some local doctors have stopped practicing obstetrics and one local hospital stopped delivering babies altogether.

Michele Tiseo delivered her daughter Lauren nine months ago in Fort Myers, even though she lives more than 40 miles away in Port Charlotte.

"Once my water broke I said this is it. Then I got nervous. We have about an hour to drive, what if there was an accident on I-75?" said Tuseo.

It's something Tiseo never had to consider when her first child was born.

"Now 12 years later, every year fewer and fewer doctors are practicing," said Tuseo.

This time around, Tiseo didn't have much of a choice. Only three obstetricians deliver babies in all of Charlotte County

In Lee County, there are about 30 obstetricians, but with around 5000 deliveries every year, doctors are spread thin.

With skyrocketing liability premiums, it's only getting worse.

"Liability insurance in Florida is labeled as a crisis situation by the American Medical Association," said Dr. Richard Murray.

Obstetricians pay higher liability insurance than any other specialty.

Dr. Murray's premiums have skyrocketed 300 percent in the past 2 years and he's never been sued.

He's convinced the outrageous premiums are pushing doctors and residents away.

"New residents are not coming to Florida. We're graduating new residents but then they're leaving the state. The number one reason - liability insurance, it's through the roof," said Murray.

Add to that the booming population in Southwest Florida. More residents means more babies, but there aren't more doctors to deliver the babies.

In fact, along with losing doctors, there are fewer hospitals delivering babies. In 2003, Lehigh Regional Medical Center stopped delivering babies altogether. The threat of malpractice and the high cost of liability became too much.

The two doctors who did deliver at Lehigh moved to other local hospitals.

But other physicians are making the difficult choice to leave obstetrics.

"The awards have gotten higher, making the cost of insurance much higher, and given that, our premiums have significantly increased," said Dr. Mary Yankaskas.

After 14 years of delivering babies, those premiums became too much for Dr. Mary Yankaskas. With a heavy heart, she gave up that part of her practice.

"As premiums get higher, you'll have more people who are going to retire early or give up obstetrics early," said Yankaskas.

That's already happening. One in seven obstetricians has stopped practicing. Because of this, most doctors are hoping, if not pushing for change.

Amendment 3, which passed last November in Florida, limits how much lawyers make on medical malpractice suits. While doctors believe this could eventually help lower liability premiums, some lawyers think they've become an easy target.

"It's easy to sometimes point the finger at attorneys and say if they didn't sue so much, then our premiums wouldn't be so high," said personal injury attorney Michael Hornung.

Hornung says the blame should fall more on insurance companies, but also believes it's a balancing act between the cost of insurance versus the rights of patients.

"We want to keep the good doctors here and not make it cost prohibitive for them to practice, but we also want to make sure everyone has access to courts," said Hornung.

He also agrees everyone deserves access to a good obstetrician.

So as the problem grows, it will become more difficult for local patients to find care close to home - if at all.

"I'm very concerned. I'm concerned about my kids, who will deliver my kids' children. I don't know, it's a scary thought," said Richard Murray.

As for Michele Tuseo, her concerns are a bit more pressing.

"We just found out we're pregnant again," said Tuseo.

Luckily, her doctor, who also delivered Lauren, is still in practice, but it does mean Tiseo will once again, have to make the hour long trip to Fort Myers.

Out of each delivery, obstetricians pay more than 25 percent of their fees to insurance companies, whether they've ever been sued or not.

© 2007 by NBC2 NEWS. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The feminists don't want you to know about things like this, but had Ruddock's clinic been bombed, you would never hear the end of it.

Mary, even so, consider the amount of women that have complications from abortion versus the number performed. Honestly, it's just a bad argument from your side. There are plenty of elective procedures far more dangerous than abortion. Now, if you want to stick with the "but a child always dies", that's fine. But it's no more dangerous a procedure than much anything else. I'm pretty sure that breast implants cause way more complications that abortions do.

There are plenty of OB/GYNs out there. Mine was the BEST!

Mine was also pro life.

Erin, you said that a woman performed your abortion. I wonder how many male abortionists molest their patients.

No more than in any other profession, heather.

Laura,

I have no idea what you listen to but I have seen and heard all kinds of accounts of lawsuits against OB/GYNs. I have seen no exposures of abortion clinics. Yes, Heather gets reports, mostly from pro life sources, but why hasn't the general public been informed and warned? I've seen all kinds of exposure on the risks of cosmetic surgery and the quacks unqualified to perform it. As I said, great. I want all this exposed, I don't care who it is.

About OB/GYNs, how many of these suits are dropped, as was the one I mentioned? I've read all kinds of accounts, and have been enraged by the gulliblity of juries and the greed of lawyers. I have read of valid suits, and have no objection where malpractice is truly an issue.

I would encourage any and every patient to check the credentials of their doctor, and yes this includes pregnant women.

By the way, we had a guy in our town jump off a neighbor's picnic table while drunk and snap his neck. Thankfully he fully recovered but sued his neighbors, the hospitals that treated him for free(!) and his doctors. This moron was awared 12 millions dollars. You see what I mean by gullible juries and slick lawyers.

And that doctor was such a sweet lady. Even though I was totally out of it, she talked to me the whole time, she smiled at me afterwards and touched my hair and told me that I'd done very well. She was a wonderful lady.

Erin,

You hear of the complications of breast implants, not abortions. I worked ER and surgery and have been involved in treating the complications of abortions that were not be reported as such. We treated the woman and she went home. I know of two that required surgery.
Women still make midnite visits to ERs Erin, you just aren't hearing about them.

Mary- so, there were hoards and hoards of women coming in with those kind of complications? Because to create any viable statistic, there would have to be a crazy amount of women making those 'midnight visits' to compensate for the thousands of women who have their procedures go off with out a single hitch.

Also, I can't remember the last time I read the paper and saw any kind of story that involved a complication from a breast implant.

Erin said, "And that doctor was such a sweet lady. Even though I was totally out of it, she talked to me the whole time, she smiled at me afterwards and touched my hair and told me that I'd done very well. She was a wonderful lady."

Was this doctor an abortionist?

I know a woman who is sterile d/t having 7 abortions. She cannot sue anyone. It was her choice to have them done. She doesn't discuss it because of shame and guilt. She feels stupid.

She performed my abortion, yes, Laura.

Erin, she had to be sweet. She took your money.

My friend was greeted by her male abortionist while up in stirrups.

Heather, but, I thought you said that all abortionists were mean and snarly and ignored their patients.

Shame and guilt keep these women silent.

Erin,

There was no where to report these statistics. I didn't get on the phone to some agency to report that Miss X showed up with post abortion complications. We simply treated the women. There is patient confidentiality. Also, I'm only speaking of one hospital, a hospital in a middle sized city. One can only speculate on the numbers in other hospitals. The statistics aren't likely to be found.

I don't know how you could miss all the exposes on botched breast implants and other cosmetic procedures. Keep a closer eye on TV listings. E!television has had them, as have the A&E channel. We certainly heard about the case of Ms.Donde West, the mother of rapper Kanye West.
Also, the late Elaine whatever who was a famous realtor in Beverly Hills who's face was mangled years ago.

Heather- my lady came in when I was in stirrups. But she sat at my side and explained the procedure again before she did anything. She was very amiable and sweet to me.

Yes. I did say that.

YIKES! Erin, so someone who GLADLY takes your money, dismembers a baby from your womb then pets you makes for someone who is "sweet".

Maybe it's time to re-examine your definition of what a "sweet person" is!

Heather, 11:55am

Imagine meeting your surgeon for the first time while lying on a procedure table ready to have surgery, unless of course its an emergency situation. Unheard of under any other circumstances and totally unethical.

Mary,
Yep! Totally unethical...what comes around goes around, I guess!

Come in for an unethical "surgery" and get an unethical "surgeon". Seems fair to me!

Laura- a woman who gently guides me through a surgical procedure, reassuring me, and then taking the time to personally address how I faced the procedure...yes. She was a wonderful woman and had a fantastic bedside manner. As I've said before, I had a 5 week pregnancy terminated. It wasn't a baby.

Erin 11:57

I'm sorry but I consider that totally unacceptable and an insult to your dignity. You didn't meet this woman, who was performing a surgical procedure on you, prior to your procedure and speak to her face to face? I thinks this was considerably disrespectful to you if she didn't.

Erin,
Yes it was a baby, and a very, beautiful baby at that! But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better.

Does this "doctor" send you CHRISTmas cards, too?

Mary- she made sure I was comfortable with her before she did anything. She made sure again that I was sure that I wanted to proceed, explained in depth the entire procedure, and was very honest about the whole thing. I liked her very much.

Greeted is stirrups? That is NOT acceptable.

Laura- I don't live in Iowa anymore. But hey, I wouldn't mind if the clinic had sent me a card. I'm sorry, but a 5 week fetus isn't a baby to me. Something without a central nervous system doesn't really qualify as sentient.

Erin,
Many child molestors befiend their victims, too. They explain to the child what they are going to do and tell them that they did good afterwards. Do they have good bedside manner & are they sweet, too?

A doctor has an obligation to treat you with dignity and respect. My OB sits down with me face to face before he even lays a hand on me. His nursing staff gets a full set of vital signs, and he collects a full medical history on me. He also has a femal nurse present in the room, before he performs a breast or pelvic exam on me.

*laughs* Wow, Laura. That's just...beyond. My surgeon was not a child molester. I'm sorry that you can't stand the fact that there was actually a nice lady that did my abortion, but it's true. I know it sinks your happy little 'all abortionists are scuzzy, molesting, dirty old men' ship.

AB, good point!

Good afternoon AB Laura -

The key word from Erin is amiable. Doesn't take much for a person to act that way. Anyone, even a abortionist can act that way. Doesn't mean that he/she is a "sweet person". A 'sweet person" doesn't take the life of innocent unborn children.

A sweet person? Nope. A greed filled monster.

Hello Tara & Heather!
Heather, I'll pray that your foot surgery goes well!

Tara,
AMEN to that!

Erin,
You missed the point...just because one "acts" as though they care about you doesn't mean they do. My point was that both treat the "victim" nicely to get what they want - self-satisfaction!

Tara- or maybe I was running out of synonyms. I also used the words 'fantastic' 'sweet' 'wonderful' 'gentle'...she was a great lady.

It's like a man who uses a woman for sex. "Oh baby, I love you." So easy to say, but 1/2 the time it's BS.

Also, I can't remember the last time I read the paper and saw any kind of story that involved a complication from a breast implant.

Posted by: Erin at January 5, 2008 11:46 AM
........................................

When has anyone read a news account of a pregnancy complication? "Woman has Heart Attack During Labor", "Woman Dies During C-Section", "Woman's Uterus is Ruptured During Delivery", are hardly breaking news.

Erin,
My ship didn't sink at all. ALL abortionists are the warts on the face of our society. They kill babies & profit from it. SICKOS...ALL of them!

How about the "woman beater?" Let me kick your behind, but I love you so much.

Hi Sally!

*waves*

Erin said, "Tara- or maybe I was running out of synonyms. I also used the words 'fantastic' 'sweet' 'wonderful' 'gentle'...she was a great lady."

-------------

Erin,
and you also said that you were really "out of it"

Laura- I felt that she was sincere. Honestly, that's what matters. What matters is that I feel cared for and comfortable during a surgical procedure. You know, most neurosurgeons and cardiac surgeon are notoriously egotistical, narcissistic...but if they've got a good reputation, do you really care?

anon was me.....

Mary Kay Laturno looked like a sweet woman. She's a pedophile.

How many dead hurting, dead women and dead babies is it going to take? How many do you need for "viable statistics"? Isn't just one, one too many?? I read all of the news items, Heather. Thank you for putting them out there. Even though one made me want to throw up. Shouldn't we all be sickened by the way these women were killed and injured?? I guess not.

Erin,
Well, I'm really glad that it was all about you! Too bad your baby wasn't able to feel the same way. YES.......BABY!

How many times can I write the word dead?! I meant hurting, dead women and dead babies...

Some people HAVE to SAY things to GET what they WANT. Erin, your abortion money probably bought her a new pair of shoes. Car note? She made money off of you. That's why she was nice. Bottom line. She cared not a wit about you.

Hi Carla! Excellent point. These women are so self-centered, they cannot grasp the concept of caring for others. I know that people can change, & I'm really glad that you did...by the Grace of God....

Your posts are always excellent!

Carla- no. Because every single surgical procedure carries risk. Heart surgery, a biopsy, a vaccine, people die from all of them. It doesn't mean you deny the right to those procedures to anyone.

Laura- yeah, the anesthesia completely warped me. I was almost asleep, and yet she still took the initiative to talk me through it. If she hadn't, I probably wouldn't have even noticed. But she did it anyway. She could have left the room afterwards without even acknowledging me. But she smiled at me and told me that I'd done well. That's a good doctor in my book.

Carla, you and I are right there. Same page! We are both sick to death over this. It's where we need to be.

Heather- you know, I pay my therapist $140 per visit. That's pretty dang ri-donk-u-lous. She makes money off of my PTSD. She makes money off the mental disorders of young people. I mean, tons of money. TONS. I guess no one should see a therapist, considering how rich we can make them.

Thanks AB,
I just don't get that they don't get it.

But then, I used to be like that too.
The Grace of God is right!
Pressing on toward the mark...

Erin, you paid her for a service. She owed you something. I'm assuming you received Versed. She was happy to get your money, and she had probably performed several abortions that week. Maybe she treated herself to a nice vacation with the blood money.

"But she smiled at me and told me that I'd done well."

OF COURSE SHE DID!!! She was VERY happy that you did what you did...every time a "patient" comes in to have their baby killed, she makes money. Yes, in her book, you did VERY well! She should have given you a big, mushy kiss as well!

Erin, you paid her for a service. She owed you something. I'm assuming you received Versed. She was happy to get your money, and she had probably performed several abortions that week. Maybe she treated herself to a nice vacation with the blood money.

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2008 12:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and your foot surgeon doesn't get paid? What a SAINT!

I PAY LOTS OF PEOPLE FOR A SERVICE. I'm paying my college for a service, I pay the pharmaceutical companies for a service, I pay my internist for a service, I pay my chiropractor for a service...do you really expect them to do anything for free?

If I had heart surgery there would be a "team" of specialists all ready to assist me IF there were complications of any kind. Pretty sure there would be all kinds of equipment, monitors.... I would be fully aware of what was going to happen because someone would have explained it all to me.
Someone who botches an abortion(alone, mind you)and then doesn't even call 911 when the woman is bleeding to death??!! Come on, Erin!

Carla,
Yep! I never understood what "when God takes the blinders off" meant until I came here. Some people are sadly in the dark! When the blinders come off, it's like a flood of wisdom, God-given wisdom, flows down on us. It's so hard for me to understand what people think, but then "there by the Grace of God go I" gets pounded into my heart. We can only pray that God will lift the blinders from their eyes, also!

Erin said "I PAY LOTS OF PEOPLE FOR A SERVICE"

Great! They deserve it! They are HELPING you...not killing someone in the process for their own, personal gain! There's a HUGE difference between these people and the MONSTER that you label "sweet".

Laura- she was helping me too. I didn't want to be pregnant.

Of course we pay doctors. They are there to heal us, and they DESERVE every penny. I hope my foot doc. treats himself to a nice vacation!! He rocks!

Carla and AB Laura, I used to be PC too.

But she smiled at me and told me that I'd done well."

OF COURSE SHE DID!!! She was VERY happy that you did what you did...every time a "patient" comes in to have their baby killed, she makes money. Yes, in her book, you did VERY well! She should have given you a big, mushy kiss as well!

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 12:35 PM
------------------------------------------------------------ ROFLMAO!

I think I would have told her to "get the heck away from me!"

I am not clear as to what the beef is here. Is the problem with the city officials apparently being incompetent? Is the problem that PP is non profit? Are all non profit organizations prohibited in this particular zone?

Erin, "Laura- she was helping me too. I didn't want to be pregnant."

She wasn't helping you, she was just giving you what you wanted - your own self-centered desire.

She sure didn't help your baby.

She wasn't helping you, she was just giving you what you wanted - your own self-centered desire.

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 12:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah! Every time I order from a menu, select clothing or buy furniture I'm acting on my own self-centered desire.
You do the same...

Laura- so be it. Me, or a non-sentient, unfeeling, piece of human tissue. Yeah...I'm going with me. Sorry.

Denial, denial.

Sally,
Here's a little background in a nutshell for you. Please understand, that BY NO MEANS am I sending you off to a PL website for any other reason than to help answer your question as quickly as possible.
:)

http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/blog/2007/1219/motion-to-close-planned-parenthood/#more-172

Oh, I'll treat myself to the finer things in life, but I'm not going to kill anyone to get what I want.

Laura said, "Yeah! Every time I order from a menu, select clothing or buy furniture I'm acting on my own self-centered desire.
You do the same..."

But the difference with my self-centered desires, is that no one gets killed in the process. I simply do not put my desires above another's life...

Erin said, "Laura- so be it. Me, or a non-sentient, unfeeling, piece of human tissue."

I'm confused...who were you talking about, here?

Ever swat a fly or smush a bug? That bug probably had a greater range of physical sensation then a 5 week fetus.

Erin, 12:10PM

Under any other circumstances, other than emergency, this is totally unacceptable. She should have shown you the respect of doing that prior to you being set up for the procedure, with both of you sitting in chairs, talking to you face to face. The basic dignity you accord any person. When I worked ER we did our share of pelvic exams, and the doctor ALWAYS spoke with the patient first, then left the room as she undressed and we set her up for the exam.

Mary, that's the ONLY way I would allow myself to be treated. I guess abortion patients are sub human.

What to do about Heather? We have explained to her that lists of examples of bad practicioners do not prove anything, but she continues to post them.

I guess some people are so stupid that they cannot learn.

Somg, such as yourself. Stick around. I'll teach you a thing or 2.

Mary, I was in agreement with you.

Somg, would you care to try to defend these abortionists and their actions? Go ahead. I'll wait.

SoMg,
I've learned alot from Heather's posts, as did many others. It's the "stupidity" of pro-aborts that cannot see what a sham these so-called "doctors" really are. Her posts are just an addition of facts about these quacks.

Of course, I don't think you're stupid, it's just that you haven't taken off your blinders yet. When and if it happens, you too will see the light!

Shall we review more corruption?

Heather,
Yes. Let's! I think we need more TRUTH!

Stuart Sitzman - Just don't call me an abortionist

In the LA Times September 22, 1991, it was reported that Dr. Stuart Sitzman, a gynecologist who has performed abortions for his private patients before, told them he'd be happy to be quoted by name.

But, he requested,

"Just don't call me an abortionist"

Meet Finkel - Abortionist and sexual predator

On May 26,2004 abortionist Brian L. Finkel surrendered his medical license to the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners ( Case # 3287 + 2989), after he was convicted of sexually assaulted several patients.

The arrest and court proceedings were covered by several news outlets, the Arizona Republic (several articles), the Phoenix News Times 8/28/2003, the East Valley Tribune 11/26/2004 and several others.

Here are some exerts from taped interviews with law enforcement from some of Finkel's abortion staff who were eye witnesses to some of these crimes (as printed in the Life Dynamics Newsletter entitled: Thirteen of Finkel?s victims were patients of Finkel):
Question, Would Finkel wake patients by placing his hands on their breasts

Answer, Yes sir, its true, thats true. Ive seen that?we?ve even told his wife.?

Question, ? Have you seen the ___________flicking??

Answer, ?I can?t lie, yes I have.? Another employee told investigators, ? I?ve saw him do the ______flick all the time. At the office we had a name for it.?

A third employee said, ?If she was attractive, he?d find a way to be alone with the patient.?

Finkel consistently denied these charges and said he was never alone with any of his patients.

Another employee said this, ?He?s like a monster?he told K.C.(employee) he?d pay to get her teeth done if she?d give him a **** (slang for oral sex).?

Abortionist Brian Finkel

The jury found that Finkel had either fondled the breasts or rubbed the genitals of the thirteen abortion patients.

One woman testified that she had awakened after the abortion to find Finkel lying on top of her groping her breasts. an article in theThe August 13,2003 East Valley Tribune, said the woman testified that on the day she had the abortion she, "remember waking up, opening my eyes, his hands were in my breasts groping me."

The Tribune goes on to report that the woman became alarmed when Finkel said he was going to touch her clitoris. She said she glanced at the female attendant who turned away. She stated that prior to that Finkel had thrown a gown at her and told her to undress. She said Finkel yanked the gown up to her throat when she had only pulled it up to her abdomen.

The September 3, 2003 edition of the East Valley Tribune (More women to testify in sexual abuse trial) states that at the time, Finkel performed 20% of the state's abortions. The women who testified against Finkel said that his examinations were unlike any other they had by a physician by touching them in places their doctors had never touched for that type of exam.

Another news report indicated that there were allegations made by one abortion patient of Oral sexual contact.

In an October 23, 2003, Phoenix New Times article entitled, Trial and Error, they reported that Detective Art Haduch wrote in 1999 of his interview with Karen Corbett, a previous medical assistant to Finkel, "Corbett told me that Finkel would particularly fondle the breasts of larger-chested women or women with breast enhancement. I asked Karen if she had ever been out of the room, and Finkel was alone with the patient. Karen said this happened numerous times."



Finkel during his trial
Photo: Jack Kurtz, The Arizona Republic

During his trial the Phoenix New Times ( No Choice, Scenes from a "clown show" -- the Finkel trial, 01/08/04) reported that one day in court, Finkel responded jocularly to a reporter's question during a recess about his plans for Halloween stating, "I'm going as a transvestite sex-crimes prosecutor."

The New Times also reported that during one court recess, Finkel looked at a woman who had been testifying against him, then whistled the melody to "If I Only Had a Brain."
In an October 5, 2006 article Finkel is quote as saying, "Physicians that abuse their patients in this state go to prison. I'm not going to prison, because I'm not doing anything wrong."

Finkel was found guilty in Marcopa County Superior Court of 22 counts of criminal sexual abuse Finkel was originally charged with 67 sex counts. Finkel is currently serving time in state prison.

One of Finkel?s victims told the paper that she, ?hopes he dies in prison.? Another victim stated, ?I could see that he wasn?t sorry for anything that happened.?

On December 14, 2006, the Phoenix New Times ran a follow-up report entitled, Hey Diddle Diddle, Abortion doctor Brian Finkel will remain in prison for at least 20 more years, after a recent appellate court loss. The story focused on a letter the New Times received from a cell mate of Finkel's, James Stites, who is serving a six-year prison sentence for attempting to molest a child.

"Since I've been in here," Stites wrote, "I have heard how he loved his job because he got to play with a lot of breasts and how he enjoyed rubbing their crotch. Now he's telling us he will be out on the streets in 2006 because the courts screwed up on his case. . . . Can you let me know if this is true or not because this is one sick son-of-a-bi*** and doesn't need to be on the inside."

Patient awoke to find abortionist raping her

In 1995, abortionist Lawson A. Akpulonu found himself in trouble. Akpulonu, 49 at the time of his arrest , worked for three abortion clinics, and according to the LA Times (LA Doctor’s license is suspended in sex case: 2/18/1995), was arrested while at work at one of the clinics, the Midland Medical Center in Culver City.

The LA Times reported that documents filed by the attorney general stated that a patient told authorities that Akpulonu performed an abortion on her in a Culver City clinic Jan. 28, 1995, and that while she was still under anesthesia after the procedure, the documents state that she "awoke to find respondent raping her. . . . Akpulonu gave (the) patient . . . a shot and she went back to sleep."
They also reported that, another patient said Akpulonu fondled her after he performed an abortion on her at a South Gate clinic Nov. 9, 1992. Another patient alleged that Akpulonu made sexual comments to her and touched her improperly during a clinic visit Aug. 2, 1994.

A March 18,1993 LA Times article entitled, State slow to discipline physicians, reporting on how slow the state of California is to discipline bad doctors stated that Akpulonu pleaded guilty to medical insurance fraud and in 1992 one of Akpulonu's employees complained to the Medical Board that the doctor did not sterilize his surgical tools and used untrained people to assist in operations. A January 31,1993 article said that Akpulonu had been convicted of threatening enemies with a loaded gun

In 1996, the Medical Board of California revoked Akpulonu's license.

Tommy Tucker - We're . . .the lowest echelon

Abortion doctor Tommy Tucker told the Atlanta Journal Constitution in a May 16, 1993 interview:

"We're perceived as being dirty, underhanded, the lowest echelon of the medical practice."

In 1993, Tucker told Time Inc:

"I wish I would never ever have to do another one. I don't like it. It's not fun. It's not like you're curing a cancer or fixing a broken bone. You're terminating a potential life."

I've killed my baby, they are right

American Medical News ran a story about the conflicts that abortion staff have. The July 12, 1993 article entitled, Abortion providers share inner conflicts, talks about one abortion clinic nurse who described what she witnessed in the recovery room after the girls had their abortions.

She stated that the abortion clinic patients would lie in the recovery room and cry and say, “I’ve killed my baby. I’ve killed my baby.” She went on to say, “ I don’t know what to say to these women. Part of me thinks maybe they are right.”

ZBA, take the permit away....
Waiting is such sweet sorrow.

Tina Welsh - No physician will work here

Tina Welsh of the Duluth Women's Health Center abortion clinic told 20/20 in a May 24, 1991 interview,

"In 10 years we have never had a physician from Duluth that has been willing to work here. And I went right down the list, about 27 physicians, in the immediate area of northern Minnesota and Michigan and Wisconsin

Abortion doctor was annoyed

One abortion patient recounts:

"I woke up in pain and crying in the recovery room. The doctor came in all annoyed and asked me "What are you still crying for?" He then told me that I cried through the whole procedure even under general anesthesia and that it was very distracting."

Source: AbortionTV

Cocaine, stalking - just another day

According to NY State Board of Professional Medical Conduct Case # BPMC 01-99, abortionist Daniel Holschauer had been treated for cocaine abuse and was reported to have lied on his medical applications about his troubles. Local news stated that he lied to officials at two hospitals when he applied for privileges at both hospitals, claiming he'd never had a problem with drugs or alcohol abuse. An article in the The Times Herald (01/06/01) stated that in fact, he'd been in drug rehab for cocaine addiction, which had cost him a job in 1988, and which was an ongoing problem. He was also charged with stalking abortion patients that he wanted to have sex with.

Abortionist calls patient 'lazy'

In an April 4, 1993, article, Legalizing abortion did not put the “butchers” out of business, the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette recalls a Chicago Tribune (10/22/91) report that at a license revocation hearing in October 1988, testimony revealed that abortionist Arnold Bickham had called the victim of a fatal botched abortion, Sylvia Moore, "lazy" because she failed to get up after receiving the abortion. It went on to report that Bickham pushed her out of his clinic in a wheelchair, despite her condition. She died at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center. Bickham never faced criminal charges in her death.

Abortionist not sympathetic

A women who had an abortion remembers:

"The doctor said only two things to me. The first was, "Thank God I have one that is not screaming!"

The second thing he said to me was, "You were barely six weeks along," and he left the room.

Source: Forerunner

*sigh* Are you done yet, heather?

I guess so.

I just wanted to prove my case. Abortionists are dirty old men.

You can protest all you want against abortion,
but nothing will stop it.You have the right
to be opposed to it,I would never deny you
that,and to express your opinions.But you do not have the right to try to stop women from
excercizing their right to choose.
Anti-choice religious conservatives have
the right to their religious beliefs and to
live their lives according to their faith,
but they have terribly unhealthy attitudes
to sex and the family,and totally unrealistic
goals and expectations.They want a country
in which there is no sex before or outside of marriage,no abortion,no homosexuality,no
pornography,no contraceptives,not even
something as normal and healthy as masturbation.
You want the government to censor what books,
magazines,newspapers,films,DVDs etc we read
and view.What planet are you living on?
You also want a world in which everybody
has big,contented families,watches G rated
movies and TV,and lives happily ever after.
What a lovely fairy tale.Please!!!!
There is no way to create an America like this,
and if the government tries to force the
country to be like this,the results will be
catastrophic.I am not antireligion;I don't
condemn anyone merely for being a Christian;
but God save America if the religious right
gets too much power.Soon Gays will be jailed,
even executed.We will be a police state as repressive as Iran,Saudi Arabia and North
Korea.What a nightmare!

*does a small victory dance*

Here it comes...

So are priests.

Either you can accept that generalization as acceptable in all cases where there have been a few incidents, or it's never applicable. Your choice.

Priests don't kill babies...

Heather -

Love the posts - The Truth does hurt doesn't it!

No matter how much we shed light on abortion, the more PCers put their heads in the sand nad get defensive. If anyone who was PC changes their mind, then that person is labeled stupid, uneducated, ignorant, delusioned and so on. Even when you read about abortionists who have changed sides ,tell the truth about the industry, they are viewd as traitors and need to be discredited or personally distroyed.

Yes! God Save America!!

Thank you for the discussion today! Actually if you are PC you are helping me. I will be speaking up and speaking out and come here to brush up on your "reasoning" skills. Indeed.

Robert, you don't know what you're talking about. Robert, who LOVES abortion? Irresponsible men!!

Good grief, why do you guys always have to change the subject?? WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PRIESTS! This is a PL blog, and we are here to discuss abortion.

Priests don't kill babies...

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 1:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

They wouldn't have anybody to molest.

Heather,
Kudos to you for understanding Robert's rant! All I heard was blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah!

Tara, thank you!

......and, "what a nightmare"

Robert is ridiculous.

Heather, if you start a debate with a challengable premise, I can challenge it. You're saying that all abortionists are dirty old men because a few of them have molested or assaulted their patients. I'm saying that all priests are dirty old men because a few of them have molested or assaulted the children of their congregation. Either the basic premise of the generalization is correct and applicable in all situations, or it isn't.

Heather, you wrote: "Abortionists are dirty old men."

That's wrong. Right-to-life Republicans are the dirty old men. Go back and reread when I posted some of their names.

Clinic employees fired for reporting abortionist

In 1990 the Miami Herald interviewed former employees of the South Florida Today?s Women?s Medical Center abortion clinic.
The employees told the newspaper that they were fired when clinic owner Vladimar Rosenthal heard that they were on the phone complaining to the National Abortion Federation (NAF) about the conditions at the clinic. Rosenthal's clinic was reportedly a member of NAF at the time.

Employees told the Herald that Vladimar, the owner (a male doctor) and Hill, the male nurse anesthetists were often alone with the female patients. When the state inspected the clinic they found several revealing photographs of females in the possession of the male nurse at the clinic.

Employee, Denise Fong Choy told the Florida Department of Professional Regulations (case # 89-010853) investigators that she was hired as a counselor at the South Dixie Highway clinic. She said she was fired after one and a half years of employment after becoming very concerned about the liabilities for doing certain procedures without licensed personnel in attendance.

She called the National Abortion Federation and was overheard by someone at the clinic. She claims that when Rosenthal found out about the call, he fired her.

Neat Rodriguez was also an employee of Rosenthal's at the Today's Women abortion clinic. She was NOT a high school graduate and had been hired by Rosenthal to in her words, "do everything" at the clinic.

She was also overheard complaining to the National Abortion Federation about Rosenthal and she claims that is why he fired her as well.

A few? *blows water through nose*

Abortionist: sex, rape, and hatred

One of California’s biggest sexual misconduct cases against an abortion doctor, might indicate that gynecologist Ivan C. Namihas had a hatred of women.

In March 1981, Roberta Ward, underwent a hysterectomy performed by Namihas. The operation went well, but a few days later the patient's sutures tore open. Namihas put her under anesthesia and sewed her up. A few days later, the stitches tore again. This time Namihas, seemingly agitated, redid the stitches -- but omitted the anesthetic.

"It was excruciatingly painful, but he finished so quickly I didn't have time to do anything," she says.

When Ward went in for a final checkup, she suddenly realized the examination was anything but routine. She says that when she was alone with Namihas, her feet in the metal stirrups, Namihas commented that Ward's husband would "appreciate" his handiwork because he had "sewed me up tighter."

Then the doctor began to fondle her, Ward says. "I thought, 'Do I yell? Do I kick? My feet are up in these things.' So I laid there like a corpse, thinking, 'It's going to be over.' It seemed like an eternity."

Ward tried to take action against Namihas with the state medical board, but the complaint she filed never seemed to go anywhere until Kathleen Schmidt took over the case.

After interviewing Roberta Ward in 1981, Schmidt had no doubt that Ward had told the truth, however Schmidt needed additional witnesses to procede. Six years later she got the break she needed when she overheard another investigator discussing a sexual misconduct case;and mentioned the name Namihas.

The patient, April S., claimed to the investigator that during a pelvic exam, Namihas had fondled her sexually. This complaint stalled as well as Namihas managed to convince two investigators that she had misunderstood a common medical procedure.

Then in 1990 a former girlfriend of Namihas's, Jeanette Jacobs filed a complaint. Jacobs stated to the medical board that Namihas had gotten her pregnant, then performed an after-hours abortion on her without adequate equipment.

The LA Times reported that Namihas allegedly impregnated at least two of his patients, and that he told one woman, whom he treated for more than 10 years, that he became a gynecologist so he could vent his anger toward women.

A former employee said that Namihas "seemed to get some perverse pleasure" from inflicting pain on patients and several women told the LA Times grisly tales of enduring excruciating procedures without anesthesia. Another woman said that she, "felt he had problems with women in general because he talked about how much he hated his mother and bad relationships he'd had with girlfriends and his wives."

Still another said, "He told me the reason he became a gynecologist was because he hated women and he could use a knife to cut them.”

Dozens of women complained to state medical authorities that Namihas had fondled, masturbated or otherwise sexually abused them. Many of the alleged instances of abuse dated back to the late 1960s and continued through 1992, they said.

In a 1993 Primetime investigation several patients shared their horrors:

* "The examinations would be without gloves. It was my first gynecologist that I ever went to. I didn't know that they were supposed to use gloves. I know that now."

* " He wanted to be my first sexual experience, to make sure that it was done correctly."

* "And he wanted me to sit on his lap and give him a return demonstration so that he knew that I knew how to masturbate."

Kathleen Jewel Elliot wrote this letter to the Orange County Medical Association in 1973.

"During the examination of the pelvic region, he began massaging the erogenous zones of my vagina, telling me to close my eyes and relax. He also used foul language. I have no idea at all what can be done, if anything. At least you will have this on record in case you receive other complaints."

In some of the treatments, the indictment alleges, Namihas performed painful laser surgery on patients and billed for the procedures even when test results and biopsies came back negative.

When state medical authorities revoked Namihas' license in May, 1992, more than 200 women came forward and said he abused them.

Officials of the California Attorney General's office have described Namihas as "a predator in a white coat" and called his alleged transgressions "the worst case of sexual abuse by a physician in California history."

Court documents filed by the attorney general allege that he:

* Made one of his patients pregnant and then performed an abortion on her without adequate equipment and safeguards.

* Aggressively assaulted and kissed a hospital employee and had her fired when she reported it.

* Boasted of his sexual prowess and had "physical encounters" with a nurse while a patient was in labor, thus "abdicating his responsibility" to the patient.

* Performed a dilation and curettage on a woman without anesthesia, an act the attorney general called "cruelty, plain and simple."

* Taught a patient how to masturbate, then told her to go home and think of him while she masturbated.

* Induced the same patient to perform oral sex on him.

* Exposed his penis to a patient.

* Harassed a woman "for being in labor for 18 hours."

In the June 1997, US Attorney's Bulletin (Volume 45, Number 3) California Assistant Attorney General Jonathan S. Shapiro states, " The term 'abuse of patient trust' must have been coined for Dr. Ivan C. Namihas. Arrogant, cruel and greedy her carried out a particularly cruel form of fraud against his victims."

He also pointed out that after abusing his patients and destroying medical files, Namihas moved to Las Vegas, Nevada and might, "still there living in his mansion n the 15th hole of a private golf course, but for the courage and persistence of some of his patients."

On July 3, 1992, the Medical Board of California revoked Namihas' license
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heather, I'm being generous saying a few about the catholic clergy too.

A few? Let's take a closer look, shall we? IT SHOULD NOT BE THIS EASY FOR ME TO POST ALL OF THIS CORRUPTION!!

Look at Bathroom-FAGGOT Senator Larry Craig, a right-to-life Republican.

Look at Whore-monger Senator David Vitter, a right-to-life Republican.

Look at Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, who was kicked out of his church for serial adulteries with multiple partners. Was he using birth-control, or did his mistresses abort his pregnancies?

Do I need to go on? Clearly, right-to-life Republicans are dirty old men.

What makes you think I'm Catholic? Blast away.

Do I need to go on? Clearly, right-to-life Republicans are dirty old men.

Posted by: SoMG at January 5, 2008 2:06 PM------------------- Are they single and good looking?

A few would be 3 or 4. I find these stinky losers everywhere.

Abortionist joked and laughed during abortion

One abortion patient reported that,

"I was almost 5 months when I told my mother so I had to pay $1,000 to have a saline abortion and the doctor stuck this big needle in my stomach and joked and laughed the whole time like he was at a golf game with his country club buddies and he had no emotion or empathy for me it was awful and demeaning, then I was admitted into the hospital until I delivered the baby, the pain that I had with the delivery were terrible and when the baby came the insensitive nurse said It's a girl! Like it was a normal delivery and it was a happy occasion but all I could do was cry, after that I was taken into another room where the doctor removed the after birth and checked me for missing body parts from the baby and there was so much blood I thought I was gonna die right there. Then they put the baby in a jar and left her in the bathroom on the edge of the shower for me to see."

Sex fiend

According to the NY State Board of Professional Medical Conduct, Case # BPMC 01-99, on April 16, 2001 abortionist Daniel Holschauer of Warwick, NY lost his license after stalking his abortion patients. One victim alleged that after performing an abortion on her, Holschauer wanted to see her and he wanted sex.

The Times Herald Record Online, (Warwick gynecologist admits stalking patients for sex, 06/01/06 ) reported that later that same day he did have unprotected sex with a patient, a woman he'd performed an abortion on days earlier.

Then Holschauer began to stalk her, calling up, showing up. He wanted more, so he began to stalk her. An investigation showed that she was not the first patient that Holschauer attempted to have sex with.

Following surgery on one patient, Holschauer removed the gauze from her vagina and stated, "you know, I would really like to be there." Holschauer then began to pull his pants down and the patient noticed that he was having an erection.

Holschauer then told the patient, "I just did you a favor, now you do me a favor."

When the patient refused, Holschauer asked the abortion patient to perform oral sex, and to masturbate him with her hand. Holschauer then kissed the patient on the mouth and grabbed her breast.

Years earlier it was reported that Holschauer had sex with a post-abortion patient by giving her a pill, he told her it would relax her, then he took her back to her apartment and had sex with her.

Holschauer's license was suspended for one year, but after only two months it was reinstated provided he adhere to the following conditions: he can treat female patients only with a chaperone present; he must undergo routine drug testing; and he must undergo psychotherapy for as long as the therapist deems necessary.

Holschauer was the placed on probation for five years.
To read the findings of the case click here

So you agree that all catholic priests are dirty old men, heather?

Heather, it's easy for you to post these lists because others have assembled them for you.

If you had to find your own lists, instead of copying-and-pasting from sites like Operation Rescue, you'd find it more difficult. You'd actually have to do some research! (Imagine that--Heather doing research. The idea is laughable.)

Stalkers, druggies. They are all losers.

Erin, nice try to throw me off topic. Somg, LOL! you can't ever post facts when asked to do so, so shut the heck up. Happy New Year *kisses* LOL!

Should I post all of the stories about Obstetricians who get sued every year? The numbers would be in the hundreds. The AVERAGE OB gets sued between 2 and three three times over the course of his career.

You don't care if those butchers maim, molest and kill women every day in this country.

Somg, what have you assembled? What? The bathroom faggot post? BTW, why did everyone freak out when Jasper said "faggot?" Why doesn't anyone care if you use it?

Look at David Hager, one of Bush's abstinance people, now accused of anally raping his wife for years.

Look at Whore-monger Randall Tobias, President Bush's AIDS czar.

Look at David Hager, one of Bush's abstinance people, now accused of anally raping his wife for years.

Look at Whore-monger Randall Tobias, President Bush's AIDS czar.

Posted by: SoMG at January 5, 2008 2:18 PM--------------------- What is your point?

*headdesk* Heather, are you TRYING to be dense? Do you not understand how your basic premise is fallacious? The kind of sweeping generalization about abortionists can be applied to ANY FIELD OF WORK. Going by your logic, ANY field that has ever had anyone in it accused or convicted of sexual misconduct is inherently a corrupt and messed up field. It just doesn't WORK.

OH NO!

Google "obstetrician molest" and Obstrician drugs." There are HUNDREDS of OB perv junkies out there!

ERIN, we are on a pro life blog. Abortion is the topic. Stick to it. :headdesk:

OH NO!

Google "obstetrician molest" and Obstrician drugs." There are HUNDREDS of OB perv junkies out there!

Posted by: Laura at January 5, 2008 2:19 PM------------------- What does that have to do with abortion?

Look at Ted Haggard.

Heather, in a debate, you have to make arguments that hold water. Your premise is flawed. Explain to me how your argument can apply to abortionists but not to any other field with those accusations.

Being stoned not a problem for abortion doc

Sheri McDaniel, a former employee of abortionist William Malcolm Knarr, swore in an affidavit October 22, 1992 that Knarr appeared to be high on drugs while at the 720 Central Facility.

"On one occasion I heard a conversation at the front desk between Dr. Knarr and another employee in which Knarr stated he had taken some Stadol because he had a headache. He told his staff when he came in to do the abortion that he was not alert. He went ahead and performed the procedure anyway. Knarr had a picnic for his employees at his home when I first began working there. At least one individual who worked for Knarr was also snorting amphetamines. This employee would snort these amphetamines during her working hours at Knarr’s facility."

Look at this.

You see, Erin, you can point out her error all you like but Heather will not learn.

Does the phrase "Dumb as dung" mean anything to you?

$80,000 in gambling debts

The Associated Press reported in an article that appeared in the Birmingham News, Abortion doctor lost at gambling, probers say (09/03/93), that abortionist George Wayne Patterson had over $80,000 in gambling debts before he was killed in a Mobile, Alabama parking lot located in the nightclub district. In his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Patterson reportedly said his gambling losses for the previous year totaled $50,000. He owed at least three bookies $80,000.

Look at this.

Does the phrase "Dumb as dung" mean anything to you?

Posted by: SoMG at January 5, 2008 2:23 PM----------------- Only when it comes to you.

I prefer "box of rocks" *smiles*

Ah, David Hager. Remember when he told his attorney that he had anally assaulted his wife over and over "by accident?" Yup, another obstetrician:

May 26, 2005

Dr. David Hager’s Family Values: Should This Man Be Advising Bush on Women’s Health?
In a recent cover story, the Nation magazine examined the political and personal history of David Hager, a top advisor to the Food and Drug Administration. In the article, his former wife accused him of repeatedly raping her throughout their marriage. We talk to the reporter, Ayelish McGarvey, who broke the story and two women’s health experts on how Hager’s political views affect FDA policies on the morning after pill and other issues. [includes rush transcript]

Dr. W. David Hager was appointed by the Bush administration to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Federal Drug Administration in 2002. Hager is a prominent Kentucky based obstetrician- gynecologist who is the author of six books including “Stress and the Women’s Body” and “As Jesus Cared for Women.” At the time, his appointment to the FDA advisory committee alarmed many women"s groups because of his staunch opposition to abortion, emergency contraception and pre-martial sex. In his writings Dr. Hager has attacked the birth control pill for promoting promiscuity and advised bible readings to relieve premenstrual syndrome.

In December of 2003, Dr. Hager was one a small group of people on an FDA committee who voted against the over the counter sale of the morning after pill known- the emergency contraceptive pill known as Plan B. The vote was 23 to 4 in favor of permitting the pill to be sold without a prescription. One physician on the panel called Plan B, “the safest product that we have seen brought before us.” But the FDA took the unusual step of disregarding the committee’s recommendation and did not approve Plan B for over the counter sales.

In a recent article on the cover of Nation magazine, reporter Ayelish McGarvey investigates Dr. Hager’s role in persuading the FDA to reject Plan B. She also reveals allegations by Dr. Hager’s former wife of rape and sexual abuse by Hager that went on for years.

Hager’s term ends in June. McGarvey questions whether women would knowingly choose a sexual abuser as their gynecologist or be comfortable with the idea of letting one serve as a federal advisor on women’s issues.

Ah, David Hager. Remember when he told his attorney that he had anally assaulted his wife over and over "by accident?" Yup, another obstetrician:

May 26, 2005

Dr. David Hager’s Family Values: Should This Man Be Advising Bush on Women’s Health?
In a recent cover story, the Nation magazine examined the political and personal history of David Hager, a top advisor to the Food and Drug Administration. In the article, his former wife accused him of repeatedly raping her throughout their marriage. We talk to the reporter, Ayelish McGarvey, who broke the story and two women’s health experts on how Hager’s political views affect FDA policies on the morning after pill and other issues. [includes rush transcript]

Dr. W. David Hager was appointed by the Bush administration to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Federal Drug Administration in 2002. Hager is a prominent Kentucky based obstetrician- gynecologist who is the author of six books including “Stress and the Women’s Body” and “As Jesus Cared for Women.” At the time, his appointment to the FDA advisory committee alarmed many women"s groups because of his staunch opposition to abortion, emergency contraception and pre-martial sex. In his writings Dr. Hager has attacked the birth control pill for promoting promiscuity and advised bible readings to relieve premenstrual syndrome.

In December of 2003, Dr. Hager was one a small group of people on an FDA committee who voted against the over the counter sale of the morning after pill known- the emergency contraceptive pill known as Plan B. The vote was 23 to 4 in favor of permitting the pill to be sold without a prescription. One physician on the panel called Plan B, “the safest product that we have seen brought before us.” But the FDA took the unusual step of disregarding the committee’s recommendation and did not approve Plan B for over the counter sales.

In a recent article on the cover of Nation magazine, reporter Ayelish McGarvey investigates Dr. Hager’s role in persuading the FDA to reject Plan B. She also reveals allegations by Dr. Hager’s former wife of rape and sexual abuse by Hager that went on for years.

Hager’s term ends in June. McGarvey questions whether women would knowingly choose a sexual abuser as their gynecologist or be comfortable with the idea of letting one serve as a federal advisor on women’s issues.

Is David Hager supposed to mean something to me?

Oooo, you guys are going to get in trouble with Jill.

Somg, say whaaa? LOL!

Erin, where is your outrage at SOMG? He used the word faggot. YOU JUMPED ALL OVER JASPER FOR SAYING THAT ONCE!

Hypocrite.

Erin, just like you had something to say about me when I mentioned something about my gay friends.

heather- it's the way in which it was used. jasper meant to use it as a derogatory term. SOMG was just trying to get a rise. Either way, you both are going to get in trouble with Jill unless you clean up the language ;-)

heather- I have problems with people who don't believe that gay people are just as normal as anyone else. It's a very sensitive issue with me. And like I said, it's the context. SoMG was trying to intentionally be inflammatory. You reacted exactly the way he wanted you to.

Heather, he (David Hager) is yet another right-to-life Republican dirty old man.

Erin, just like you had something to say about me when I mentioned something about my gay friends.

Posted by: heather at January 5, 2008 2:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That never happened.
You have a rich and full fantasy life.

Just admit it, Heather, we're all friends here. Your fantasy is to be buggered by a right-to-life Republican, right?

That never happened.
You have a rich and full fantasy life.

Posted by: Laura at January 5, 2008 2:37 PM------------------ What would YOU know about having a life? Erin, had I said it first, you would have jumped all over me!

Just admit it, Heather, we're all friends here. Your fantasy is to be buggered by a right-to-life Republican, right?

Posted by: SoMG at January 5, 2008 2:38 PM----------------------- Okay. Guilty as charged:]

I wonder what will happen to Brian Finkel in prison? The right inmate will know what to do. Don't drop the soap.

I find it amusing when SoMg, Erin, Laura & others try to debunk Heather's posts by bringing up other frivolous lawsuits of other professions. You know what, millions of Americans get sued every day for BS claims...However, the one thing that you pro-aborts seem to conveniently forget EVERY time, is that there is absolutely NO correlation to any other profession and the abortionist. NO OTHER profession is in the business to simply kill babies. To think that ANY abortionist actually CARES about a woman is ridiculous and plain 'ol laughable. They only care about your money that comes from you waltzing in the office to have your baby killed. That's the reality!

Show me post after post of abortionists that do pro-bono work simply because he/she "cares" about the woman, and maybe I'll change my mind.

Lifestyle of an abortionist

On January 15, 1999, abortionist Neville W. Duncan was placed on 18 months' probation, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $250 after pleading no contest to charges that he beat his wife and was arrested with crack cocaine in his pocket.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, Doctor sentenced to 30 days in jail, A prosecutor in the case stated that,

"When you are providing medical services to others, they expect you to be healthy and in a good way. . . . In this case, I want him to be monitored. If he is to continue as a medical professional, he needs to remain absolutely drug-free."

Hi Sally!

*waves*

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 12:21 PM
....................................

Hiya Laura! How's life treating you? Running off to a wedding in a few. Have a great one!

Georgie??? Sally???? AB is confused!

Have a great time! Tell me about how the job is going when you have time, OK?

Hey AB, thanks for the support. They absolutely HATE these posts! Can you blame them? LOL! However, they love to run and talk about abortion clinic violence. They are all self-deceived.

I love to make them squirm. Okay, gotta run.

Going by your logic, ANY field that has ever had anyone in it accused or convicted of sexual misconduct is inherently a corrupt and messed up field. It just doesn't WORK.

Posted by: Erin at January 5, 2008 2:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yup.
If abortion should be outlawed because a handful of abortion providers are quacks, then pregnancy and childbirth should be outlawed to protect women from obstetricians - the most incompetent specialists in all of medicine.

there is absolutely NO correlation to any other profession and the abortionist. NO OTHER profession is in the business to simply kill babies.

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 2:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone's killing babies? That's illegal in this country. Call 911.

*sigh* Heather, you don't make me squirm. You just make me feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall. Your argument simply can't be used because it's fallacious. Honestly, I'd understand you guys a lot more if you'd stick to trying to convince me that a fetus without a central nervous system is a person deserving of rights instead of trying to make up fantastic generalizations that simply can't be applied.

Laura,
Your "call 911" line......way to old & you used it up...just sayin'

Show me post after post of abortionists that do pro-bono work simply because he/she "cares" about the woman, and maybe I'll change my mind.

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 2:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's one of the heroes.
Dr. McCreary came out of her retirement to provide abortion services in South Dakota. Between the travel and her insurance premiums, she isn't makin' a dime. She does it because the women of South Dakota NEED her.

Doctor flies into South Dakota to perform abortions
By Drew Griffin and Kira Kay
CNN

Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Posted: 1:40 a.m. EDT (05:40 GMT)

Dr. Miriam McCreary or one of her colleagues flies into South Dakota once a week to perform abortions.

SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (CNN) -- Not a single doctor in South Dakota will perform an abortion, which is why Dr. Miriam McCreary has come out of retirement.

Once or twice a month, the 70-year-old grandmother takes a 45-minute flight from Minneapolis, Minnesota, to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to perform abortions at the last clinic in the state willing to offer the procedure.

"I want every child that's born, to be born into a family that wants a child. I don't want children to be born into a family where they are not wanted and can't be cared for carefully. That's the tragedy," McCreary said. (Watch Dr. McCreary explain why she keeps working -- 5:27)

South Dakota is the focal point of the nation's debate over abortion. Backed by a strong Christian movement, Gov. Mike Rounds signed into law last month a bill that will make performing abortions a felony -- except to save the life of the mother. If unchallenged, it would go into effect this summer.

But most observers believe it will be challenged and will go before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both supporters and critics of the ban say they believe the time is ripe for a new legal examination of the abortion debate.

Planned Parenthood CEO Sarah Stoesz says her group plans to hold up enactment of the law with a lawsuit.

But some South Dakotans, like parishioners at Church of the Holy Spirit, pray the state's abortion ban will hold. "I think that the time is right to bring the subject again to the Supreme Court, and I guess we had leadership here that felt strong enough about it to push this through our legislature," one congregation member told CNN.

On the morning CNN traveled with McCreary, we arrived to a full parking lot at South Dakota's only abortion clinic. Abortions are performed only one day a week by McCreary and three other out-of-state physicians who rotate through the duty.

On this day, there were no protesters. Still, the doctor entered through a back door. Inside, she donned a white lab coat and got to work. A medical staff has completed most of the medical screening.

The patients have been counseled and have waited at least the mandatory 24 hours to think it through.

"We always worry about people who are ambivalent and they're not sure they want to do this," McCreary said, "and sometimes I'll say, 'don't do this. You don't want to do this today. Please go home and think about this and come back if you want.'"

She said patients are told in counseling of the alternatives to abortion, but that not many choose these options.

"Adoption is a wonderful thing, and they are always given the option to have the pregnancy and have children placed in adoption. And I admire those who do, but not many do," she said.

South Dakota covers 77,000 square miles. One patient drove more than four hours to get here. The patients can sit several more hours waiting for the five- to 10-minute procedure.

South Dakota requires every woman who has an abortion here to fill out a reporting sheet that includes details about her life and her decision to have an abortion.

From these public forms, CNN was able to learn a little about the 16 women who were at the clinic to have abortions. Asked why they were having an abortion, six said they "could not afford the child." Seven others checked the box saying "the mother did not desire to have the child."

McCreary said she rarely knows much about the women on whom she performs abortions. Her job, she said, is to provide safe procedures. "The only doubt I have is that I want the patient to be really sure that she wants that. That's the only doubt. Other than that, I just feel I am giving good health care."

At almost 6 p.m., McCreary has completed the last of the day's abortions and feels a sense of accomplishment at the end of her long day. "I've helped them out of a predicament that they were not happy to be in," she said, "and if I wasn't here to do it, you know, maybe no one else would do it."

McCreary has been making this trip for seven years. At age 70, she wants doctors in South Dakota to take her place.

But so far no one has stepped forward. So she said she will keep coming back.

CNN's Drew Griffin and freelance journalist Kira Kay contributed to this report.

Another one:

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION SPECIALIST TO OFFER FREE ABORTIONS ON ROE ANNIVERSARY
WICHITA, Kansas, January 14, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Notorious abortionist George Tiller plans on giving free abortions in celebration of the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that decriminalized abortion on demand.

Yet another one from the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina crisis:

ARKANSAS

FREE abortions for hurricane victims available in Little Rock at Little Rock Family Planning Services 800-272-2183
www.lrfps.com

1st one isn't pro-bono work...She does make money, she just needs to cut down on insurance premiums and travel expenses to come out in the black.

Second one, TILLER!!! You have got to be kidding me. In 2003 he did one day of pro-bono work on Roe's anniversary? Not really pro-bono work if you ask me....sounds more like "celebratory work" to me.....

Come on Laura, you've got to do better than that to change my mind!

Laura,
Your "call 911" line......way to old & you used it up...just sayin'

Posted by: AB Laura at January 5, 2008 3:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Baby killing" is used up - as well as an outright lie.
I'll quit using the expression the nanosecond you quit lying.

AB Laura- they have to make a living, darling. What're they supposed to do for money?

Cinic's don't count, Laura...they receive $$$ from taxpayers to do it. They're really not taking a financial loss, here. I'm talking abortionists...solo...doing pro bono abortions on a consistent basis solely because "they care".

"Baby killing" is used up - as well as an outright lie.
I'll quit using the expression the nanosecond you quit lying."

------
you should have never started, then...it's not a lie...babies aRE being killed...they're not being allowed to live, are they?

Erin said, "AB Laura- they have to make a living, darling. What're they supposed to do for money?"
---------
I don't know, Erin...not my problem...the VOLUNTEERS in crisis pregnancy centers don't make a dime, either...however, they VOLUNTEER their time to help women & their babies. My question, was how many abortionists VOLUNTEER their time to "help" women.

Volunteers at CPCs aren't performing surgical procedures. I'd be REALLY scared if some random volunteer was poking around my lady parts.

Oh, give it up. The clinic is already there, already operating safely, helping patients and preventing unwanted pregnancies. The city isn't going to close down a perfectly good clinic just because you people have a problem with women having sex as if they had the right. Most people want the clinic there, or don't care, and they know that eventually, you'll all get bored and move on.

tp,
It will be great fun to watch you eat your words!!!

Erin said, "Volunteers at CPCs aren't performing surgical procedures. I'd be REALLY scared if some random volunteer was poking around my lady parts."
------
You missed the point AGAIN!!!!
You & others have stated that abortionists care about women. If they really care, they would do pro-bono work, no? My point was that there are VOLUNTEERS all over the world, that do their work for no pay simply to help people. I would change my mind about abortionists simply being in the "business" for $$$ if any of you can provide me info that there are abortionists - solo- that do VOLUNTEER work for no pay....

BTW...there are REAL doctors that provide their services to help people all of the time, all over the work for NO PAY...just name some abortionists that do this & I promise I will change my mind about where their "heart" (LOL) lies....

Laura- so...why isn't my therapist, or my chiropractor, or my internist doing pro-bono work?

Laura 3:54PM

Why aren't doctors rushing forward to take her place?

Not my question, Erin,...my question was about abortionists....with 1.3 million abortions, there has to be some "good-willers" out there that really "care", right?

As far as your post goes, I don't know, maybe you have this "wierd" attraction to people who love money??? Many therapists, chiropractors, etc. do...I really don't know why yours don't...ask them?

gotta run to the store, now...low on tp! (toilet paper)...I look forward to pro-aborts responses (or PC responses) to my question when I get back! (not holding my breath, though!)

*grins* Well, my therapist has 6 kids, so I think I know why she has to charge me out the nose. But anyhow, I'll be back later, I got myself all worked up on the death penalty post and need to take a breather.

It will be great fun to watch you eat your words!!!

Considering how long it's taken you people to outlaw abortion, I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.

@tp,

I've read some of your comments here. Very soon some of the very same argumentation will be used to euthanise disabled and elderly folks. Should your parents quake at your words or should they anticipate your kindness?

I'm back...I am NEVER going to a Wal Mart superstore anymore for tp....$85.00 later, (gag), I got my tp plus a whole lot more! (lots of stuff I didn't need)...very sad...

amazing..(not really) no one found any good-will abortionists??? Maybe everyone's just a bit busy. I'm patient...I'll wait!

John Mc D., excellent point. But God willing, it won't come to that.

I'm looking forward to the meeting on Monday night --- bringing my daughter so she can see some good lawyers in action.

Just a cursory look at the paperwork that has been released (the city has withheld a bunch) it is obvious that this clinic is in clear violation of our local laws. First of all the deed to the property which they purchased disclosed a clear zoning covenant that precluded a non-for-profit operation on that site. The property is zoned B-Business only.

As a nearby property owner, I'm very interested in this proceeding. The City officials are obviously incompetent or corrupt. Even if this operation wasn't an abortion mill, I would have been outraged that the required public hearings for the needed variances were not held.

I'm not naive to think that it will be closed soon --- this will be a legal battle. Eventually all the information will come out. Zoning regulations are on the books to protect the residents and here city officials co-operated with an organization to violate them. This is an issue for anyone who has invested in a home in this area no matter where they stand on the pro-life issue. It is also a problem for the surrounding businesses who have followed local laws and had their property values affected.

In the end, I think that the PP scheme to open a clinc that couldn't be protested is what will cost them a lot of money. There is plenty of open space in the area -- some right by the mall where transportation is better --- that is zoned for medical offices. They just wanted to pick a place surrounded by residences so that pro-life advocates couldn't protest. By scheming with officials, and ignoring the covenant on their deed, they will have to pay for removal of the building because they can only plead ignorance if they didn't take the time to read the deed.

I'll report back after the meeting. The good turnout by citizens at these meetings is important because it keeps all the officials on their toes. If you can make the meeting on Monday, you should find it interesting.

Oh my gosh, LB, I thought the same thing about another location....Next to MetLife by Aldi & GFS...However, I never thought the reason for putting in a residential area was for that! That makes total sense to me! Those sneaky little bast.....(nevermind!)

*************************************************Ever swat a fly or smush a bug? That bug probably had a greater range of physical sensation then a 5 week fetus.

Posted by: Erin at January 5, 2008 1:06 PM
*************************************************
Erin,
What you call a "piece of tissue" is also a five week old human life. Would you rate your abortion experience as sorrowful, joyful, or was it really just more of a meaningless experience like "crushing a bug" to you?

John M: Very soon some of the very same argumentation will be used to euthanise disabled and elderly folks. Should your parents quake at your words or should they anticipate your kindness?

John, I really disagree with this. Birth has meant a lot, for time immemorial.

Rather than abortion or not making a difference, there, it's been times of severe resource shortage that have changed the way societies operate, i.e. as with certain tribes "putting out" those who were thought to have a lesser chance of survival, for the good of the tribe as a whole.

A very "hard" way to view things, there, I grant you - if anything I'd say it goes under the "desperate times call for desperate measures" deal.

In modern times I think we are a long, long way from that, especially in the developed world. (Perhaps it could be said that while some less-developed countries don't have it as policy, it happens as a practical matter due to economic problems, etc.)

You're in Canada, I'm in the U.S., and if there's to be anything like that here, I'd say it will be population pressure itself which brings it. Not necessarily just "too many people," but a combination of resource shortage and population leading to things being seen as "desperate." A long way off, IMO, if anything, but not impossible.

Doug

Dougminster,

My we're up early today? I've answered you posts on the other threads...

heather- it's the way in which it was used. jasper meant to use it as a derogatory term. SOMG was just trying to get a rise. Either way, you both are going to get in trouble with Jill unless you clean up the language ;-)

Posted by: Erin at January 5, 2008 2:33 PM--------------------- OH BULL!

Somg meant it to be derogatory, and you know it. Next time don't chastise one side and not the other.

Somg meant it to be derogatory, and you know it. Next time don't chastise one side and not the other.

Posted by: heather at January 6, 2008 10:35 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, SoMG's use of the word was intended to inject irony. Jasper's use of the word was an overt slur by a self-proclaimed homophobe.

Laura, I don't think so.

Where did he say he was a homophobe?

@Doug,

just one in-the-fire possibility - a massive planetary depopulation program soon (like in months) planned for 25 years by Codex Alemenarius ... www.healthfreedomusa.org

and for the scientist in you there a group in Japan attempting to awaken the super-volcano, we know affectionately as Yellowstone Park. If successful - say good-bye to the USA. ((There have been boulders found in Alberta, Canada from the last of Yellowstone's eruptions - that is 1,000 mile hurl of a multi-ton rock.)) - www.cheniere.org

just two of those the-sky-is-falling scenarios, right? Check them out - I dare anyone here. Perhaps, the skeptic finds comfort in his view of life, because he complains but really doesn't want to change.... no matter what - "I believe MY opinions ... do no disturb me with the facts!"

Oh, have you read anything at all about the effects of the massive worldwide-depopulation trends now underway?

"What kind of a beast are you?"

Hal: the kind that doesn't see anything wrong with a woman deciding to terminate a pregnancy.

Truthseeker: Sounds pretty much exactly like someone punishing themselves and beating their head against the wall trying to convince people it's o.k. to kill babies. What was your take on it?

I think Hal's just giving his opinion, not beating anything at all. He doesn't worry about name-calling, and has a wry humor about it.

Doug

MK: At one point you stated that late term abortions were rare, and done for very serious reasons. Now granted, these abortions were done 16 weeks and later, and your def. is 24 weeks or later, but note the reasons given...

Actually, MK, I think true "late-term" would be after 26 weeks, or after 24 or whatever figure was used by state law as "viability." No huge deal, and I'm not trying to nitpick - we're talking only around a thousand or in the hundreds either way.

So, out of all the millions of US women pregnant every year, yes, late term abortions are rare.

I agree - those reasons you stated for abortions after 16 weeks sound logical to me.
......

Also look at the restrictions on late term abortions. The reason there are more of them is not because they are illegal, but because doctors with an ounce of common decency won't perform them.

The reason for the restrictions is that some state legislators want them. When the pregnant woman is at serious risk and/or there is severe enough fetal deficiency, then I have no problem with abortion, and I imagine many doctors don't either.

Doug

John M: just one in-the-fire possibility - a massive planetary depopulation program soon (like in months) planned for 25 years by Codex Alemenarius ... ">www.healthfreedomusa.org

John, I think that sounds like a crackpot theory, with all due respect.
......

and for the scientist in you there a group in Japan attempting to awaken the super-volcano, we know affectionately as Yellowstone Park. If successful - say good-bye to the USA. ((There have been boulders found in Alberta, Canada from the last of Yellowstone's eruptions - that is 1,000 mile hurl of a multi-ton rock.)) - www.cheniere.org

As far as I can tell, the "energy from the vacuum" is totally unsupported and just craziness, IMO.
......

just two of those the-sky-is-falling scenarios, right? Check them out - I dare anyone here. Perhaps, the skeptic finds comfort in his view of life, because he complains but really doesn't want to change.... no matter what - "I believe MY opinions ... do no disturb me with the facts!"

At Bearden's site I didn't see the thing about Japan and trying to fire up a volcano.
......

Oh, have you read anything at all about the effects of the massive worldwide-depopulation trends now underway?

I know the rate of population growth is forecasted to slow, but the earth's population is still supposed to go to over 9 billion. Good grief, it was only around 3 billion when I was born.

Doug

Doug,
We can go on and on about Hal beating his head trying to say that killing human life is o.k..
Here's another for you:
*******************************
You say "abortion is wrong." Others disagree, don't you get that? Abortion is wrong for you, fine. But that doesn't make it objectively wrong.
Even if you say it 1000 times.
Posted by: Hal at January 2, 2008 7:09 PM
*******************************
But Hal is gone. Let me ask you a question Doug.
Is there such a thing as five week old human life?

Yes, Truthseeker, and one thread is enough for it.

Doug,

I agree - those reasons you stated for abortions after 16 weeks sound logical to me.
......

Those reasons sound logical to you? * 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation...

We're not talking logic here anyway...we're talking right and wrong.

The reason there are more of them is not because they are illegal, but because doctors with an ounce of common decency won't perform them.
*
The reason for the restrictions is that some state legislators want them. When the pregnant woman is at serious risk and/or there is severe enough fetal deficiency, then I have no problem with abortion, and I imagine many doctors don't either

If that were true, then the states, like Kansas, that allow for late term abortions would have more of them. But Tiller is the only doctor I know that performs them on a regular basis.

we're talking only around a thousand or in the hundreds either way.

Again, would you say the same thing if it were six year olds instead of 26 week old fetuses? (And don't even try giving me that line about not wanting to kill 6 year olds...)the point is that if you think it's wrong to kill post viability then why are you able to put a number on it? Why is it okay to kill "only a few"...would you be okay if it was rare but legal to kill kindergartners because, oh, I don't know, let's say, that 71% of the mothers didn't realize that they had given birth til the kid was 6!

Doug,

Because abortion was made legal and with few, if any, restrictions placed on it being legal, our generation is being indoctrinated with the mistaken notion that it is o.k. to kill human life in pregnancies with no disease of any kind and when the woman is completely heaqlthy. A sad state of affairs for this generation and a scar upon the soul of humanity.

Truthseeker: Because abortion was made legal and with few, if any, restrictions placed on it being legal, our generation is being indoctrinated with the mistaken notion that it is o.k. to kill human life in pregnancies with no disease of any kind and when the woman is completely heaqlthy. A sad state of affairs for this generation and a scar upon the soul of humanity.

All right, your opinion is that it's sad and bad. But we don't need more people on earth for the sake of "more." You're saying "not okay" but I don't see your opinion trumping that of other people, especially not that of pregnant women. In this generation plenty of women are continuing pregnancies willingly.

Doug

Actually, MK, I think true "late-term" would be after 26 weeks, or after 24 or whatever figure was used by state law as "viability."

Doug, you have expressed to me that were abortion illegal, you would take action to reverse that, by voting and supporting pro-choice causes.

Doug, if abortions after 26 weeks, for various reasons, were occurring 80-90 percent of the time that all abortions are being done- the reasoning for ALL of them simply being "I was trying to hide my pregnancy from my parents, and then I got too big to hide it anymore", what would be your course of action to reverse this?

"I agree - those reasons you stated for abortions after 16 weeks sound logical to me."

MK: Those reasons sound logical to you? * 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation...

Yes, it sounds logical that women have such reasons (whether you approve of them or not). Most women would not want to have a later abortion versus an earlier one.
......

We're not talking logic here anyway...we're talking right and wrong.

Well, you brought up the reasons. I don't see them as affecting your opinion about the right/wrong of it.
......

The reason there are more of them is not because they are illegal, but because doctors with an ounce of common decency won't perform them.

"The reason for the restrictions is that some state legislators want them. When the pregnant woman is at serious risk and/or there is severe enough fetal deficiency, then I have no problem with abortion, and I imagine many doctors don't either."

If that were true, then the states, like Kansas, that allow for late term abortions would have more of them. But Tiller is the only doctor I know that performs them on a regular basis.

Doesn't Kansas restrict abortions after viability? There are not that many women who have them, let alone for "elective" procedures. I disagree that Tiller does them "on a regular basis" due to the woman just not wanting to be pregnant anymore. If the physical danger to the woman is great enough, or the problems with the fetus are great enough, it's not just Tiller that will perform abortions after viability.
......

"we're talking only around a thousand or in the hundreds either way."

Again, would you say the same thing if it were six year olds instead of 26 week old fetuses?

First of all, the point was that whether we mean 26 weeks or more, or 24 weeks or more (some states having 24 as "viability") then it's not that great a difference.
......

(And don't even try giving me that line about not wanting to kill 6 year olds...)

I do feel different about six year olds than about a 27 week fetus, for example.
......

the point is that if you think it's wrong to kill post viability then why are you able to put a number on it? Why is it okay to kill "only a few"

No, you brought up the hypothetical of 24+ week abortions being "very common" or something to that effect. If such a thing happened, the reason could well make a huge difference not only to me, but to most people and even to you. Within millions of abortions, the number of post-viability abortions where no real danger to the woman is present and no severe fetal deificency is present is very small. Those are not the pro-choice/pro-life argument, really, and I've already said I'm not for them.
......

would you be okay if it was rare but legal to kill kindergartners because, oh, I don't know, let's say, that 71% of the mothers didn't realize that they had given birth til the kid was 6!

No. However, the circumstances could make a big difference, i.e. if lots of women began killing five or six year olds, and one particular common thing was there for those women, then many would think it's best for them not to have kids.

Doug, if abortions after 26 weeks, for various reasons, were occurring 80-90 percent of the time that all abortions are being done- the reasoning for ALL of them simply being "I was trying to hide my pregnancy from my parents, and then I got too big to hide it anymore", what would be your course of action to reverse this?

Bethany, good question. I don't know. What would you do? It's pretty far-out there, and it'd sure make one wonder.

Doug,

Doesn't Kansas restrict abortions after viability? There are not that many women who have them, let alone for "elective" procedures. I disagree that Tiller does them "on a regular basis" due to the woman just not wanting to be pregnant anymore. If the physical danger to the woman is great enough, or the problems with the fetus are great enough, it's not just Tiller that will perform abortions after viability.

I thought you respected facts. I thought you only disagreed with things that can't be proved...

Why do you think the guy has been charged with all those felonies? Because on a regular basis, he has been aborting post/viable children for frivolous reasons. He'll probably get off tho, because he can show that (according to your logic) there are no such things as frivolous reasons (objectively).

And YOU are the one that said these post viability abortions were rare and for good reasons. THAT is why I pointed out the ludicrous reasons for aborting at 26 weeks (ie: I didn't know I was pregnant)...

Doug,

No, you brought up the hypothetical of 24+ week abortions being "very common" or something to that effect. If such a thing happened, the reason could well make a huge difference not only to me, but to most people and even to you. Within millions of abortions, the number of post-viability abortions where no real danger to the woman is present and no severe fetal deificency is present is very small. Those are not the pro-choice/pro-life argument, really, and I've already said I'm not for them.

If it were true that MOST people would have a problem with it, then why are we fought every step of the way when we try to outlaw them?

Doug,

Oh please...No. However, the circumstances could make a big difference, i.e. if lots of women began killing five or six year olds, and one particular common thing was there for those women, then many would think it's best for them not to have kids.

There is a big difference between agreeing that Susan Smith should not have been practicing motherhood and condoning her killing her kids.

What "circumstances" exactly would you find acceptable, making it "okay" to kill your kindergartner?

"Doesn't Kansas restrict abortions after viability? There are not that many women who have them, let alone for "elective" procedures. I disagree that Tiller does them "on a regular basis" due to the woman just not wanting to be pregnant anymore. If the physical danger to the woman is great enough, or the problems with the fetus are great enough, it's not just Tiller that will perform abortions after viability."

MK: I thought you respected facts. I thought you only disagreed with things that can't be proved...

And the fact is that it's not "many" in the context of millions.
......

Why do you think the guy has been charged with all those felonies? Because on a regular basis, he has been aborting post/viable children for frivolous reasons. He'll probably get off tho, because he can show that (according to your logic) there are no such things as frivolous reasons (objectively).

Again, I don't think that "regular basis" applies, nor would it have to for him to be charged. My logic doesn't say he's "right" if he actually do what you say he does.
......

And YOU are the one that said these post viability abortions were rare and for good reasons. THAT is why I pointed out the ludicrous reasons for aborting at 26 weeks (ie: I didn't know I was pregnant)...

Ahem - those reasons were for abortions 16 weeks and up. Obviously, almost all the abortions 16+ weeks will not be at 26 weeks or later. Any that are, and that are really "elective," then I don't say those are right in the first place.

Doug

MK: If it were true that MOST people would have a problem with it, then why are we fought every step of the way when we try to outlaw them?

That too is a good question. I would say that the perception is you're trying to ban all abortions then, or that you would ban some that really were needed for the health of the woman. The old incrementalism deal.

Let's say that we all agreed on it, and made "elective" abortions after 24 weeks illegal. Would you quit worrying about earlier abortions then?

I'd say obviously not, because that's where the real debate is. Sentiment is actually fairly one-sided when we're talking about post-viability and "just doesn't want to be pregnant."

Doug,
We agree then that abortion is killing human life? That is a good place to start a dialogue. Explain to me why you believe society should give a person the right to judge another
persons life as worthless. The US Constitution says that all men are created equal.

These are the clinics that will perform abortions up to and sometimes past 24 weeks...are you telling me that they wouldn't perform them later if they could? One states that the reason they don't do them later is because the law says that they would have to be done in a hospital, and God forbid these doctors set foot in a hospital. Too many prying eyes...

Face it Doug, it happens more often than you think. And it is your brand of morality that forced us to make laws about something that most people who aren't amoral, seems obvious. Killing children is an objective "wrong"...

Later procedures past 20 weeks LMP are not as accessible as earlier first trimester abortions. A very small percentage of procedures are performed at this stage and services are substantially more expensive due to greater physician skills, more visits, more time, and more medications and supplies. To learn more about clinics offering later abortions (their upper limit in weeks LMP is in parenthesis) click on the following:

Women's Health Care Services, Wichita, Kansas - Late Abortion Care
Orlando Women's Center, Orlando, Florida - Late Abortion

Choices Women's Medical Center -

Choices Women's Medical Center - Queens, New York offering Late Abortions.

Boulder Abortion Clinic - Boulder, Colorado offering Late Abortions.

Abortion Advantage - Dallas, Texas offering Late Abortions.

Atlanta SurgiCenter - Atlanta, Georgia offering late abortion services and care.

Alabama
Montgomery - Beacon Women's Center (24 weeks LMP)

Arkansas
Little Rock - Little Rock Family Planning Services (21.3 weeks LMP)

California
Beverly Hills - Prochoice Medical Center (24+ weeks LMP)
Fremont - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Fresno - Family Planning Associates Medical Group (22 weeks LMP)
Los Angeles - Eve Surgical Center (26+ weeks LMP)
Los Angeles - Family Planning Associates Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Los Gatos - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Montclair - Family Planning Associates Medical Group (21.5 weeks LMP)
Oakland - Family Planning Specialists Medical Group (22 weeks LMP)
Sacramento - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Sacramento - Pregnancy Consultation Center & Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Salinas - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
San Diego - Family Planning Associates Medical Group (21 weeks LMP)
San Francisco - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
San Jose - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Santa Cruz - Choice Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)

Colorado
Boulder - Boulder Abortion Clinic (26+ weeks LMP)

Connecticut
Bridgeport - Summit Medical Centers (24 weeks LMP)
Hartford - Summit Medical Centers (24 weeks LMP)

Florida
Ft. Lauderdale - All Women's Clinic (24 weeks LMP)
Ft. Lauderdale - BSS International (24 weeks LMP)
Miami - A Choice for Women
Sarasota - Premier Institute for Women's Health (24 weeks LMP)
West Palm Beach - Presidential Women's Center (22 weeks LMP)

Georgia
Atlanta - Atlanta Surgi-Center (26 weeks LMP)
Atlanta - Feminist Women's Health Center (25 weeks LMP)
Atlanta - Summit Medical Associates (25 weeks LMP)

Illinois
Champaign - Women's Health Practice (22 weeks LMP)
Chicago - Family Planning Associates Medical Group (24 weeks LMP)
Granite City - Hope Clinic for Women (24 weeks LMP)

Kansas
Wichita - Women's Health Care Services (26+ weeks LMP)

Massachusetts
Boston / Chestnut Hill - Women's Health Services (23 weeks LMP)

Michigan
Detroit - Northland Family Planning (24 weeks LMP)
Detroit - Summit Medical Associates (24 weeks LMP)
Grand Rapids - Heritage Clinic for Women (22 weeks LMP)
Warren - Women's Center

Minnesota
Minneapolis - Mildred S. Hanson MD (20 weeks LMP)

Nevada
Las Vegas - A-Z Women's Center (24 weeks LMP)
Las Vegas - Summit Family Planning (24 weeks LMP)

New York
Long Island City - Choices Women's Medical Center (24 weeks LMP)
Manhattan - Planned Parenthood (22 weeks LMP)
New York City / Queens - Liberty Women's Health Care of Queens (24 weeks LMP)

North Carolina
Jacksonville - Crist Clinic for Women (20 weeks LMP)

Ohio
Cincinnati - Women's Med Center (24 weeks LMP)
Columbus - Complete Healthcare for Women
Dayton - Women's Med Center (24 weeks LMP)

Texas
Dallas - Abortion Advantage

Washington
Renton - Cedar River Clinics

West Virginia
Charleston - Kanawha Surgicenter

Browse State Listing

Truthseeker: Explain to me why you believe society should give a person the right to judge another persons life as worthless. The US Constitution says that all men are created equal.

The Constitution was not applied to the unborn nor is it now. The unborn are not "persons" as you state it.

Society sometimes judges people, and executes them, imprisons them, etc. Usually fine with me. And they are not inside the body of a person. That, alone, adds a huge dimension to the abortion question.

I think it is more important for society to allow women to keep the freedom they have in the matter versus trying to force the continuance of unwanted pregnancies. My opinion.

Bethany, good question. I don't know. What would you do? It's pretty far-out there, and it'd sure make one wonder.

I know exactly what I'd do...exactly what I'm doing today. Fighting abortion with all of my might.
Taking pro-life action locally, taking pro-life action by sending money to pro-life organizations, writing letters to congressmen, expressing myself on this forum, working at a CPC, etc.

Here's a more specific question for you, Doug. Suppose your wife was pregnant, and didn't tell you until she was 35 weeks along. But then one day, she tells you, Doug. I can't handle being pregnant anymore. I want an abortion. Would you call the unborn child a "baby" to try to dissuade her from having the abortion? Or would you try to be completely non coercive?

That's like asking me if I agree that a man cannot rape a women ten times, would I be okay if he raped her once.

YOU are the one that said no ones wants or will perform these abortions except under dire and rare circumstances. I am just pointing out that you are wrong. Why would people with moral consciences not want to ban something that they believe is wrong?

There is a big difference between agreeing that Susan Smith should not have been practicing motherhood and condoning her killing her kids.

Agreed.

What "circumstances" exactly would you find acceptable, making it "okay" to kill your kindergartner?

None outside of something really farfetched, so farfetched that it's really "none."

However, what I asked you was about your hypothetical of huge numbers of post viability abortions. If they were due to a disease or syndrome where lots of women were dying unless they had those abortions, what would you think then?

Such a thing would alter many people's opinions of such abortions.

However, what I asked you was about your hypothetical of huge numbers of post viability abortions. If they were due to a disease or syndrome where lots of women were dying unless they had those abortions, what would you think then?

I'd say let the doctors do whatever they can do save both lives involved. If the life of the child is taken through the doctors attempting to save both lives, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome, not the intended result (just as I still think today, in any situation at any stage of pregnancy)

Doug,

That too is a good question. I would say that the perception is you're trying to ban all abortions then, or that you would ban some that really were needed for the health of the woman. The old incrementalism deal.

Of course it's a good question! You claim that most people are against post viability abortions for frivolous reasons. Then you say they put up with them because maybe their perception is more important than the reality? Nonsense!

Doug,

However, what I asked you was about your hypothetical of huge numbers of post viability abortions. If they were due to a disease or syndrome where lots of women were dying unless they had those abortions, what would you think then?

We've gone from some, to many, to huge numbers...I'm not the one hung up on the "amount" of post viable abortions here...you are. One is too many for me.

These are the clinics that will perform abortions up to and sometimes past 24 weeks...are you telling me that they wouldn't perform them later if they could? One states that the reason they don't do them later is because the law says that they would have to be done in a hospital, and God forbid these doctors set foot in a hospital. Too many prying eyes...

ML, sometimes a given state will have 26 weeks as the point. I think the rest is just invective.
......

Face it Doug, it happens more often than you think. And it is your brand of morality that forced us to make laws about something that most people who aren't amoral, seems obvious. Killing children is an objective "wrong"

No, I think the total numbers, i.e. in the hundreds per year for 26 weeks+ and roughly a thousand for 24+ are correct. Obviously, many of those are situations where there really is danger to the woman or the fetal problems are so bad that it's not much of an argument.

The exact number that remains is arguable, sure, but it's not "my brand of morality" that is responsible. I'm not for those abortions.

Doug,

However, what I asked you was about your hypothetical of huge numbers of post viability abortions. If they were due to a disease or syndrome where lots of women were dying unless they had those abortions, what would you think then?

I'd say let the doctors do whatever they can do save both lives involved. If the life of the child is taken through the doctors attempting to save both lives, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome, not the intended result (just as I still think today, in any situation at any stage of pregnancy)

We (myself, prolifers, the Catholic Church) already understand these extreme circumstances and Bethany has expressed my sentiments exactly...

Bethany: Here's a more specific question for you, Doug. Suppose your wife was pregnant, and didn't tell you until she was 35 weeks along. But then one day, she tells you, Doug. I can't handle being pregnant anymore. I want an abortion. Would you call the unborn child a "baby" to try to dissuade her from having the abortion? Or would you try to be completely non coercive?

"Baby" or not doesn't matter. Yes, I'd not be for the abortion, and would try to dissaude her. And of course it's likely that delivery could be induced.

Doug,

ML, sometimes a given state will have 26 weeks as the point. I think the rest is just invective.

Of course it's advertisment! They are saying, HEY LOOK! MOST OF THE COUNTRY THINKS THESE ARE HORRIBLE BUT WE DON'T! WE'LL KILL YER KID FOR THE RIGHT PRICE!

And again, these children don't need to be killed. They can be delivered alive at this point.

The serious reasons? Cystic Fibrosis, Spinal Bifida...all things that can be lived with...

"However, what I asked you was about your hypothetical of huge numbers of post viability abortions. If they were due to a disease or syndrome where lots of women were dying unless they had those abortions, what would you think then?"

I'd say let the doctors do whatever they can do save both lives involved. If the life of the child is taken through the doctors attempting to save both lives, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome, not the intended result (just as I still think today, in any situation at any stage of pregnancy)

We (myself, prolifers, the Catholic Church) already understand these extreme circumstances and Bethany has expressed my sentiments exactly

Well, the premise is that without abortion the woman is going to die. There is no saving both lives. Such a situation would alter the way such abortions are viewed my most people. Not all, of course, and I think you two gave good answers.

Doug,

The exact number that remains is arguable, sure, but it's not "my brand of morality" that is responsible. I'm not for those abortions.

You'll notice that California has the greatest number of these clinics...why? Because California doesn't report on how many abortions it performs...you think these doctors are stupid?

We've gone from some, to many, to huge numbers...I'm not the one hung up on the "amount" of post viable abortions here...you are. One is too many for me.

@@ It was your hypothetical.

You'll notice that California has the greatest number of these clinics...why? Because California doesn't report on how many abortions it performs...you think these doctors are stupid?

Or just because CA has by far the most people.

Doug,

The exact number that remains is arguable, sure, but it's not "my brand of morality" that is responsible. I'm not for those abortions.

And by "your brand of morality" I mean that anything goes if enough people want it...It's all about desire, right? These women desire to end their pregnancies. If desire determines our actions and there is no objective moral wrongs, then why would you care about the reasons, the numbers or the gestational age a woman is having an abortion. She wants it, a doctor is willing to perform it, the baby has "no provable desires", you don't have the right to tell woman what to do with her body, It's none of your business really, so why all of a sudden do you feel justified in saying that they "shouldn't" be done?

Of course it's advertisment! They are saying, HEY LOOK! MOST OF THE COUNTRY THINKS THESE ARE HORRIBLE BUT WE DON'T! WE'LL KILL YER KID FOR THE RIGHT PRICE!

By "invective" I meant you were primarily just ranting. And you continued.
......

And again, these children don't need to be killed. They can be delivered alive at this point. The serious reasons? Cystic Fibrosis, Spinal Bifida...all things that can be lived with.

Sometimes those are the reasons, yes, and indeed they are arguable. But those aren't always the reasons.

"The exact number that remains is arguable, sure, but it's not "my brand of morality" that is responsible. I'm not for those abortions."

And by "your brand of morality" I mean that anything goes if enough people want it...It's all about desire, right?

The fact that by far, most people don't want truly "elective" abortions after viability, MK.
......

These women desire to end their pregnancies. If desire determines our actions and there is no objective moral wrongs, then why would you care about the reasons, the numbers or the gestational age a woman is having an abortion.

Because one doesn't have to care about the reasons, there, or not. One can value sentience, the life, and still allow the ending of the pregnancy (by delivery) thus satisfying the woman as well. Being inside the body of a person or not makes a huge difference to me, but the gestational age brings some substantial differences too.
......

She wants it, a doctor is willing to perform it, the baby has "no provable desires", you don't have the right to tell woman what to do with her body, It's none of your business really, so why all of a sudden do you feel justified in saying that they "shouldn't" be done?

Because at that point I don't value the freedom of the woman more than the fetus, even aside from the possiblity of delivery.

Doug,

Because at that point I don't value the freedom of the woman more than the fetus, even aside from the possiblity of delivery.

Well then, this next question speaks to what kind of a man you are...

What do you do when you see things that TO YOU are morally unacceptable? Do you shrug? Close your eyes? Stick your fingers in your ears and say NYAH!NYAH! or do you stand up and speak up?

That's like asking me if I agree that a man cannot rape a women ten times, would I be okay if he raped her once.

MK, I don't know what you're referring to, there, but if anything I'd say that we aren't for the rape nor for the post-viability abortions without a good enough reason.

If Tiller, for example, really has broken the law, then I think he should be punished. However, that is no reason to ban all post-viability abortions, any more than one bad priest means we should ban the RCC or religion.
......

YOU are the one that said no ones wants or will perform these abortions except under dire and rare circumstances. I am just pointing out that you are wrong.

Nope, you're making stuff up. I didn't say "on one."
......

Why would people with moral consciences not want to ban something that they believe is wrong?

They do want to ban it if they think it wrong. I don't think there is that much sentiment for abortions after viability without sufficient reason in the first place.

More later, gotta go now - heading for Florida.

Doug,

There is a whole lot more of this goin' on at the Empty Manger thread...

Doug,

If Tiller, for example, really has broken the law, then I think he should be punished. However, that is no reason to ban all post-viability abortions, any more than one bad priest means we should ban the RCC or religion.

First off, if the entire Roman Catholic Church was founded on the basis that for certain reasons it is a moral good for priests to have sex with young boys, then I certainly would be for banning the entire church. But it isn't.

The abortion industry is however, based on the idea that it is morally acceptable and at times morally preferable to end the unborns life for certain reasons.

There is no good reason for a Catholic priest to molest a boy, nor is there any good reason to kill an unborn child.

Secondly,

The point is, even if Tiller didn't break the law, because the law says that it is perfectly acceptable to kill viable unborn children for reasons such as depression, or stress, or cystic fibrosis, even when the child does not need to be killed as it can successfully be born at that stage of development, should he be STOPPED?!?!?

Doug,

MK, I don't know what you're referring to, there, but if anything I'd say that we aren't for the rape nor for the post-viability abortions without a good enough reason.

I am referring to this:

That too is a good question. I would say that the perception is you're trying to ban all abortions then, or that you would ban some that really were needed for the health of the woman. The old incrementalism deal.

This is like saying, from our point of view that we don't want to make it illegal to rape women while they are awake, because then we might inadvertently make it easier to outlaw raping women while they are asleep.

Or from your point of view

We don't want to make it illegal to rape women because then we might make it possible to outlaw all sex...

We think they SHOULD all be outlawed, but certainly don't think one has to do with another, if, as you say, most people agree that post viable abortions are wrong and most think that previable ones are right.

I would hope that you would think that allowing an evil because it might infringe on someones right to do something NO ONE thinks is wrong, is insane.

"Baby" or not doesn't matter. Yes, I'd not be for the abortion, and would try to dissaude her. And of course it's likely that delivery could be induced.

With what exact words would you try to dissuade her, Doug?
If it's not about the baby, what is it about?

What do you do when you see things that TO YOU are morally unacceptable? Do you shrug? Close your eyes? Stick your fingers in your ears and say NYAH!NYAH! or do you stand up and speak up?

Really!!!

Doug,
1)***********************************
The Constitution was not applied to the unborn nor is it now. The unborn are not "persons" as you state it.

Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
***********************************
You yourselves agree that the life inside the womb is created human life. The Constitution says all men are "created" equal. It makes no exceptions for life inside the woman as some kind of exception.

2)************************************
Society sometimes judges people, and executes them, imprisons them, etc. Usually fine with me. And they are not inside the body of a person. That, alone, adds a huge dimension to the abortion question.
Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
*************************************

The judgement you are speaking of is retribution for criminal offenses. I can't see your logic unless you believe the baby inside the womb is guilty of a criminal offense.

3)**************************************
I think it is more important for society to allow women to keep the freedom they have in the matter versus trying to force the continuance of unwanted pregnancies. My opinion.
Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
****************************************

Freedom gives us the right to make any decisions we want. But it does not give mothers and fathers freedom from being held accountable for the results or their actions and decisions. Instead we should teach them responsibility. My opinion.

Doug,
1)***********************************
The Constitution was not applied to the unborn nor is it now. The unborn are not "persons" as you state it.

Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
***********************************
You yourselves agree that the life inside the womb is created human life. The Constitution says all men are "created" equal. It makes no exceptions for life inside the woman as some kind of exception.

2)************************************
Society sometimes judges people, and executes them, imprisons them, etc. Usually fine with me. And they are not inside the body of a person. That, alone, adds a huge dimension to the abortion question.
Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
*************************************

The judgement you are speaking of is retribution for criminal offenses. I can't see your logic unless you believe the baby inside the womb is guilty of a criminal offense.

3)**************************************
I think it is more important for society to allow women to keep the freedom they have in the matter versus trying to force the continuance of unwanted pregnancies. My opinion.
Posted by: Doug at January 7, 2008 8:36 AM
****************************************

Freedom gives us the right to make any decisions we want. But it does not give mothers and fathers freedom from being held accountable for the results or their actions and decisions. Instead we should teach them responsibility. My opinion.

"That too is a good question. I would say that the perception is you're trying to ban all abortions then, or that you would ban some that really were needed for the health of the woman. The old incrementalism deal."

MK: Of course it's a good question! You claim that most people are against post viability abortions for frivolous reasons. Then you say they put up with them because maybe their perception is more important than the reality? Nonsense!

MK, you're getting back in the old "try and put words in Doug's mouth" zone again.

Yes, no question about post-viability and non-therapeutic abortions. My answer to the question is that the resistance you may perceive could be due, at least in part, to the feeling that "you" as in all or some pro-lifers, might be trying to ban all abortions, therapeutic included.

"Because at that point I don't value the freedom of the woman more than the fetus, even aside from the possiblity of delivery."

MK: Well then, this next question speaks to what kind of a man you are.

Ho Hum - now you've devolved to mere attempts at demonization of your opposition.
.....

What do you do when you see things that TO YOU are morally unacceptable? Do you shrug? Close your eyes? Stick your fingers in your ears and say NYAH!NYAH! or do you stand up and speak up?

I go to yllas's bar and buy a round.

Actually, it's a mixture of all those things, MK. Speaking of 6 year olds - hundreds die each day in Africa. There are kids there, suffering more than what is present in a thousand abortions. The Horrors in the Sudan, in Darfur, etc., have been almost beyond belief. A couple weeks ago I gave money to 'Save The Children." And there is also some "shrugging" or "eye closing" (mentally) and feeling it's inevitable.

Doug

There is a whole lot more of this goin' on at the Empty Manger thread..

Gotcha, MK. I had three hours sleep last night, then had to drive 500 miles today. My own fault - was up late posting and then felt compelled to watch 'Serpico.' I like those 1970s cop movies.

Anyway, I think we are getting to the point where you get nasty to me and I get sarcastic with you. I'll try to distill our arguments down a little.

Will be way down in Florida tomorrow. Charlotte, NC, tonight.

"Baby" or not doesn't matter. Yes, I'd not be for the abortion, and would try to dissaude her. And of course it's likely that delivery could be induced."

Bethany: With what exact words would you try to dissuade her, Doug?
If it's not about the baby, what is it about?

I think you're shootin' from the hip there, B. I didn't say it's not about the baby.

You asked what I'd call it, and that's what really doesn't matter. I would basically say please don't end the pregnancy by abortion. I'd urge delivery if she really felt it had to be ended at that point.

"MK, I don't know what you're referring to, there, but if anything I'd say that we aren't for the rape nor for the post-viability abortions without a good enough reason."

I am referring to this:

"That too is a good question. I would say that the perception is you're trying to ban all abortions then, or that you would ban some that really were needed for the health of the woman. The old incrementalism deal."

This is like saying, from our point of view that we don't want to make it illegal to rape women while they are awake, because then we might inadvertently make it easier to outlaw raping women while they are asleep.

Well, let's just say that everybody's against rape (near enough, anyway). Doesn't matter whether awake or sleeping. But the difference between therapeutic abortions and abortions just because the woman no longer wants to be pregnant is large and quite important to many people.

If you truly focused on non-therapeutic abortions past viability, I don't think you would find anywhere near the resistance.

Truthseeker: You yourselves agree that the life inside the womb is created human life. The Constitution says all men are "created" equal. It makes no exceptions for life inside the woman as some kind of exception.

It is not a matter of "exceptions." The Constitution was not and is not applied to the unborn. "Created equal" - that's not the Constitution, that's the Declaration of Independence, as well. 13 years apart, I believe. The writers of the Declaration did not mean the unborn - abortion was legal before, during, and after that time. The Declaration was mainly guys in the "New World" telling England to screw off and leave 'em alone. Women and minorities were only included to a limited extent, there, or not at all. "Men" was white land-owning guys.
......

Truthseeker: Explain to me why you believe society should give a person the right to judge another persons life as worthless. The US Constitution says that all men are created equal.

"The Constitution was not applied to the unborn nor is it now. The unborn are not "persons" as you state it. Society sometimes judges people, and executes them, imprisons them, etc. Usually fine with me. And they are not inside the body of a person. That, alone, adds a huge dimension to the abortion question."

The judgement you are speaking of is retribution for criminal offenses. I can't see your logic unless you believe the baby inside the womb is guilty of a criminal offense.

You asked about society leaving it to a person to judge. (And enough of that faking what the Constitution says. ; )

Judgments get made all the time, and that's without the fact of being inside the body of a person. Of course the unborn are not "guilty." But being inside the body of a person is a powerful influence on letting the pregnant woman make the judgment.
......

"I think it is more important for society to allow women to keep the freedom they have in the matter versus trying to force the continuance of unwanted pregnancies. My opinion."

Freedom gives us the right to make any decisions we want. But it does not give mothers and fathers freedom from being held accountable for the results or their actions and decisions. Instead we should teach them responsibility. My opinion.

Yes, indeed, your opinion. In reality, the pregnant woman is responsible, but not to what you want, rather to what she wants. She's accountable; let her decide. As far as freedom, if you don't want the legal freedom of abortion that women have to be reduced or taken away entirely, then I'd be surprised.

Doug

Doug,
Thanks for pointing out my error in calling the Declaration of Independence a part of the Constitution. But you are way off if you think abortion was ever as rampant as it is today. I just did a google search on abortion being legal in the US and here is what I found in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_before_Roe

According to this the babys has had protections under common law since day 1. It is only RoeV Wade that stripped those rights away. With the partial-birth abortion ban and many other laws being passed we are now giving babies back their
rights as human beings.

And as far as taking the woman's right to abortion away entirely, I prefer education to accomplish that. But I would rather it be illegal then the current state of affairs where my own tax dollars are used to fund abortion mills like PP and they can step all over everybody and decieve their way into town and legally maim even my minor children and leave me without any legal recourse against them. That is seriously screwed up. In fact it makes my blood boil. Can you understand that?

I think you're shootin' from the hip there, B. I didn't say it's not about the baby.

You asked what I'd call it, and that's what really doesn't matter. I would basically say please don't end the pregnancy by abortion. I'd urge delivery if she really felt it had to be ended at that point.

Doug, you're avoiding it, so hard. On what basis would you talk her out of it? The "pregnancy", what does that mean? Why would she want to continue a "pregnancy"? That's not an effective argument. If she said, "Well, I don't want to be pregnant anymore and I don't want to go through any more pregnancy", what would be your response?
If you said, well, why not just induce labor?" and she said, "I don't want to induce labor. I want to abort. And I have already set up an appointment with George Tiller." What would you say? Please don't end----your "pregnancy"? The baby wouldn't come into the conversation at least once? Do you think I'm absolutely dense?
What if she said that it would cause her a great deal of suffering to go through delivery and labor and have a baby, and she would much rather go through an abortion because it would be quicker and she wouldn't have to worry about the responsibility of taking care of a child, and she didn't want to give the child up for adoption either. What would your argument be then, Doug?
What would you say, to try to convince her that aborting would NOT be the right decision? Come on, let's hear it. And don't try to tell me the word "baby" wouldn't come into the argument at any point, because that's simply ridiculous, and you know it.

Doug, even abortionists slip up from time to time, and they will tell you that it's a baby.

Doug,

No words in your mouth...your own words...

MK: Of course it's a good question! You claim that most people are against post viability abortions for frivolous reasons. Then you say they put up with them because maybe their perception is more important than the reality? Nonsense!
*
MK, you're getting back in the old "try and put words in Doug's mouth" zone again.
*
Yes, no question about post-viability and non-therapeutic abortions. My answer to the question is that the resistance you may perceive could be due, at least in part, to the feeling that "you" as in all or some pro-lifers, might be trying to ban all abortions, therapeutic included.

People are choosing an evil because they are afraid that another evil might be taken from them.

Doug,

These are the clinics that will perform abortions up to and sometimes past 24 weeks...are you telling me that they wouldn't perform them later if they could? One states that the reason they don't do them later is because the law says that they would have to be done in a hospital, and God forbid these doctors set foot in a hospital. Too many prying eyes...
*
ML, sometimes a given state will have 26 weeks as the point. I think the rest is just invective.
......

How am I ranting?

Doug,

Actually, it's a mixture of all those things, MK. Speaking of 6 year olds - hundreds die each day in Africa. There are kids there, suffering more than what is present in a thousand abortions. The Horrors in the Sudan, in Darfur, etc., have been almost beyond belief. A couple weeks ago I gave money to 'Save The Children." And there is also some "shrugging" or "eye closing" (mentally) and feeling it's inevitable.

Not inevitable, Doug. Choice. You desire to avoid the suffering that comes with facing certain truths...so you ignore them. This is what I mean by separating the "boys from the men" or addressing your "manhood"...

Doug,

As far as me getting nasty and you getting sarcastic...

It's true isn't it? LOL

But know this, it comes from frustration and NEVER out of true animosity towards you. You I like. Your ideas however...

So please, don't ever take those intonations personally. Very often I've been up late, or have kids demanding things from me, or a million other things...I think these debates are important and so I engage in them even when I'm not at my personal best...forgive me if I've ever crossed a line.

Doug,

For the record, one of the things that make you so frurstrating IS that you're so danged personable! :)

For the record, one of the things that make you so frurstrating IS that you're so danged personable! :)

Hear, hear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Abortion_before_Roe

Truthseeker: According to this the babys has had protections under common law since day 1. It is only RoeV Wade that stripped those rights away. With the partial-birth abortion ban and many other laws being passed we are now giving babies back their
rights as human beings.

TS - Wikipedia isn't always right, but that doesn't matter here - I don't even need to see it to know that you are incorrect. Common law had abortion okay until "quickening" which was somewhere around five months

In the text of the Roe decision there is a good round-up of prior law and the application of it. It's arguable if abortion, regardless of time of gestation was actually prosecuted, despite what was supposedly the line at quickening.
......

And as far as taking the woman's right to abortion away entirely, I prefer education to accomplish that. But I would rather it be illegal then the current state of affairs where my own tax dollars are used to fund abortion mills like PP and they can step all over everybody and decieve their way into town and legally maim even my minor children and leave me without any legal recourse against them. That is seriously screwed up. In fact it makes my blood boil. Can you understand that?

You're really pretty reasonable, and yes - I certainly can understand that.

I think you're going overboard with the rhetoric and dogma, there, but I do understand what you value.

Doug

Bethany: Doug, you're avoiding it, so hard. On what basis would you talk her out of it? The "pregnancy", what does that mean? Why would she want to continue a "pregnancy"? That's not an effective argument. If she said, "Well, I don't want to be pregnant anymore and I don't want to go through any more pregnancy", what would be your response?

Who knows, B? It's a hypothetical, and maybe I'd spin it just as hard as any Pro-Lifer. I might say that if delivery is induced, that we would have a daughter or son, and that I wanted that. In the first place, such a deal at 35 weeks is exceedingly farfetched.
......

If you said, well, why not just induce labor?" and she said, "I don't want to induce labor. I want to abort. And I have already set up an appointment with George Tiller." What would you say? Please don't end----your "pregnancy"? The baby wouldn't come into the conversation at least once? Do you think I'm absolutely dense?

No, Bethany, not absolutely dense. I could say "baby," yes. Yet when you say, "The baby wouldn't come into the conversation at least once?" you are presupposing that term as a hard-and-fast physical state, and it's not that way. I might call it an "unborn baby" but that's still not strictly correct like the defined medical terms fetus or embryo are. No big deal here - arguing terminology isn't squat compared to the real issues. I am guessing I'd express my desire to my wife as strongly as I could, regardless of the exact words used.
......

What if she said that it would cause her a great deal of suffering to go through delivery and labor and have a baby, and she would much rather go through an abortion because it would be quicker and she wouldn't have to worry about the responsibility of taking care of a child, and she didn't want to give the child up for adoption either. What would your argument be then, Doug?

It's a good question, even though so beyond-the-bounds-of-probability. I don't know what all I would say, really. Ain't never gonna happen to me.
......

What would you say, to try to convince her that aborting would NOT be the right decision? Come on, let's hear it. And don't try to tell me the word "baby" wouldn't come into the argument at any point, because that's simply ridiculous, and you know it.

You're supposing a lot, there, Bethany. In reality, my wife would have had kids had I wanted it. She was around 50/50,and I was somewhere roughly 80/20 against it. It never was a big issue for us - we didn't get married until I was 41, and now she's had a hysterectomy.

Even if I did scream, "Baby, baby, baby!" the issue wouldn't change - it would be what we wanted. I think my best argument would just be, "Please..."

Doug

Doug, No words in your mouth...your own words...

MK: Of course it's a good question! You claim that most people are against post viability abortions for frivolous reasons. Then you say they put up with them because maybe their perception is more important than the reality? Nonsense!

"MK, you're getting back in the old "try and put words in Doug's mouth" zone again."

(What I did not say is that they put up with them because their perceptions is more important than the reality.)

My feeling is that many people think that Pro-Lifers would try and ban all abortions then, regardless of therapeutic or not and "frivolous" or not. You know darn well that many Pro-Lifers feel that way and talk that way. If a settlement was truly offered where only the "frivolous" ones were on the table, and some assurances were given that the objections to the others would be dropped, then I think the resistance you perceive would lessen a lot.
......

"Yes, no question about post-viability and non-therapeutic abortions. My answer to the question is that the resistance you may perceive could be due, at least in part, to the feeling that "you" as in all or some pro-lifers, might be trying to ban all abortions, therapeutic included."

People are choosing an evil because they are afraid that another evil might be taken from them.

They're choosing to resist efforts to ban what "you" say is bad, because they see them as threatening what they see as good. Any stated goal of "incrementalism" here isn't going to make you very trustworthy to the other side.

Doug

"Actually, it's a mixture of all those things, MK. Speaking of 6 year olds - hundreds die each day in Africa. There are kids there, suffering more than what is present in a thousand abortions. The Horrors in the Sudan, in Darfur, etc., have been almost beyond belief. A couple weeks ago I gave money to 'Save The Children." And there is also some "shrugging" or "eye closing" (mentally) and feeling it's inevitable."

MK: Not inevitable, Doug. Choice.

MK, it's how I feel. It can't really be argued, there - feelings just "are." And actually, to argue for it beyond a feeling, I do think such suffering is inevitable on earth. It goes on all the time, for some people. It's not my choice to have it, and also my choice can actually do little if anything to change it. May sound pessimistic, I know, but I think that's reality when so many tens of millions suffer so. Hundreds of millions?
......

You desire to avoid the suffering that comes with facing certain truths...so you ignore them.

No. If anything I'd say it's silly to be worrying about abortion when we have the suffering on earth that we do. Aside from arguments about the fetus's abilility to suffer, and aside from the times when women suffer due to having made the wrong choice for themself, there are vast numbers of abortions where little if any suffering takes place. Contrast that with the incredible suffering that one child can have. Again, better to have a thousand (or really, any number) of such abortions occur if it would mean saving that one child from that suffering, IMO.
......

This is what I mean by separating the "boys from the men" or addressing your "manhood"

Actually, I've done a good job there.

And thanks, MK and Bethany - it is a good discussion here. Probably can't do justice to it all now - have to be working these days, but will try to hit the most important stuff.

Doug, I missed this post earlier:

Bethany, in an unrelated question to this thread, how do you know that the young girl pictured where you said "Zeke," is really Zeke?
It seems mighty farfetched to me.

No, I promise that really is Zeke. She used to have her screen name linking to her myspace page which has that picture on it.
Here is the page:
http://www.myspace.com/survivorsindiana

Click the "FAQ" and you'll see her picture right there.

here is one of the older topics in which she linked to that myspace page:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/08/princess_diana.html

Her favorite Bible verse is right up on the top page of her myspace page, Ezekiel 13:19, which is what her name stands for. Her real name is Quinn.

Hope that helps!

What do you do, Doug, by the way? I know you have probably told me before, but I have forgotten. I know you travel a lot, just don't know what you do! lol

Oh! And there were other pictures of "Zeke" all over the page before, but they're not there anymore. That one I posted was the only one that is still up. At least, it's the only one I could still find. You might be able to find more.

Here it is again, for everyone else to see. You know what I think? I think I should set up a page where everyone on this site can submit their pictures and then we can put a face to everyone's name. It would really be nice to know who we're talking to, wouldn't it?

MK, what do you think? Jill? It wouldn't be difficult for me to pull off.

http://www.myspace.com/survivorsindiana

Bethany - it says there that Zeke is 21 and male.

I remember that comment about Princess Diana.

The very sight of Diana makes me flatulate.

Zeke can be a wildman. Had to laugh at that one.

I figured that Zeke was a guy, likely indoctrinated since early childhood with the stuff he posts. Perhaps in his secret heart, Zeke has "impure thoughts" about that blond girl in the picture? Heck, even Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting after women -
I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me.

Can't be sure, of course, but it seems vastly unlikely that the girl in the picture would have Zeke's tone on message boards.

I work on electrical transformers - mainly filtering the oil inside them, including doing PCB destruction, though we also install new ones. I'm down in Florida now, east of Orlando.

I'll pick you an orange hee hee hee.

Doug

I don't have any pictures of myself on this computer, but I was able to find this one online, from 1992. Believe me, I've aged in the past 16 years.

The blue jacket is from Niagara Falls - a girl I knew from Switzerland had come for a visit and we went up and rode the "Maid of the Mist" boat.

Doug, I am not very familiar with the format of Myspace pages, so if it says he is 21 and male, I must have somehow missed that. Can you show me where that is, so I'll know where to look next time? I am very surprised to hear it said that. I had no idea.

I always pictured Zeke as a male too, until I saw that picture, and the other pictures there and then I thought Zeke must be a girl.

But a male saying those things somehow makes more sense. I would expect a girl to be a little more sensitive than Zeke is.

Not that men aren't sensitive people, but hopefully you know what I mean. lol

Thank you for the picture, Doug! I will post it on the site now (with a caption 1992, if you prefer). ;-)

Wow, it's sure hard to believe that 1992 was 16 years ago. It really doesn't seem like that long since then.

Can Quinn be a female and a male name? I always thought it was female, but maybe I was wrong. Or maybe Quinn is also just a screen name for this person.

Doug you are totally right about this one. I found another picture of Quinn Olinger and he is certainly a male...

That's him, for real this time.

I guess maybe the girl in the other picture is his girlfriend or something. Who knows. Very odd.

Here's the Myspace page.
http://blog.myspace.com/quinnolinger

Quinn's a handsomme devil.