Pro-life activists vs. Jimmy Kimmel thugs

7/2, 4:23p: Read Part II here.

7/1, 11:11p: The Survivors forwarded photos of their protest this afternoon, of "youth holding their ground and practicing their right to free speech where the arrest took place just days before." Click all photos to enlarge...

survivors kimmel 12.png survivors kimmel 10.png survivors kimmel 11.png

7/1, 1:46p: The youth pro-life activist group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust is picketing comedian Jimmy Kimmel's Los Angeles home as I type (read to end) and will be picketing his studio on Hollywood Blvd later today.

The group is demanding an apology, and here's why....

On June 25 the Survivors were holding a Face the Truth event in front of Grauman's Chinese Theatre on Hollywood Blvd (click photos to enlarge)....

survivors kimmel 1.jpg survivors kimmel 3.jpg

survivors kimmel 5.jpgA Kimmel crew showed up to film a stunt across the street from the Survivors. You can see their light set-up and intended direction of the shoot in the photo, right (click to enlarge).

But at some point the crew became aggravated by the pro-life activists because they refused to move along and turned one of the hot spotlights on Survivor Ryan Bueler...

survivors kimmel 6.jpg

Bueler refused to move and for 15 minutes there was a stand-off, during which time a bracelet he was wearing and his sign were partially melted, although he escaped uncooked.

The police were called, and of course they arrested a pro-lifer, Survivors founder Jeff White...

jimmy kimmel photo.jpgBut after the group showed the police chief video of events White was released after a few hours with no charges pressed. And of course police refused to arrest the film crew who attempted to bake Bueler.

Meanwhile, the Survivors sent Kimmel (pictured right) a letter requesting an apology on behalf of his film crew as well as an affirmation of their right of free speech, which never came, hence the focused pickets.

And through the wonders of modern technology they are sending me photos from the scene...

survivors kimmel 7.png survivors kimmel 8.png


Comments:

My blood pressure just went up about 30 points.

Now that we know the police won't protect us from being burnt, maybe we should start arming ourselves.

the whole hollywood industry is filled with scum for people I bet..

Posted by: Jasper at July 1, 2010 2:15 PM


As a prolifer, I was dismayed to watch the video and hear the male prolifer verbally insulting the video crew with choice words. It did not appear loving or Christ-like to me.

Watching the video made me feel like the prolifers were just trying to cause trouble ... then blaming others for the trouble. I am not talking about the young man with the sign, but the adults in charge.

Being prideful, and then claiming they are being persecuted for Christ's sake (or for the babies), would be very offensive. 1 Peter 2:20-21 says, But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

So perhaps the prolifers are not intending to represent Christ to the world.

As a result, I felt like the leaders were using the young man.

All of the above made me feel very disturbed.

Posted by: Suzanne at July 1, 2010 3:08 PM


Pro-life activists vs. UNION thugs. I hope the ACLJ is involved in this one.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 1, 2010 3:20 PM


I had a hard time making out what was being said on the video. This isn't surprising coming from Hollywood. Maybe pro-lifer Eduardo Verastegui (I think he lives in L.A.) could give Jimmy Kimmel a call to straighten things out.

Posted by: Janet at July 1, 2010 3:21 PM


I can't say I would have to agree with the way this was handled.
Although I think it's wrong of the crew to turn the light towards the pro-lifers, I also think that the pro-lifers approach was all wrong. It looked like they were just trying to start more problems. I honestly thought it was the camera crew making all the "wrong" moves and the pro-lifers with the lights when I first watched the video, before reading anything. I didn't think the pro-lifers would do something like that.

Posted by: Desteny Boodt at July 1, 2010 3:54 PM


Some of those commenting here seem to think pro-lifers have no rights. A friend whose kids participated in this said it was a training session from the Survivors' annual boot camp. They set up on the streets with a Face the Truth tour. They had a perfect right to do it on a public sidewalk. The camera crew apparently didn't like it and decided they'd "make things hot" for a young man who refused to move.

The cursing on the film, according to my friend, was ALL on the side of the camera crew. I didn't hear anything offensive from the pro-lifers. They simply asked if the crew supported other kinds of abuse like water boarding.

Like someone said, this is another example of union thugs who think they are above the law. Apparently, the LAPD agrees.

Posted by: Mary Ann Kreitzer at July 1, 2010 5:01 PM


It's not that I don't think pro-lifers have rights...
I just don't think the man involved should have tried to move the light himself. The right thing to do would have been to call the authorities and have the situation handled properly. That's just my opinion, though.

Posted by: Desteny Boodt at July 1, 2010 5:15 PM


Correction: My friend emailed back and said the guy swearing was a pro-lifer (not the one arrested) who has apologized profusely. Interestingly, the teens were correcting him. Sounds like a group of good kids to me!

Posted by: Mary Ann Kreitzer at July 1, 2010 5:16 PM


The cursing is from Troy Newman, he calls the workers "as*holes". The camera crew most likely had a permit, and had every right to ask the teenager to move. The guy that was arrested was so because he tried to dismantle their equipment.
And I want to see pictures of this kid's bracelet and sign being burnt. Actors stand in front of those lights all the time, they don't get burnt. There's no dial to turn them up or down, yes it's hot under those lights, but not enough to burn anyone.
OR rarely tells the truth and this video proves it. It's a pathetic attempt to gain sympathy, but it fails and actually works against you.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 5:17 PM


My kids were in attendance. They were not trying to "cause trouble". There goal is to share the truth with the public and thank goodness they are. They had these same signs in another public place on another day, a baby was saved. A woman came up to them and told them that she was planning on getting an abortion but, because she had she had seen the truth, she changed her mind. BTW, they are also going to abotion mills to. The truth needs to be shown on all fronts and it's better to get them in a place like in front of the Kodak Theater than seconds before they walk into a clinic to abort their child.

As for swearing man, big mistake on his part. That said he apologized profusely - especially to the kids. It was an example of what not to do under pressure. I'm sure none of us has ever made a mistake in a heated situation. ; ) Quite frankly, my "mother bear" instict would have kicked in if I saw someone purposely trying to hurt a teen. Not saying I would have used any profanity but i most certainly would have done all I could do to protect him. The boy, by the way, kept his composure and did made it a point to for Christ.

Most of you, I'm assuming, don't know anything about the people involved or the organization. If you did, you wouldn't ever make the suggestion that any of the adults caring for their safety are using them. This is a camp they are attending and they receive a fabulous education in many ways to save children and their mothers from the horrors of abortion. You may not be in favor of public displays of the evils of abortion but they have saved 5 children during this one camp by doing just that - once in a public place such as this. You might want to reserve your judgment.

Posted by: j at July 1, 2010 5:29 PM


Ryan Bueler needs to file assault charges against the grip company, the individuals who did that and against Jimmi Kimmel.

They attempted to use that light as a weapon - and they violated a bunch of professional rules.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 1, 2010 5:42 PM


If someone is being assaulted, you do have the right to help them. The plastic covering on the sign and the boy's bracelet were both partially melted and my daughters said his arm looked sunburned. These are not the lights you'd use for an interview. They are high intensity spotlights they were using to film a stunt ACROSS THE STREET. Permit or not, pro-lifers (and anyone else for that matter) have a right to be on a public sidewalk. Do you think it's OK to shine even low intensity spotlights in someone's face?

Posted by: j at July 1, 2010 5:52 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 5:17 PM

It may not be hot from a normal distance, but these aren't exactly the little worklights that people use to work on cars in the evenings. It appears from the picture that the spotlight was RIGHT ON TOP of the teen protestor. NOT a normal working distance, these spotlights are HUGE and I guarantee they are really hot at that short a distance. The film crew knew what they were doing and it was wrong.

Posted by: army_wife at July 1, 2010 5:57 PM


Actually, thinking about it now - the best thing would have been to get reflective material, put in on the back of their signs and reflect the light back into the faces of the grips.

Give them a taste of their own medicine.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 1, 2010 6:15 PM


That light is a Mole Richardson 18,000 Watt Daylight Fresnel.

http://extranet.mole.com/public/index.cgi?cmd=view_item&parent=-1899-1900-1904-1907&id=67730

It's not a toy, nor is that a regular lamp. These guys violated some rules and perhaps the law.

They are using the light as a weapon - and they know what it's capable of.
If the kid used a mirror to reflect that light into their eyes - he could be charged with blinding someone - that's how powerful that thing is.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 1, 2010 6:39 PM


Tiffany, those aren't the halogen lights guys work on cars with at night. Those are 500 watts and very hot (we have a few). As Chris pointed out, the ones pointed at Ryan are 18,000 watts or 36x hotter. Also, Jeff didn't attempt to dismantle the light. He attempted to focus it away from the Ryan which why he focused it up so it wouldn't hit him or any other passers-by. It was just really stupid.

Posted by: j at July 1, 2010 7:52 PM


The crew asked him to move, he didn't move. He's stubborn. If it's hot under those lights, then move! His first amendment rights would not have been violated had he moved a few feet like they wanted him too, this is a case of this kid being stubborn. And what you see in the video is Jeff trying to take matters into his own hands and messing with a $16,000 piece of equipment. When the crew tried to remove Jeff you can hear the girl with the video camera scream, "Assault, assault."
It's not assault if you're trying to get a guy from messing with your expensive equipment. Jeff obviously thought he was in the right, since he was the one who called the police, but the police took him into custody. Why? Because he was causing problems and when someone is causing problems you remove that person with force when they refuse to leave on their own will. The JK crew wasn't causing problems, they were protecting their equipment, and Jeff deserved to be taken downtown.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 7:52 PM


Tiffany, those aren't the halogen lights guys work on cars with at night. Those are 500 watts and very hot (we have a few). As Chris pointed out, the ones pointed at Ryan are 18,000 watts or 36x hotter. Also, Jeff didn't attempt to dismantle the light. He attempted to focus it away from the Ryan which why he focused it up so it wouldn't hit him or any other passers-by. It was just really stupid to use those lights in that manner.

Posted by: j at July 1, 2010 7:54 PM


The LAPD and the LA city administration have a documented history of abusing pro-lifers

At about 3:30 of this video clip the police break a passive non-violent pro-lifers arm.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9MAFSo-jgk

This happened over 20 years ago, but little has changed in the attitudes of cities administration where the 'dead babies r us' crowd in is charge.

The men/women on this film crew committed a battery against the young man, just as surely as if they had maced him or hosed him down with water.

He should press charges.

If the film crew admits fault, then he should consider forgiving them and dropping the charges.

To surrender constitutional rights and protections that were paid for by other men's toil and blood and lives is wrong and dishonors the memories of those who sacrificed to win our liberty.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 7:57 PM


J, if it's so hot and dangerous to be under those lights, than why didn't the kid MOVE? It's not that hard, people, listen to people, you don't know what the views on abortion that crew has, why couldn't the kid just move a few feet? Seems like some of the more radical pro-lifer's want to make a point out of everything, trying to prove the entire world is out to get them, when in this case they just wanted the kid to move.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:03 PM


Here is the second half of the video


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UNwvCIrHsQ&NR=1

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:04 PM


yor bro ken, I wouldn't call people refusing to comply with police orders "passive" or "non-violent". If the police ask you to leave the area, you listen. If you don't then they can use force to remove you. The rescue movement has a long history of barricading the entrances of clinics and laying down in front of patient cars. Some even invaded these clinics when they could get in and destroyed clinic equipment. It is because of the people on the clip you posted that FACE was enacted.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:16 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:03 PM


"if it's so hot and dangerous to be under those lights, than why didn't the kid MOVE?"

---------------------------------------------------
Tiffany,

Even if there were no god it would be foolish to surrender freely the liberty other men have purchased for you with their lives.

But there is ONE GOD and HE has spoken on the subject.

Prov 25:26 Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. NIV

One reason we have seen the unabated slaughter of over forty million pre-natal children in America in the last four decades is that we, the body of Christ have given way before the wicked.

Prov 24:11-12 Deliver those who are drawn away to death, and those who totter to the slaughter, hold them back [from their doom]. If you [profess ignorance and] say, Behold, we did not know this, does not He Who weighs and ponders the heart perceive and consider it? And He Who guards your life, does not He know it? And shall not He render to [you and] every man according to his works? AMP


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:21 PM


It is because of the people on the clip you posted that FACE was enacted.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:16 PM

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

So that letter the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior wrote from the Birmingham, Alabama jail was just empty rhetoric and all those passive non-violent civil righth folks who were fire hosed, beaten with night sticks and attacked by police dogs deserved what they got because they failed to comply with a 'police order'?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:26 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:03 PM


"If the police ask you to leave the area, you listen. If you don't then they can use force to remove you."

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

How much 'force' are the police authorized to use?

This is not a rhetorical question. Do a little research on your own before you blurt out an answer.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:33 PM


Are you trying to tell me that the men and women currently serving overseas are doing so so this kid can hold up his sign? He wasn't asked to get rid of it, he was asked to move and not interrupt the crew and stunt they were filming.
And I'm justing waiting for you to bring the Nazi's into this, you've already quoted scripture and MLK. Scripture doesn't work with me, we live in a democracy not a theocracy.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:34 PM


Yes, I am telling you the men and women overseas are fighting to protect our lives and preserve our freedoms.

But more importantly I am reminding you of the men and women who sacrificed so dearly to establish this nation.

Have you ever heard of the Boston Massacre?

Or the Boston Tea Party?

Men and women defied the established government because it had trampled on their freedoms.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:39 PM


"How much 'force' are the police authorized to use?"

The people in the video were instructed to go limp when the police tried to arrest them. They were instructed to be as uncooperative as they could. If you were a policeman and had to drag 300+ people to a van you'd use force to get them to walk also. How stupid is that? Go limp, then don't follow their directions. Why do you think these type of rescue operations are rarely used anymore? The radicals realized it wasn't fun getting arrested, drug to an awaiting van, and spending the night in jail.
And you know what's even sicker? The leaders of these rescue operations were often not involved, they left the area when asked and then left the elderly and women to suffer the consequences. If you want to learn the truth, read 'Wrath of Angels'.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:43 PM


Tiffany,

It wasn't the police who asked the young man to move. It was the film crew and it is unclear whether the young man was in their way or they were just annoyed with his message.

Either way they committed a crime when they assaulted him by attempting to get him to move with force they were NOT authorized to use.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 8:46 PM


"Yes, I am telling you the men and women overseas are fighting to protect our lives and preserve our freedoms."

That's right, our freedoms. And a women forced to carry a pregnancy to term doesn't have much freedom does she? You cry "freedom" when a teenager refuses to listen to authority and MOVE out of the way. But you want to take freedom away from a 12-yr-old incest victim who is forced to give birth to her sibling. The only freedom you want is the freedom to tell other's how to live their lives.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:48 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:43 PM

1. "Why do you think these type of rescue operations are rarely used anymore? The radicals realized it wasn't fun getting arrested, drug to an awaiting van, and spending the night in jail."


2. "And you know what's even sicker? The leaders of these rescue operations were often not involved, they left the area when asked and then left the elderly and women to suffer the consequences. If you want to learn the truth, read 'Wrath of Angels'."

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

Tiffany,

1. I can only speak for myself as one who was there.

I stopped because I was a coward. I was not willing to pay the price that was demanded to continue. Unlike during civil rights movenment, the main stream media adopted the language and the agenda of the 'dead babies r us'
folks.

The federal government, under the Bill Clinton administration and a Democrat controlled congress misused existing statutes and created new statutes to suppress dissent.

Like the abolitionist who violated the fugitive slave act we risked being imprisioned for years and fined tens of thousands of dollars.


As a first time offender convicted of a class C misdemeanor I was sentenced to the maximum jail time of a year in jail and ordered to pay the maximum fine of several thousand dollars.

Those were penalties the civil rights activists and the anti-war activists were not exposed to.

2. You are mis-informed or a liar when you assert that rescue leaders left the area when ordered to do so.

There were always people involved in the non-violent direct actiosn that were not willing to risk arrest. Some carried signs, some prayed, some operated video cameras in public areas. Some were merely observers. Some administrated.

I have no personal knowledge of a 'leader' who abandoned anyone associated with the 'rescue'. We were fully informed before we agreed to particpate, we were fully prepared and fully supported through the whole process from the sidewalk in front of the abortuary to the court room.

Having been a 'leader' in a couple of rescuses and a participant in several others I can speak from some experience.

You on the other hand were probably not even born yet and are only relying on what you have been told or read or conjured up in your fertile imagination.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 9:12 PM


Yep, you are a coward, thanks for clearing that up. But you failed to address this, "That's right, our freedoms. And a women forced to carry a pregnancy to term doesn't have much freedom does she? You cry "freedom" when a teenager refuses to listen to authority and MOVE out of the way. But you want to take freedom away from a 12-yr-old incest victim who is forced to give birth to her sibling. The only freedom you want is the freedom to tell other's how to live their lives."
Tell me about the freedom for a 12-yr-old incest victim. Does she deserve freedom?

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 9:25 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:48 PM

1. And a women forced to carry a pregnancy to term doesn't have much freedom does she?


2. You cry "freedom" when a teenager refuses to listen to authority and MOVE out of the way.

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

Tiffany,

2. Nothing in the video indicated that anyone in authority asked or requested that young man to move. You are projecting you bias into the situation.

The police did not arrest that young man. They arrested an adult for re-directing the spot light and he was later released with no charges filed.

1. Unless the woman was raped, she was not forced to be pregnant. She knowingly and willing indulged in activity that resulted in her becoming a mother.

I would no more agree to her 'freedom' to kill her baby one day after he/she was born than one day before she/he was birthed.

But the truth is even if I were to allow an exception for rape you would not be satisfied. You would still demand that a pregant woman have the freedom to kill her prenatal child up to and beyond the child's live birth.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 9:26 PM


...we live in a democracy Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:34 PM

Wrong. We live in a constitutional republic.

The only freedom you want is the freedom to tell other's how to live their lives.
Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 8:48 PM

Wrong again. What we advocate is respect and protection for all human life. What you advocate is not freedom, but license to terminate human life based on convenience or wantedness.

PS- Ken, you're no coward :)

Posted by: Fed Up at July 1, 2010 9:28 PM


Tiffany,

How much blood will be required to satisfy your lust?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 9:29 PM


Tiffany,

When your mother was prenant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 9:32 PM


Ken, I don't have lust. I value freedom.
"Unless the woman was raped, she was not forced to be pregnant. She knowingly and willing indulged in activity that resulted in her becoming a mother."

So you're okay with exceptions for rape/incest?

Fed up, "What we advocate is respect and protection for all human life. What you advocate is not freedom, but license to terminate human life based on convenience or wantedness."

The only respect and protection you advocate for is the fetus, not for women. When you say "all human life" you forgot to include pregnant women. Because in your book, once a woman becomes pregnant, all her body autonomy goes out the window. One of you please explain to me why a 12-yr-old should be forced to give birth to her sibling.
What about women facing health risks during pregnancy? I guess if a desire to live is a "wantedness" or "convenience" than yes, I agree with that.
What about me? I had an abortion to save one of my twins lives, had I not I would have lost both of them. So yes, me wanting to send only one child to the grave was a "wantedness" and "convenience" for me.
So tell me Fed Up & Ken, why do you get to decide which reason for abortion is good enough?

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 10:16 PM


Wow that question gets them nearly every time.

Almost as effective as asking a liberal to define 'rich' and 'fair share'.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 10:18 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 10:16 PM


"What about me? I had an abortion to save one of my twins lives, had I not I would have lost both of them."

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

Tiffany,

If I were to adopt your perspective, I would say what's the big deal?

Neither of your twins possessed bodily autonomy and, according to most of the 'dead babies r us' crowd, they were not even human and had no value what so ever?

But I reject your perspective. It is inconsistent and illogical.

There is a concept in the law called justifiable or excuseable homicide.

If what you say is true then you made a difficult decision and I would not fault you nor would I have objected.

But you are taking an extreme case and trying to justify a woman killing her pre-natal child at anytime for any reason or no reason, other than by virtue of her humanity she possesses physical autonomy, and the pre-natal child in her uterus, though equally human, does not possess that same physical autonomy.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 10:36 PM


If you are inside another human being, dependent on them for your survival, than no, you have no autonomy. Once you are born, then you have autonomy.
According to your logic abortion is okay in my case and in cases of rape/incest. That makes you pro-choice. Try to be consistent in your argument. Either abortion is murder or it's not.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 10:44 PM


Tiffany,

Ryan didn't move because he was willing to endure the "sunburn" he was getting to show the truth. The lighting crew had no right to ask him to leave and the police didn't ask him to leave. Please get the facts straight before you comment. See the barricades. Those are used to keep the public away from the lighting crew and the lights. See the pro-lifers? They are compliantly on the other side of the barricade until the lighting crew decided to commit an assault and battery on the teen. And what was the agressive act committed by the pro-lifers? Oh, the horrors. Jeff White pointed the light upward. That was why those nice lighting men should have been able to punch, push and rip his shirt?

Secondly, having actually had the fortune to work for Operation Rescue, you have no clue here either and should get your facts straight. Leaders were almost always arrested in the rescues. Jeff White was the Northern California director back in the day. He has spent many, many months in jail. So did Randal Terry and the many other leaders. Why did some like me stop? Quite frankly the penalties did get very high.Where other people protesting other things got an overnight stay, we were subject to 3 month or more sentences. Doing time wasn't scary but, since I was going to be starting a family of my own, I know longer thought it prudent for me to deliver in jail or have a nursing baby at home while i was doing time. My particular focus had to change. A lot of people met and married and started their own families and didn't think it prudent to leave their young families but supported the pro-life cause wherever they could. Now we have children taking on the cause and they're doing a great job of it.

Now, as far as your abortion goes...I would encourage you to contact Rachel's Vineyard. http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/

Posted by: j at July 1, 2010 11:21 PM


The only respect and protection you advocate for is the fetus, not for women.

Wrong again. I believe there are better solutions than encouraging women to kill their offspring.

When you say "all human life" you forgot to include pregnant women.

No I didn't. As a former proabort, the fact that I no longer believe a woman should be entitled to kill her unborn offspring doesn't mean I devalue pregnant women.

Because in your book, once a woman becomes pregnant, all her body autonomy goes out the window.

The fact is, there are many circumstances in which a woman does not have body autonomy. For example, in my state, if you threatened or attempted suicide and were discovered alive, the law requires that you be prevented from taking further steps to harm your own body. The law provides for quite a few mechanisms to prevent you from exercising your "body autonomy" in the way you might wish to.

One of you please explain to me why a 12-yr-old should be forced to give birth to her sibling.

As I stated above, we are a constitutional republic of laws. We do not execute an innocent victim for the crime of his or her father. If a crime has multiple innocent victims, as in your example of the 12 year old, our laws do not provide for one victim to execute another. You are advocating for license to deviate from this fundamental principle.

What about women facing health risks during pregnancy?

She and her unborn child should receive the best medical care possible. If it's necessary to terminate the pregnancy for the life of the mother, every effort should be made to deliver the child alive, thus terminating the pregnancy. If the child is born disabled or is not wanted, the mother is not forced to parent but can relinquish her child if she wishes.

What about me?

You seem to be asking me to judge you or condemn you. I will not. I wish you only peace.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 1, 2010 11:29 PM


Why is it you guys think I need Rachel's Vineyard? How bizarre. Not every woman who's had an abortion regrets it. Otherwise you'd have over 50 million pissed off women. Saying I regret my abortion is like saying I regret my 3 yr-old boy. What I do regret is having to tell my story over and over to open the minds of people on why some abortions are needed. And for all of you who say no one was trying to outlaw selective reduction in America, yes they were, in 2006 & 2008.

Ryan could have shown the truth and not "endured" a sunburn from MOVING. The crew saw his picture and wanted him to move. Why make them stare at it? Besides, had he moved to an area where there was more foot/car traffic he would have been more effective, more people would have seen the sign. But Ryan wanted to prove a point huh? In the video you can see a girl pouring bottled water over his head. Didn't any of these people think to tell him this wasn't a battle worth fighting and to walk away? All he did was make a lot of people mad (who knows what their view on abortion was) and prove that the radicals in your movement are stubborn and bullies.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 11:44 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 1, 2010 10:44 PM

1."According to your logic abortion is okay in my case and in cases of rape/incest."


2. "That makes you pro-choice. Try to be consistent in your argument. Either abortion is murder or it's not."

------------------------------------------------
1. In case you blinked and missed it I wrote that: "But the truth is even

if

I were to allow an exception for rape you would not be satisfied. You would still demand that a pregant woman have the freedom to kill her prenatal child up to and beyond the child's live birth.

This is exactly your arbitrary and capricious position: "If you are inside another human being, dependent on them for your survival, then no, you have no autonomy."

The declaration of independence indicates that we are endowed with autonomy simply because we are human, not because of location or age or size.

Do you possess 'autonomy' simply because you are human or is there some other basis for your claim?


2. Legal definitons from state of Washington:

RCW 9A.32.010 Homicide defined.

Homicide is the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or omission of another, death occurring at any time, and is either

(1) murder,

(2) homicide by abuse,

(3) manslaughter,

(4) excusable homicide, or

(5) justifiable homicide.

Tiffany while all murder is homicide, not all homicide is murder.

Elective abortion, as opposed to therapeutic abortion, is either murder, homicide by abuse or manslaughter.

A therapeutic abortion, which is what I believe you described in your case, would be justifiable or excuseable homicide.

You should refrain from accusing others of being inconsistent, your glass house is much too fragile to withstand the return volley.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 1, 2010 11:54 PM


If you look at the pictures, you'll notice the crew had their backs to Ryan. They could have simply remained that posture. Again, you don't seem to understand the whole freedom of speech thing. Apparently you don't really have a lot of regard for it so there's little to debate further on that issue.

As far as Rachel's Vineyard go, I find it really hard to believe that you don't regret the loss of your child. That's what Rachel's Vineyard is for. And yes, I think there are millions of women who are hurting at the loss of their child.

Posted by: j at July 2, 2010 12:02 AM


Ken, "A therapeutic abortion, which is what I believe you described in your case, would be justifiable or excuseable homicide."

So you think I should have to go in front of a prosecutor, judge or jury and explain my situation in order for me to save a life? People facing homicide charges are questioned by the proper authorities before it being ruled a justifiable or excusable homicide. How long would that have taken? I received the news and had the abortion 12 hours later. Why should I have to explain my decision to order to commit justifiable homicide? What if the prosecutor or judge is a rabid pro-lifer and deny it and tell me I will be arrested and tried on a murder charge? Why does that person get to decide what is best for me, my family and the twin who has a legitimate chance at life?
Do you really think a married couple trying to save a life should be treated like a couple of criminals because they want to save a life? And what I did is the same thing that woman who are having elective abortions do, we ended a life.

"As I stated above, we are a constitutional republic of laws. We do not execute an innocent victim for the crime of his or her father. If a crime has multiple innocent victims, as in your example of the 12 year old, our laws do not provide for one victim to execute another."
I would love for you to tell this to a rape/incest victim. I bet they would completely understand why they must endure pregnancy and birth. And trust me, neither are a walk in the park.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 12:12 AM


J,
There's a big difference between me and the women who attend the vineyard. They wanted to end their babies life, I didn't but had to. I believe there are some women who felt pressured to have an abortion, and I feel bad for them, I feel bad that they weren't strong enough to stand up for what they truly wanted. But I bet the majority of those women had elective abortions, not a medically necessary one like I had.
How many foster kids do you care for? There are 50,000 kids waiting for forever homes in this country. They may not be cute lil infants, but they are alive and desperately want a family.
And just as the crew could have turned their backs, Ryan could have walked away and been far more effective showing his sign to many more people than the handful of crew members who had already seen it and had had enough.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 12:22 AM


Honestly Tiff, I can't believe you're still trying to justify trying to burn a teenager who was exercising their freedom of speech. I guess I'll be totally justified if I inflict pain on someone who is exercising their freedom of speech if i don't agree with them. Heck, they could just leave after all.

Rachel's Vineyard is there for ALL women who have had an abortion no matter their reasoning.

Posted by: j at July 2, 2010 12:40 AM


Tiffany, precisely what percentage of the women obtaining the approximately 42 million abortions each year in worldwide are 12 year old victims of incest? (source the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute)

This is a straw man argument.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 2, 2010 1:24 AM


Tiffany, precisely what percentage of the women obtaining the approximately 42 million abortions each year worldwide are 12 year old victims of incest? (source the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute)

This is a straw man argument.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 2, 2010 1:25 AM



"As a prolifer, I was dismayed to watch the video and hear the male prolifer verbally insulting the video crew with choice words. It did not appear loving or Christ-like to me."


Huh?

Jesus criticized plenty of folks, sharply in fact.

Posted by: an at July 2, 2010 9:45 AM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 12:12 AM

"So you think I should have to go in front of a prosecutor, judge or jury and explain my situation in order for me to save a life?

People facing homicide charges are questioned by the proper authorities before it being ruled a justifiable or excusable homicide. How long would that have taken?"

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

Prosecutor do not deal with homicide cases 'before' the fact. That would require some kind of prescient knowledge.

Generally speaking what happens after an 'unattended' death occurs is a coroner makes a determination as to the cause of death and prosecutor after reviewing the coroners findings may present the evidence to a grand jury and they will determine whether or not to bring a bill of indictment.

A responsible and competent physician would make a diagnosis and recomend a course of action based on his best medical judgement and would choose a treatment most likely to preserve the life and health of both the mother and her pre-natal child.

Abortionists do not consider the pre-natal child at all except how to kill them.

If you had 12 hours to make a decision and schedule a surgery, then I am not sure that would qualify as an 'emergency' but it does not change the legitmacy of the diagnosis and the recommended treatment.

If a coroner determined a homicide had occurred and a prosecutor determined it was a justifiable or an excuseable homicide, then no further action would be warranted. The prosecutor would probably not even interview you or your physician.

You want to exclude the pre-natal child from any consideraton what so ever. You view them as expendable.

You keep raising the rape/incest argument.

Please tell me how the pre-natal child conceived as a result of rape/incest is any less the mother's child as one conceived as a result of consensual sex.

How is this child any less human?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 2, 2010 9:46 AM


Pro-Abortion Group Wants Pregnancy Centers Removed From Internet Directories http://www.lifenews.com/nat6489.html i know its off topic tho this was a must read article keenan trying to put limits on cpc's. i saw the light burned something on of the people was holding

Posted by: Chris at July 2, 2010 10:15 AM


Ahhh, Tiffany Campbell

- you sound just as disingenuous as ever; twisting and obfuscating truth and refusing to consider sound, factual information on a variety of subjects:

NOTE:

"Constitutional republic" - not "democracy"

"All men created equal" - not "born" equal; the equality starts at creation according to our national founding documents.

A quick review of your infamous place in abortion history. In 2008 You claimed you chose to "terminate" one of your baby boys, because you say you would have lost both of them; but many medical experts have disagreed with your assessment - so I am not going to try to sort that out. However, you and your husband claimed your abortion was a "private decision made with your physicians" - not made in South Dakota by the way, but yet there you were, in the thick of the battle in SD. (Are you still married? I wonder if your marriage has withstood the pressure of your disingenousness)

You chose to end the life of your baby. Worse - you politicized your baby's death to ensure the death of thousands more. Shame on you! I grieve for your loss, for the loss of thousands more South Dakota babies because of how you enthusiastically allowed Planned Parenthood to use your baby's death, and ESPECIALLY for your surviving son, and I am sure you dread the day when he is old enough to understand what you did to his brother.

Your comments here reveal your true colors as a dyed-in-the-wool pro-abort. Your actions in 2008 prove it - the despicable parading of your dead baby for public sympathy. You allowed yourself to be used by evil and apparently it has invaded your soul. Not only do you have to deal with the death of your baby boy, but you have been deceived into allowing the deaths of many more South Dakota babies to be heaped upon your head.

As always, you are in the prayers of the pro-life community in South Dakota. Like my dear friend Dr. Patti always reminds me - no one is too far gone to be redeemed.

I am sorry to see that you truly have become a radical pro-abortion crusader. Again, I am saddened for your remaining son and the legacy that you are creating for him.

Posted by: Amy1 at July 2, 2010 10:32 AM


Bizarre.

Pro aborts want the death penalty for the child(victim) conceived by rape.

So is the death penalty also warranted for the rapist?

Should a woman be able to "choose" the death penalty with no possibility for appeal for a man convicted of raping her?

Posted by: hippie at July 2, 2010 11:06 AM


hippie,
Excellent questions. Of course not!

Elisabeth @ 1:24,
Great point about the strawman argument regarding rape.

* * *

RE: the newest photos Jill posted above-
It's awesome to see the teenage boys on bikes (far right) who are reading the protestors signs. Great job!!

So any word from Kimmel?

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2010 12:22 PM


"I would love for you to tell this to a rape/incest victim. I bet they would completely understand why they must endure pregnancy and birth. And trust me, neither are a walk in the park."

I would love for you to tell a child who was conceived in rape or incest that he/she deserved to die for their father's crime.
I'm sure he or she would completely understand ;)

Posted by: Lucy at July 2, 2010 12:26 PM


Someone should lose their union card here. Call the IATSE Local 728 and ask for an investigation.

http://www.iatse728.org/aboutus.htm#contact

(818) 985-0728

E-Mail address: loc728@iatse728.org

Officers
Greg Langham – President (current term 2010 - 2012)
Pascal M. Guillemard – Vice President

Bottom line, this is a dangerous act and against the behavior usually practiced on a film set. The primary responsibility for these gaffer/electrician guys to be union is safety.

Then go after Kimmel and the union for impeding free speech. If they shut down a protest, maybe there is a class action suit here. Go get them!

Posted by: 15/70 at July 2, 2010 1:59 PM


Amy, "many medical experts have disagreed with your assessment - so I am not going to try to sort that out. However, you and your husband claimed your abortion was a "private decision made with your physicians" - not made in South Dakota by the way, but yet there you were, in the thick of the battle in SD. (Are you still married? I wonder if your marriage has withstood the pressure of your disingenousness"

Well Amy, I see you are quite bitter over the HUGE loss of your 2nd attempt to ban abortion. No medical experts huh? My doctor spoke, a maternal/fetal expert from CA spoke, and a maternal/fetal expert from PA spoke, I guess you missed those interviews. Your side in fact couldn't find one expert to back up your claims that selective termination is ever needed to treat TTTS. Your side could only find a chiropractor and a family practice physician, both of whom don't treat high-risk pregnancies. Look up any of the fetal care centers that treat TTTS and every single one of them list termination as one treatment of TTTS.
After your side did more research on TTTS, they realized it is a treatment for the more aggressive cases of TTTS, then they tried to say selective termination may be covered under IM 11 because my life was in risk. That's a big assumption since they have never seen my medical records, which they admitted. So which one is it? Is ST a treatment option or is it not? And are you assuming we traveled to OH to have the termination because we didn't want twins? We traveled there to try and save both twins by the laser surgery, but we were not candidates. Traveling to OH was a last ditch effort to save the twins, because we were told by our SD doc that we would lose both.
And yes, I'm still happily married, you also must have missed the interviews that my husband also participated in, all 15+ of them.
BTW, your side lying made every single one of my LARGE SD, pro-life family vote NO on IM 11. They knew our story and read through your deceptions.
As for our surviving twin, when I tell him how he was saved by a team of 5 maternal/fetal experts, I'm sure he'll be grateful he's alive.

Elisabeth,"Tiffany, precisely what percentage of the women obtaining the approximately 42 million abortions each year worldwide are 12 year old victims of incest? (source the pro-abort Guttmacher Institute). This is a straw man argument."
Just because rape/incest abortions account for a small percentage doesn't mean you can't make exceptions for them. I know a girl raped and impregnated. She comes from a strong Catholic family, after speaking with her aunt who gave a child up for adoption she chose abortion. Her family is now strongly pro-choice.

Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 2:53 PM


"Just because rape/incest abortions account for a small percentage doesn't mean you can't make exceptions for them. I know a girl raped and impregnated. She comes from a strong Catholic family, after speaking with her aunt who gave a child up for adoption she chose abortion. Her family is now strongly pro-choice."

Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 2:56 PM

Tiffany,
A "strong Catholic family" can be misguided as easily as any other. It was very wrong for the girl's aunt to advise her to abort. She is considered complicit in an abortion. Do you keep in touch with the girl who aborted? Is she happy?

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2010 3:38 PM


Tiffany's comment brought this to my mind....
People don't think about the fact the we have a moral responsibility NOT to contribute to another's choice of abortion and, in fact, a responsibility to try to dissuade a person, to the best of our ability, from choosing abortion. We can't just look the other way.

Posted by: Janet at July 2, 2010 3:44 PM


Posted by: Tiffany at July 2, 2010 2:56 PM


"I know a girl raped and impregnated. She comes from a strong Catholic family, after speaking with her aunt who gave a child up for adoption she chose abortion. Her family is now strongly pro-choice."

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

Well whoopty flippin doooo!

I know a woman whom First Lady Mamie Eisenhower would call and invite to the White House whenever she needed a fourth person for bridge.

I once spent a weekend riding dirtbikes with former Indianapolis 500 winner Johnny Rutherford.

Both statements are completely true and completely irrelevant to the current conversation.

Does rape and incest occur? Certainly.

Do fertile females sometimes conceive as a result of being raped? Certainly.

Are the children who are conceived as are result of these criminal acts any less the pregnant woman's child than one who was conceived as a result of consensual sex?

Absolutely NOT!

Are these children any less human than the ones conceived by consensual sex.?

Again, absolutely not.

Was the child that you chose to kill any less your child than the one whom you chose not to 'choice'?

Was the child you chose to kill any less human than the one whom you chose not to to 'choice'.

If your account is complete and accurate and true concerning your pregnancy with your twins, then I have no quarrel with your choice to kill one to in order to preserve the other child and to save your own life.

But that is not what you are advocating today.

You claiminng that prenatal children have no value and no rights because they are residing in a woman's uterus and what ever rights they may have are completely trumped by the pregnant woman's 'physical autonomy'.

You are claiming a pregant woman has an unbridled right to a dead child.

Here are three women who shared the same sentiment as you:


Dena Schlosser

Deanna LaJune-Laney


Andrea Yates

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 2, 2010 4:09 PM


It's a miracle! His bracelet and sign melted but his skin was not burned! Hallelujah! Praise the Lord Jesus Christ!

His Glory is my salvation!

You should sell that bracelet on Ebay!

Posted by: Tim O at July 2, 2010 4:55 PM


The lighting crew were setting up for a stunt across the street. So why would did the light needed to be shined where Ryan was? It didn't! the stunt was across the street and if the pro lifers weren't there they would not be shining that light right there because that would be endangering the public. those lights are powerful and dangerous! His skin was noted to be noticeably darker where the light had been hitting him and yes it could have partially melted his bracelet and sign. The light crew never told him to move and did not have the right to ask him to. As for Ryan not moving, if he had moved no one could blame him. Ryan did not move. That shows what kind of character he has. He was unfazed and strong! I don't think Jesus would have moved either. Feel free to disagree because that is just my opinion. Those saying Ryan was not very smart for staying but might want to consider that actions speaks louder than words. He was leading by example. Many people have gained courage from Ryan's actions. Who knows, witnesses might see his courage and stop to think "Wow, this kid is standing up for something he thinks is really important. Maybe this is a more important issue than I thought." Babies are brutally killed everyday in the womb and Ryan stood there like a soldier thinking of them. He was offering his pain for them. Would you have that kind of courage? Could you remain silent when being attacked? Could you turn the other cheek and make a humble offering of your suffering to God? As for Jeff, he was protecting Ryan. Maybe it was not the smartest but he really didn't have time to sit there and think it through he had all those kids to protect. If that was your child would you not protect him? And if you listen closely to the video you hear one of the officers come up to Jeff as he is being interviewed by one of the other officers. And he tells Jeff that there is a witness who says Jeff did assault the camera crew so he is being arrested. After the police chief saw that video he clearly saw Jeff had not assaulted anyone. Yes he touched the equipment. Yes it was not his. According to the officer he was being arrested for assaulting the crew not touching the equipment.

Posted by: mk at July 2, 2010 5:50 PM


My child was there and if it were my child under the light, I would have wanted jeff to do exactly as he did. And, if I was there, I would have done exactly as he did. He approached the lighting guy first. When lighting guy refused to take action he simply moved the light. Big whoop!

Posted by: j at July 2, 2010 6:33 PM


There is a saying on the interwebz: "don't feed the troll," even if his or her name starts with "T."

This one keeps chanting the sanctimonious mantra of the STATISTICALLY insignificant rape/incest cases --insignificant when compared with the BULK of convenience abortions everywhere.

She also erred in using the word "democracy," when we live in a constitutional republic. It's a pity that such grievous misconception is so endemic in pop culture. Speaks a lot about our education system.

I commend those among you who would like to educate people, but you have to understand that there are those (i.e., trolls), whose sole purpose is not dialogue, but merely posting "inflammatory or provocative messages designed to elicit negative responses or start a flame-war."

Posted by: Ned at July 3, 2010 2:08 AM


Instead of arming yourselves, why don't you exercise a little common sense. If they turn the light on you...take 2 steps to the left or right.

Personally, I have no opinion on the abortion issue. I've never been confronted with the situation and am not sure how I'd react. However, I do support your right to stand up for what you believe in. This seems like a really good organization that does great things.

Unfortunately, you're probably going to be labeled as extremists because one idiot decided to grandstand. Basically he said LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I'M GETTING ARRESTED!

Posted by: Scott at July 4, 2010 2:59 AM


Maybe if you people weren't so mindset on cramming your ideologies down peoples throats who really don't want anything to do with you, then "horrible" things like having a light shine on your face (the same lights that actors/actresses spend hours at a time under wearing costumes and makeup) wouldn't happen.

I'd say walking up and down the street showing children pictures of grotesque scenes to get your point across was far more damaging than a spotlight.

If anything...I figured you people would actually enjoy that spotlight...being the drama queens that you are.

Posted by: Bobby at July 4, 2010 10:47 AM


OK, a couple of questions to answer...

Why not move? The lights would have just been moved to the new spot. So, at that poinm, what you really have to say is "why didn't you just leave?" There are a couple different answers here. The first is, the truth needs to be shown everywhere, not just where it's comfortable, safe and convenient. The second answer is, it was Ryan's first ammendment right to be there. That seems very easily dismissed when it's a pro-lifer. (not you Scott) I love the way people only seem to believe in the First Ammendment when their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Just a review for those who haven't read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bobby, as for cramming our ideologies down peoples' throats...It's called showing the truth. Abortion is a gory, horrible, dispicable thing which people seem intent on ignoring. The phrase "You can't handle the truth" comes to mind. lol! This was the same mindset people had when the Jews were being killed. Until people actually saw pictures of the atrocities, they ignored. And, btw, that wasn't the same kind of lights actors and actresses stand under. If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen the post showing the model of light that was used. So, for those who didn't take the time to read, a normal hologen light is 500 watts. This light is 18,000 watts! It's a spotlight which was to be used to light someone on a zip line ACROSS THE STREET.

And, FYI, nobody, the entire camp was actually ever arrested. Apparently the law was on our side once the police actually bothered to look at video of the event. No citations issued.

Posted by: j at July 4, 2010 11:14 AM


OK, a couple of questions to answer...

Why not move? The lights would have just been moved to the new spot. So, at that poinm, what you really have to say is "why didn't you just leave?" There are a couple different answers here. The first is, the truth needs to be shown everywhere, not just where it's comfortable, safe and convenient. The second answer is, it was Ryan's first ammendment right to be there. That seems very easily dismissed when it's a pro-lifer. (not you Scott) I love the way people only seem to believe in the First Ammendment when their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Just a review for those who haven't read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bobby, as for cramming our ideologies down peoples' throats...It's called showing the truth. Abortion is a gory, horrible, dispicable thing which people seem intent on ignoring. The phrase "You can't handle the truth" comes to mind. lol! This was the same mindset people had when the Jews were being killed. Until people actually saw pictures of the atrocities, they ignored. And, btw, that wasn't the same kind of lights actors and actresses stand under. If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen the post showing the model of light that was used. So, for those who didn't take the time to read, a normal hologen light is 500 watts. This light is 18,000 watts! It's a spotlight which was to be used to light someone on a zip line ACROSS THE STREET.

And, FYI, nobody, the entire camp was actually ever arrested. Apparently the law was on our side once the police actually bothered to look at video of the event. No citations issued.

Posted by: j at July 4, 2010 11:14 AM


OK, a couple of questions to answer...

Why not move? The lights would have just been moved to the new spot. So, at that poinm, what you really have to say is "why didn't you just leave?" There are a couple different answers here. The first is, the truth needs to be shown everywhere, not just where it's comfortable, safe and convenient. The second answer is, it was Ryan's first ammendment right to be there. That seems very easily dismissed when it's a pro-lifer. (not you Scott) I love the way people only seem to believe in the First Ammendment when their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Just a review for those who haven't read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bobby, as for cramming our ideologies down peoples' throats...It's called showing the truth. Abortion is a gory, horrible, dispicable thing which people seem intent on ignoring. The phrase "You can't handle the truth" comes to mind. lol! This was the same mindset people had when the Jews were being killed. Until people actually saw pictures of the atrocities, they ignored. And, btw, that wasn't the same kind of lights actors and actresses stand under. If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen the post showing the model of light that was used. So, for those who didn't take the time to read, a normal hologen light is 500 watts. This light is 18,000 watts! It's a spotlight which was to be used to light someone on a zip line ACROSS THE STREET.

And, FYI, nobody, the entire camp was actually ever arrested. Apparently the law was on our side once the police actually bothered to look at video of the event. No citations issued.

Posted by: j at July 4, 2010 11:14 AM


OK, a couple of questions to answer...

Why not move? The lights would have just been moved to the new spot. So, at that poinm, what you really have to say is "why didn't you just leave?" There are a couple different answers here. The first is, the truth needs to be shown everywhere, not just where it's comfortable, safe and convenient. The second answer is, it was Ryan's first ammendment right to be there. That seems very easily dismissed when it's a pro-lifer. (not you Scott) I love the way people only seem to believe in the First Ammendment when their freedom of speech is being infringed upon. Just a review for those who haven't read it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bobby, as for cramming our ideologies down peoples' throats...It's called showing the truth. Abortion is a gory, horrible, dispicable thing which people seem intent on ignoring. The phrase "You can't handle the truth" comes to mind. lol! This was the same mindset people had when the Jews were being killed. Until people actually saw pictures of the atrocities, they ignored. And, btw, that wasn't the same kind of lights actors and actresses stand under. If you had read the entire thread, you would have seen the post showing the model of light that was used. So, for those who didn't take the time to read, a normal hologen light is 500 watts. This light is 18,000 watts! It's a spotlight which was to be used to light someone on a zip line ACROSS THE STREET.

And, FYI, nobody, the entire camp was actually ever arrested. Apparently the law was on our side once the police actually bothered to look at video of the event. No citations issued.

Posted by: j at July 4, 2010 11:18 AM


Whoa! Don't know why it posted like that! I guess I was just supposed to make my point. mea culpa to blog readers!

Posted by: j at July 4, 2010 11:28 AM


Tiffany, I'm sorry to hear that you lost a child to TTTS and an abortion. Advances in medical technology have allowed for saving both and for better health outcomes in the twins. It sounds like your doctors do not explore all the treatment options with you and instead gave you hopelessness and only abortion. You and both of your twins, as well as other woman experiencing this deserve to have the support and all the options explained to them and for a healthy outcome. There is an organization working towards that and I recommend checking them out: Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome Foundation.

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 4, 2010 1:56 PM


Wow. How many dead babies did that fat guy eat in ten minutes, because it looks like he won.

Posted by: TBogg at July 4, 2010 7:31 PM


Jesus would throw rocks at these bigots.

Shame these anti-choice nutjobs weren't aborted.

Posted by: The Truth at July 5, 2010 12:22 AM


I can't WAIT to have an abortion... Now if only I could get pregnant...

Posted by: Eleanor Audley at July 5, 2010 8:59 AM


I can't believe some of the disrespect dished out to Tiffany Campbell and the suggestion that she's "exploiting" her child. (No more than pro-lifers who parade their kids around outside clinics in order to guilt-trip women. I blogged about that...)

Also, gotta love the suggestion that she should have been willing to take enormous risks with her health and risk losing BOTH twins, because they found two random doctors who claimed the TTTS might--might--have been treatable.

I think she went to the Cleveland Clinic, which is in my hometown and one of the best hospitals in the world. They take the crisis situations no one else can, like the chimp attack victim. People fly in from all over the world to be treated at the Cleveland Clinic. And THEY thought abortion was her only safe option. These are the experts. They're not "abortionists," they're people who are usually working desperately to save fetal life.

But I guess pro-lifers with no medical trainng know better than them.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 5, 2010 9:50 AM


To all you pro lifers out there I was flipping irate at you. How dare you protest your life size posters right across the street from Toy Story 3. Due to the sidewalk closure I was forced to go through your demonstration with my 5 girls asking me all kinds of questions about your crap. How dare you take away my parenting role of guiding my children through life? How dare you take away the innocence of my children or any other children? Then on top of it I couldn't even have a discussion with you people about tact and what you were doing because I had my children around freaked out about what you were showing. That's not fair. There's a time and place for everything and that wasn't it! All you activists have a one sided view of everything. Do you know the story of each of those pictures? All though I don't agree with late term abortions some of those abortions could have stories behind them. One of them could have been a 15 year old pregnant girl trying to keep it secret from her parents only to have them find out and force her to do that. One fetus could have already died inside of the mother. The mother could have been at death's door. And beside this who deemed you the moral police? And how many people honestly do this? Most people get their abortions within the first trimester. You people hold these posters in order to get a rise out of people about the abortions and all it did was make me furious with you. I don't know how many people you get to actually team up with you after that but since abortion isn't going anywhere why don't you try focusing on something you might be able to change or help which might decrease the amount of abortions or unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Like put your resources together and help educate the youth about safe sex, abstinence, adoption. Present pictures of peacefulness like mother's and babies together. You people really need an overhaul of your whole system because what you are doing is wrong. I know I am not the only one who feels this way...everyone that I have told about this terrible experience forced upon my family has felt the same way whether they are pro life or pro choice.

Posted by: Kimberly Shaughnessy at July 5, 2010 10:58 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "d" in the field below: