Breaking news: Mother of 13-year-old suing DC Planned Parenthood for $50 mil: botched abortion; infertility
Students for Life of America has discovered a $50 million lawsuit filed February 12 against Planned Parenthood Metropolitan in DC by the mother of a barely 14-year-old daughter whose abortion it botched, leaving the girl infertile.
John Valente, attorney for Emma Jean Butler, mother of Shantese Butler, has given SFL the go-ahead to publicize the lawsuit, on pdf file here.
Shantese’s baby was conceived during a rape committed when she was 13….
The day after her D&C abortion, Shantese was taken to the Civista Medical Center emergency room complaining of severe abdominal pain and inflammation.
During emergency surgery doctors discovered “severe abdominal bleeding… severe vaginal injury… severe injury to the cervix… significant uterine perforation… a small bowel tear… [t]hat a significant portion of the fetus… was also found inside the minor Plaintiff’s abdomen…. [and] [t]hat the minor Plaintiff, Shantese Butler, is now infertile for the rest of her life….”
PP in its response denies everything, with this kicker:
(d) That the Court award Planned Parenthood its costs and expenses, including its attorneys’ fees, incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s complaint; (e) That the Court grant Planned Parenthood such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
So PP wants damages.
PP also refuted the claim stating, “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of informed consent.”
SFLA’s executive director Kristan Hawkins responded, “[I]t is outrageous that Planned Parenthood thinks they are excused from being held liable because Shantese was informed of possible risks associated with abortion. In no other medical profession would this be acceptable.”
Valente told SFLA he has just learned the name of Shantese’s abortionist and will soon release.
Coincidentally, the April African-American protest getting so much press was held in front of this PP abortion mill.
Hawkins just informed me pro-lifers got 3 aborting mothers to change their minds at this mill Friday just by distributing copies of the lawsuit.
[Photo of pro-lifer standing outside PP Metropolitan courtesy of JewishContent.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Poor girl.
Her mother should be ashamed.
LOL. So the Mom took her to PP for an abortion, and is now providing information to Students For Life because of malpractice?
Of course if there was indeed malpractice, she should be compensated. But for her to take her daughter to PP to have an abortion, and then go crying to a pro-life group when it didn’t turn out how she expected is just opportunistic and hypocritcal.
First – my heart and prayers goes out for the young girl.
Jill – the relief for legal expenses is pretty much boilerplate when it comes to responses. In such cases, it’s not unusual for attorney’s to put such claims in, because they want the strongest refutation of the claims. This sets the tone. It would be more outrageous if they countersued for other reasons.
Agreed – informed consent is not an excuse for severe malpractice.
The other question outstanding here is the statutory rape. Reported? DNA evidence collected?
That poor girl was victimized, and then victimized again.
“[I]t is outrageous that Planned Parenthood thinks they are excused from being held liable because Shantese was informed of possible risks associated with abortion. In no other medical profession would this be acceptable.”
The medical profession says that every day in courtrooms across America. Some procedures don’t turn out well. However, as Amanda said, if the doctors committed malpractice she should be fully compensated. Informed consent doesn’t include the risk that a doctor will be negligent.
I will be praying for this poor girl. I vaguely recall being 13. How horrifying for her!!
I certainly am glad that abortion is so safe. Oh, and legal. And let’s not forget rare.
Chris: informed consent is not an excuse for severe malpractice.
I know I’m always agreeing with you, Chris, but yes, exactly.
Shantese was informed of possible risks associated with abortion
Really? Is one of those “risks”: “leaving significant portion of the fetus… was also found inside the minor Plaintiff’s abdomen”
So let me get this straight. PP is paid to do a “job”, but is not negligent when it doesn’t do it? Really????
But for her to take her daughter to PP to have an abortion, and then go crying to a pro-life group when it didn’t turn out how she expected is just opportunistic and hypocritcal.
Posted by: Amanda at May 28, 2008 12:00 PM
The story doesn’t say how SFL found out, how do you know the mother went and told them? Where’s the hypocrisy?
Amanda,
The mother took her daughter to PP to have the baby exterminated. The mother did NOT take her daughter into PP to have her uterus and small bowel torn. The mother did NOT take her daughter to PP to have her daughter become sterile.
If PP thinks this is “excusable” because of informed “risks”, then we need to be very afraid that if the abortionist doesn’t like a certain patient, for whatever reason, they have the “right” to tear their patients’ insides up beyond recognition.
Yeah…makes sense.
Hey, It’s Planned Parenthood…do you expect them to do a good job or even tell the truth?
…and there are people who actually support what they do…(note sarcasm here)
JLM,
PP, like ANY medical practitioner is going to have malpractive cases filed against them, and like everyone else, they have the right to a defense. If they are found guilty of malpractice by a jury, so be it. But they are just as deserving of a defense as ANY other doctor or office being sued for malpractice.
The claim that informed consent was given is the SAME defense that is used in malpractice cases against doctors who have botched gastric bypass surgeries, organ transplants, etc. Consider it like a form letter. It’s the standard defense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. If your issue is with that, take it up with lawyers, not PP.
But for her to take her daughter to PP to have an abortion, and then go crying to a pro-life group when it didn’t turn out how she expected is just opportunistic and hypocritcal.
Woah, woah, woah…Because a pro-life media outlet reports a story doesn’t mean that the source contacted them directly. But it’s not beyond reason that this situation wouldn’t make a prolife woman of Emma Jean. She could have a grandchild and unwounded daughter now, instead she’ll never have grandchildren because of the foolish choice she made her daughter.
By the way, my friend who is a minister just had his first grandchild. It’s his 15-year-old daughters who was raped also. The joy and love in that home as they pass like Tyson around is so much better than the guilt and pain Emma Jean and Shantese have. Yes, this family has re-arranged to provide care for the baby while his mother finishes school, etc., but being re-raped via abortion wouldn’t have helped her at all.
The claim that informed consent was given is the SAME defense that is used in malpractice cases against doctors who have botched gastric bypass surgeries, organ transplants, etc. Consider it like a form letter. It’s the standard defense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. If your issue is with that, take it up with lawyers, not PP.
okay…again….significant portion of baby left in abdomen.
I understand “defense”, but I also understand “owning up to an obvious mistake”.
If PP truly is in the business to help women (barf), then they should have no problem helping this woman (girl) by admitting their mistake and paying for it.
No, my problem is with PP…not the attorneys. Who pays attorneys again & agrees to the defense proposed????
Jacqueline:
“John Valente, attorney for Emma Jean Butler, mother of Shantese Butler, has given SFL the go-ahead to publicize the lawsuit, on pdf file here.”
That means that after CHOOSING to take her daughter to get an abortion, she is allowing her lawsuit to be used by a Pro Life organization. She obviously isn’t Pro Life. If her daughter had the abortion without complications, she’d be very happy that she had the right to choose, as she obviously was when she brought her in for an abortion. So she’s basically saying “I got to choose, but it didn’t work out, so I’m now supporting the idea that no one should get to choose”. I’m sorry, but I find that very hypocritical.
JLM – how can we be sure they didn’t offer to settle but the girls family/lawyer turned down the settlement because they wanted to go to trial and get more money? Thats the problem with out-of-control medical malpractice suits these days. The line between legitimate compensation and outlandish lawsuits has been blurred far too many times to automatically side with the patient. It’s not limited to abortion of course – its EVERYWHERE in the medical field.
JLM – how can we be sure they didn’t offer to settle but the girls family/lawyer turned down the settlement because they wanted to go to trial and get more money? Thats the problem with out-of-control medical malpractice suits these days. The line between legitimate compensation and outlandish lawsuits has been blurred far too many times to automatically side with the patient. It’s not limited to abortion of course – its EVERYWHERE in the medical field.
Again, then PP should step up to the plate and admit their wrongs. Even if they attempted to settle out of court, it doesn’t justify their denying that they are to blame now.
Let’s also not forget that PP is insured. The “settlement” won’t come out of their pocket, it will come out of their insurance company’s. It will increase their “loss runs”, but I think it’s more about “bad publicity” for PP….they can’t have that!
Their “defense” is nothing but a slap in the face to the girl that they are supposed to “help”. How do you think she would feel after reading their defense? Nothing like adding fuel to the fire! This girl is already traumatized by the rape, and possibly the extermination of the human life that was once inside of her.
What’s the price tag, that you would propose, to compensate for sterilization?????
Amanda, a pro-lifer found the lawsuit through the Internet. In hopes of communicating with the mother to offer support, she and fellow pro-lifers kept quiet. Her attorney just said it was ok with him to discuss the case publicly after being asked by pro-lifers.
“Again, then PP should step up to the plate and admit their wrongs. Even if they attempted to settle out of court, it doesn’t justify their denying that they are to blame now. ”
If its now pending litigation, legally they can’t make any statements like that right now.
“Their “defense” is nothing but a slap in the face to the girl that they are supposed to “help”. How do you think she would feel after reading their defense?”
Again – thats just the nature of legal defenses. How do you think murder victims families feel when they hear the defenses for the murderer? Does it suck? Absolutely. I had to sit in court and listen to the defense attorney explain to a jury that some bastard murdered my friend because he was “confused about his sexuality”.
Its infuriating. But does that mean we should start denying certain people/organizations their constitutional right to a proper defense?
Do you not concede that medical malpractice suits are completley out of control? And that as much as we like (its human nature I think) to side with the victim, many many times, they’ve been offered a settlement, but turned it down because they want to see just how much money they can get out of their misfortune.
Working at MGH, I got to witness this first hand when one of the NE Patriots assistant coaches had a gastric bypass here and had serious complications. They offered to settle out of court for a LARGE sum of money, but instead, he took it to the press and the courts because he wanted MORE MONEY. In the end, a jury found that MGH did nothing wrong, and he got NOTHING. Ooops.
If its now pending litigation, legally they can’t make any statements like that right now.
They had the “choice” to step up to the plate BEFORE pending litigation. They “chose” not to.
My point, Amanda, is that if PP truly wanted to help this girl, they would. I don’t think 50 million, less attorney fees, is an “outrageous” lawsuit, when the girl is sterlized. That’s not what she paid for. And she certainly didn’t pay for baby parts to remain in her abdomen.
Lawsuits of this magnitude are not always about money. They are about the point. If 50 million dollars makes PP be more careful in the future so these catastrophes don’t happen, isn’t that worth it so no other girls/women meet the same demise as this girl?
If one keeps getting a “slap on the wrist”, will they change their ways?
Sometimes it takes a large sum of money to wake someone or an organization up.
That means that after CHOOSING to take her daughter to get an abortion, she is allowing her lawsuit to be used by a Pro Life organization. She obviously isn’t Pro Life. If her daughter had the abortion without complications, she’d be very happy that she had the right to choose, as she obviously was when she brought her in for an abortion. So she’s basically saying “I got to choose, but it didn’t work out, so I’m now supporting the idea that no one should get to choose”. I’m sorry, but I find that very hypocritical.
Or perhaps she’s saying, “I got to choose and it was a BAD CHOICE, and I can’t support anyone else making this bad choice at their daughter’s expense.”
People caught in adultery often admit that it was a bad choice even if they never got caught. The consequences of getting caught might be greater than just the action itself (spouse leaving, taking the children, etc.), but the action itself is recognized as bad. Emma Jean may recognize the action of abortion as bad now and not had before, or maybe she just wants to warn women of the fate they could face so they don’t end up like her daughter.
I don’t see that as hipocritical. I see that as “people make mistakes and change.” Wouldn’t you think her a bit twisted if she still supported legal abortion with the horror that her daughter faced because of it?
That poor girl..she’s only 14 and has a crapload of issues to sort through now. From being raped, to being pregnant at a very young age, to getting an abortion, and having to deal with being sterile for the rest of her life now.
:(
Let’s look at it this way:
Suppose I go to eat at a restaurant of my own free will and the food there gives me some incurable disease. I then think I shouldn’t have eaten there and no one else should either.
So I sue them and allow opponents of the restaurant to warn potential patrons that they could get an incurable disease from the restaurants’ food also.
Am I a hypocrite now- I mean, I went in to the restaurant and ate of my own choosing, and had I gotten out disease free, I’d probably be happy that restaurant and meal existed, right?
Maybe PP’s administrators and doctors should have listened to Warren Hern when he told his fellow abortionists two things:
1. If you don’t want to get sued, don’t commit malpractice in the first place.
2. Patients don’t sue because they were injured; they sue because you don’t seem to CARE that they were injured.
Had they not shoved the fetus through the back of her uterus into her abdomen, there’d be no lawsuit. But even after doing that, had they caught it, hospitalized the girl, and paid for the care she needed, probably it would have been seen as one of those flukey things and again, they’d not have gotten sued.
But they commit the quackery then blow the patient and her family off. THAT is what gets them sued. And I hope this family takes them to the cleaners.
Amanda, the girl’s mom didn’t necessarily go to prolifers. Jill said SFL “discovered” the lawsuit — easy enough to do. Just go to the courthouse and do a docket search. You can also do them by fax or phone and I’m betting in many cases online as well. It costs a bit but it’s worth it if you uncover stuff like this.
I recommend that everybody with an abortionist in their county do a docket search annually for cases against the facility and the abortionist. You’d be amazed at what you turn up.
And another point — this woman’s daugher was maimed for life. Why do you see it as somehow spiteful for her to not want that to happen to anybody else’s daughter?
Oh, for the record, this abortion facility that shoved a significant hunk of fetus through the back of a 13-year-old rape victim’s uterus and left her infertile is also a member of the National Abortion Federation. Cream of the crop, folks.
Amanda, clearly you have NO idea what it’s like to go through an abortion malpractice trial as a plaintiff. They will put you through the wringer. What their attorneys do to you is unconscionable. A National Abortion Federation attorney described it as “beating the shit out of [the] woman”. They go after the plaintiff pretty much the way a rapist’s attorney goes after the victim. They try to make her look like an evil slut that deserved what she got and got what she deserved. It’s cruel and it’s not for the faint of heart.
This is so sad. This proves that abortion is NOT safe. The girl’s mother was probably so scared because the child was conceived by rape that she thought this was the only choice.
And now her daughter is infertile, unable to have children in the future.
BTW, If anyone’s been following the lawsuit from the abortion mill in Lincoln, PP settled with the INJURED woman out of court. In the Lincoln lawsuit, the 40 year old woman lost 80% of her blood and had to have an emergency hysterectomy.
Christina,
YOU ROCK!!!!
Excellent posts!
Am I a hypocrite now- I mean, I went in to the restaurant and ate of my own choosing, and had I gotten out disease free, I’d probably be happy that restaurant and meal existed, right?
Jacqueline, I don’t think you’re a hypocrite, but you just stay away from Chuck E. Cheese.
“Amanda, clearly you have NO idea what it’s like to go through an abortion malpractice trial as a plaintiff. ”
All plaintiffs are put through the ringer by insurance companies and their lawyers. Be nice to see PP act differently, but they’re getting legal “advice” and probably feel they have to take it (in fact, might be required to or risk losing their insurance)
I wonder if a doctor actually performed the abortion or was it a nurse practitioner or other non-physician acting illegally, as was the case in Arizona.
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “This proves that abortion is NOT safe. ”
No, it doesn’t. A single rare bad outcome proves nothing about the safety of the procedure overall.
To prove that abortion is not safe, you would have to show that this sort of thing happens FREQUENTLY. Which it doesn’t.
Did this girl report the rape after it happened? Who raped her? Did she only tell the abortion clinic about the rape?
LizfromNebraska, you wrote: “This proves that abortion is NOT safe. ”
No, it doesn’t. A single rare bad outcome proves nothing about the safety of the procedure overall.
At least one person dies in every abortion. That alone means it’s not safe.
The abortion industry doesn’t care. You sign paper to make sure that you get a dead baby. On top of that, you sign away your/your families rights to recover if you are injured or killed during the procedure.
To prove that abortion is not safe, you would have to show that this sort of thing happens FREQUENTLY. Which it doesn’t.
Posted by: SoMG at May 28, 2008 4:31 PM
Abortion has its risks as all surgeries do. Perhaps in their desperation, some of the patients do not weigh these risks as they should.
Now, please don’t say that abortion is safer than childbirth. At least childbirth is natural, abortion is not. To die during an abortion is shameful. To die during childbirth, although just as tragic, is not shameful.
Well this story sure proves SoMG’s assertion that abortion is definitely safer than pregnancy especially for a 13 year old girl.
To prove that abortion is not safe, you would have to show that this sort of thing happens FREQUENTLY. Which it doesn’t.
Posted by: SoMG at May 28, 2008 4:31 PM
Wrong. In fact “this sort of thing” (very demeaning I might add to use this wording, sort of like having a hang-nail) is so frequent that given the rate of abortions in America per year there are thousands of women who are now infertile or cannot carry a pregnancy to term due to prior abortions. The problem is most women do not have the resources nor the stamina to take on a big organization such as PP and many women do not learn until many years post-abortion that they are infertile making it unlikely that a court will accept the abortion as the reasonable cause for the infertility.
Too bad women just don’t get the message that PP doesn’t care about women. They care about $$$$$$$
Now, please don’t say that abortion is safer than childbirth. At least childbirth is natural, abortion is not. To die during an abortion is shameful. To die during childbirth, although just as tragic, is not shameful.
Posted by: Janet at May 28, 2008 6:36 PM
Janet:You can forget even discussing this with SoMG: he isn’t open to examining this issue and any discussion borders on ludicrous.
If the proaborts were honest about their byline of “safe and legal” they would be all over PP to provide “safe and legal” services. Instead, what do they do, they continue to help PP cover it’s tracks. All they really care about is that abortion is legal.
You never see a contingent of “prochoicers” outside an abortionist’s office picketing or having news conferences asking for the investigation of an abortionist when a woman dies?
“Working at MGH, I got to witness this first hand when one of the NE Patriots assistant coaches had a gastric bypass here and had serious complications. They offered to settle out of court for a LARGE sum of money, but instead, he took it to the press and the courts because he wanted MORE MONEY. In the end, a jury found that MGH did nothing wrong, and he got NOTHING. Ooops. ”
That was Charlie Weiss, Amanda. I remember it… My sons were born at MGH.
“Too bad women just don’t get the message that PP doesn’t care about women. They care about $$$$$$$”
What medical organization *doesn’t* care about money? The entire medical field is nothing *but* obsession with charging the most money for the least amount of care.
If the proaborts were honest about their byline of “safe and legal” they would be all over PP to provide “safe and legal” services. Instead, what do they do, they continue to help PP cover it’s tracks. All they really care about is that abortion is legal.
You never see a contingent of “prochoicers” outside an abortionist’s office picketing or having news conferences asking for the investigation of an abortionist when a woman dies?
Posted by: Patricia at May 28, 2008 7:45 PM
……………………………………………….
Aren’t you the Canuck with government provided health insurance? Bitch to your government over how you will never use any of their health care options. As if!
Shut up about my government. You are still bowing down to a ‘royal’.
Patricia, what about pro-choice activist Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) who led the charge against serial-molester-abortionist Lawrence Reich?
Janet, you wrote: “Now, please don’t say that abortion is safer than childbirth.”
It is. A little bit safer.
You wrote “At least childbirth is natural, abortion is not.”
So what? Cancer is natural too. “Natural” does not mean good.
You wrote: “To die during an abortion is shameful.”
Maybe for you.
“If the proaborts were honest about their byline of “safe and legal” they would be all over PP to provide “safe and legal” services. Instead, what do they do, they continue to help PP cover it’s tracks. All they really care about is that abortion is legal.
You never see a contingent of “prochoicers” outside an abortionist’s office picketing or having news conferences asking for the investigation of an abortionist when a woman dies?
Posted by: Patricia at May 28, 2008 7:45 PM
……………………………………………….
Aren’t you the Canuck with government provided health insurance? Bitch to your government over how you will never use any of their health care options. As if!
Shut up about my government. You are still bowing down to a ‘royal’.
Posted by: Sally at May 28, 2008 9:40 PM”
What in the Sam Hill does this have to do with ANYTHING Patricia said??
Actually, OB/GYNs are the most-sued practitioners in medicine. They pay the highest malpractice premiums, and a huge percentage have quit their OB practice for financial reasons.
If we outlaw pregnancy and childbirth these butchers won’t have any women to maim and kill.
“If the proaborts were honest about their byline of “safe and legal” they would be all over PP to provide “safe and legal” services. Instead, what do they do, they continue to help PP cover it’s tracks. All they really care about is that abortion is legal.
You never see a contingent of “prochoicers” outside an abortionist’s office picketing or having news conferences asking for the investigation of an abortionist when a woman dies?
Posted by: Patricia at May 28, 2008 7:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee, death from complications resulting from abortion claim about ONE in 100,000 patients.
Death from complications resulting from liposuction claims about NINETEEN in 100,000 patients.
If you are so concerned about women and preserving life, why aren’t you out picketing those evil fat-suckers?
Patricia, you wrote”… “this sort of thing” … is so frequent that given the rate of abortions in America per year there are thousands of women who are now infertile or cannot carry a pregnancy to term due to prior abortions.”
How many “thousands”? That can mean any number greater than two thousand. Whatever it is, I bet it’s still very INfrequent, compared to the total number of abortions, which is millions. “Thousands” divided by “millions” equals once in a thousand. Sounds like pretty good odds to me.
And remember you have to compare it to the number of women who lose their fertility from complications of childbirth. I bet the numbers arent very different. I bet that your odds of being sterilized by an abortion are about the same as your odds of being sterilized by complications of the childbirth which the abortion prevents. I’m not going to look up the numbers for you this time.
Thank you Sally for your kind charitable remarks. Yes, my government does have funded health care and I am thankful for it for a number of reasons. The first being that without it my mother would have died when I was very young as my family would never have been able to afford the heart surgery in the mid 1970’s that saved her life. My younger brother also would have died because he was born with abo jaundice and my parents would not have been able to afford the complete blood transfusion that saved his life.
What I am not grateful for is the fact that my Canuck government funds abortions – a nonessential surgery that kills my fellow Canadians by the 10’s of thousands every year. In fact, we have NO law in Canada restricting abortions. This is the result of a politicized judiciary with a liberal agenda.
You can’t get eyeglasses or a dental checkup for your kid in Canada but you can get them an abortion – for free.
And thank you Kel for your quite correct point!
As to Laura and her stupid point, because honey, their aren’t 1.5 million liposuctions in the US/year and they don’t kill 1.5 million helpless human beings. This is not a blog against liposuction. Try again. Maybe a brain transplant for yourself?
Thank you SoMG for not wasting your time!
That was Charlie Weiss, Amanda.
Jasper, are you a Notre Dame fan?
Patricia, you wrote: “You can’t get eyeglasses or a dental checkup for your kid in Canada but you can get them an abortion….”
Well I don’t know how it works in Canada but the same is true in Pennsylvania and the reason is, that pregnancy is considered to be an emancipating circumstance.
Most restrictions on minors only apply to NON-EMANCIPATED minors. The circumstances which cause a minor to be considered emancipated include, for instance, living away from parents, having a job (being self-supporting), and another such circumstance is pregnancy.
Interestingly, this means that a PREGNANT minor CAN get eyeglasses or a dental checkup or even major surgery without the parents’ consent, because her pregnancy renders her emancipated in the eyes of the law and medicine.
Gee, death from complications resulting from abortion claim about ONE in 100,000 patients.
Death from complications resulting from liposuction claims about NINETEEN in 100,000 patients.
If you are so concerned about women and preserving life, why aren’t you out picketing those evil fat-suckers?
Posted by: Laura at May 28, 2008 10:32 PM——————————————————————— Liposuction doesn’t kill another person. I had breast implants, and had I died on the table, I would only have myself to blame.
You wrote “At least childbirth is natural, abortion is not.”
So what? Cancer is natural too. “Natural” does not mean good.
Cancer is an aberration or mutation. Childbirth is not.
And I would be the only person dead.
Janet, you’re right. Cancer is something that happens to people against their will. You can’t even compair the two. That’s just stupid.
So, let’s reverse this for a moment. If childbirth MIGHT kill me, should I remain childless? I MIGHT get into a fatal car accident if I drive today. Should I never drive again?
If childbirth MIGHT kill me, should I remain childless? I MIGHT get into a fatal car accident if I drive today. Should I never drive again?
Heather, if you don’t want to take the risk of childbirth, you don’t have to do it. If you don’t want to take the risk of driving a car, you don’t have to do it.
And I don’t want to kill another human being if I’m pregnant, so I won’t.
I won’t make the baby in the first place. See how easy that is?
Janet, you wrote: “Cancer is an aberration or mutation. Childbirth is not.”
So what?
Heather, you wrote: “Cancer is something that happens to people against their will.”
Not entirely. People engage in activities that increase their cancer risk. Smoking tobacco, for instance.
Uh, genius…
You argue that abortion should be outlawed because it’s “dangerous” for women, but you people never seem to want to outlaw childbirth or liposuction – both of which are WAY ‘mo lethal.
You don’t care about saving women’s lives, you just use that cover to promote your agenda. If you went by the numbers you’d be out picketing the “fatsuckers of death!”
Laura, you KNOW that the danger to the women is NOT the sole basis of our reasoning for being against abortion, and you KNOW we have never represented our beliefs in this manner. You KNOW that we have stated about a billion times that the risks to the woman are only YET ANOTHER reason that abortion is a terrible thing. Not the sole reason.
You don’t care about saving women’s lives, you just use that cover to promote your agenda. If you went by the numbers you’d be out picketing the “fatsuckers of death!
Because approximately 50% of the time an abortion ends the life of a woman. In the USA that’s roughly 600,000+ lives annually, give or take
Your ignorance of biology and valid moral reasoning is no reflection of us or our ability to care.
Outlawing childbirth? Feeling a little hateful this morning?
Coffee go bad on you or something?
Why picket a fat sucker, Laura? I thought you were pro choice. Why would you even suggest that?
SoMG said: Janet, you wrote: “Cancer is an aberration or mutation. Childbirth is not.”
So what?
Do you really care at this point? If so…read on….You brought up cancer, not me…. we were discussing the medical risks between natural childbirth and “unnatural” abortion, and then you said something about cancer being natural so everything natural isn’t good. I said cancer isn’t natural it’s an aberration….. (Exciting stuff, huh?) Lol.
Heather, she’s trying to imply that the only reason we’re against abortion is because it’s damaging to women. She’s saying that if we’re against abortion only because it hurts women, we should also be protesting liposuction too, because it also has the potential to hurt women.
But Laura knows that the damage to women is not our sole basis for being against abortion…she’s just spinning things as usual.
Bethany, hello. Please forgive me for not saying “hi!” That being said, I know.
Janet, you wrote: “I said cancer isn’t natural it’s an aberration….. ”
It’s a natural aberration. It’s still natural.
Hi Heather. :) Hope you’re having a good day.
SOMG, if by natural, you mean “present in nature” you’d be right, but natural also means “conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature”,and by that description, cancer doesn’t fit.
As with cancer, abortion is unnatural because it does not conform to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
Bethany, same to you.:)….Somg, cancer isn’t self induced. It just happens. Abortion is an elective procedure. Someone is asking to have the procedure.
People don’t ask for cancer, but people do ask for abortions.
SoMG: Fine, cancer is a natural aberration. You win :)
All: FYI, I’m having trouble with my software. I can’t even post any new posts. They won’t go live. No one is sorrier than me about this. :(
Well I don’t know how it works in Canada but the same is true in Pennsylvania and the reason is, that pregnancy is considered to be an emancipating circumstance.
Interestingly, this means that a PREGNANT minor CAN get eyeglasses or a dental checkup or even major surgery without the parents’ consent, because her pregnancy renders her emancipated in the eyes of the law and medicine.
Posted by: SoMG at May 29, 2008 7:03 AM
I find this a fascinating legal point. If the pregnant (and therefore emanicpated) minor delivers a live baby is she still emancipated? if she gives the baby for adoption? if she has an abortion?
I really think that anyone old enough to be emancipated by pregnancy is old enough to be emancipated anyway.
hippie: 2:15:
Very odd law in PA! I wonder how old it is and if it is true in any other state. So, I’m guessing that parental notification for abortion is a non-issue.
I should say, this WAS how it worked in Pa when I was there. The law may have been changed since then.
Karen at the Families against Planned Parenthood web site is asking for everyone’s special prayers. A 14 year old couple is scheduled to have an abortion at 7 AM tomorrow (Friday) morning. They are being pressured by their parents. Please pray that they change their minds and do not go through with the abortion.
Janet: If they don’t want to have the abortion they need to leave the hostile environment IMMEDIATELY!
This has been my experience. The only way to take the pressure to abort off the woman is to remove her from the environment where she can think things through and calm down. When I was counselling any time we watched a couple go back into the hostile environment, whether it was parents or husband etc. she usually succumbed to the pressure to abort and was back at the clinic the very next day.
The only way to save the baby is to save the woman first.
Janet, do you have an update? I really hope this couple didn’t abort!
Bethany, I’m sorry, I don’t. Here is where you will probably find the latest information: http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org/blog/2008/0520/protest05/#comments