Breaking news: Exposed Tiller enabler quits
Only this morning Operation Rescue outted Burtram Odenheimer, M.D. as “one of the physicians currently providing the second signature for patients of abortionist George Tiller that is required before they may receive post-viability abortions.”
Continued the OR press release…
Odenheimer, a neurologist who is board certified in psychiatry, secretly sees Tiller’s late-term patients at his office at the Wichita Clinic, a non-abortion medical center located at 3311 E. Murdock in Wichita.
KS law requires that an unaffiliated physician must concur with the abortionist that a post-viability abortion is necessary to prevent “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the mother. Tiller currently uses the mental health loophole supposedly implied in the law as an excuse to abort late-term babies up until the day before birth….
Operation Rescue has plans to launch protests at the Wichita Clinic and sponsor prayer walks in Odenheimer’s exclusive neighborhood, located near 21st Street and Webb Road.
OR encouraged readers to contact the Odenheimer and the Wichita Clinic.
By this afternoon, the Wichita Clinic had issued a press release denying it knew Odenheimer and another unnamed physician were helping Tiller and offering that “[b]oth physicians have volunteered to discontinue providing these services effective immediately.”
Just goes to show abortion is radioactive to legitimate medical practitioners. Wichita Clinic is owned by the 160 doctors in its practice and is in 11 locations. My guess is Odemheimer is also now radioactive.
Great job, Troy Newman and OR.
[Photo courtesy of OR]
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.
Excellent!
From operationrescue.org:
Odenheimer has connections to Tiller. He is a Clinical Assistant Professor with the Kansas University School of Medicine, where Tiller has served as Clinical Instructor for over 25 years.
What is Tiller, teaching at Kansas University Medical School, Abortion 101 ????
I guess a kickback is worth a human life?
Evidently.
Go Operation Rescue!
Good news, but if this guy doesn’t do it for them, they’ll just find someone else. Kudos to OR though.
I lived in Wichita for over 30 years and worked as an RN for almost 15, including at the Wichita Clinic at the East Murdock location. Wichita is a very, very Catholic city. There are lots of Catholic grade schools as well as two high school. Trust me, the Clinic does not want to do anything to be affiliated with Tiller as he is routinely despised by almost everyone, despite what The Eagle (Wichita paper) would have you believe. After BTK was caught there was a joke floating around about the town’s most notorious Lutherans were also serial killers, referring to Dennis Rader and Tiller. Anyway, the Wichita Clinic is not going to do anything that may lead to a boycott, as they are very money oriented. There’s also a lot of very prolife physicians who work there as well.
Janet, I dated a KU med student in the early 90’s, but he never mentioned Tiller lecturing. He did attend school with Tiller’s daughter, who not surprisingly he described as very vocal regarding her support for abortion.
I would like other peoples ideas on this angle I thought of for stopping abortion.
Since men are equally responsible legally for the care of the kids, women should need the “father’s” approval in order to intentionally kill the child. That is to say in cases where the sex was consentual. Makes total sense to me and I bet it would bring a lot more responsibility and accountability to the issue.
I wonder how many women abort against the man’s wishes….. I for one, am tired of being treated as though I shouldn’t have just as much a right to the care of my children as their mother does. Opinions please.
The father’s signature should be the second consent on every abortion where the sex was consentual.
KC,
I’d like to ask you something. If you wouldn’t mind, could you email me???
truthseeker: The father’s signature should be the second consent on every abortion where the sex was consentual.
Very interesting idea. enforcing such a law would be pretty easy if the couple involved were married.
If the couple is not married, you get into problems. The guy could be out of the picture by the time she knows she’s pregnant. The father’s identity may not be known. It could be an extra-marital affair where the anonymity of the father would be important for the woman.
Personally I like the idea, but when the abortion clinics have a hard time obeying medical regulations, are they likely to comply with such a law and who will enforce it?
If the couple is not married, you get into problems. The guy could be out of the picture by the time she knows she’s pregnant. The father’s identity may not be known. It could be an extra-marital affair where the anonymity of the father would be important for the woman.
Personally I like the idea, but when the abortion clinics have a hard time obeying medical regulations, are they likely to comply with such a law and who will enforce it?
Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Janet,
If the penaltys for breaking the law were mandatory prison time then I think they would comply
If the couple is not married, you get into problems. The guy could be out of the picture by the time she knows she’s pregnant. The father’s identity may not be known. It could be an extra-marital affair where the anonymity of the father would be important for the woman.
Janet,
It would really make women take a more responsible approach to pregnancy. Sorry, but I don’t have any genuine sympathy for women who don’t know who the father is, they better start making phone calls and get somebody to sign and hope the REAL father doesn’t find out or they would be headed for jail. I don’t have any sympathy for the privacy of an extramarital affair either, kill the baby to protect our secret doesn’t cut it. The only time the anonimity of the father would be important is if the mother wanted to kill the child, which is exactly why we need a Father’s Rights/ Paternal Consent law.
Carla,
It was your question to me yesterday when you had asked me what about the men and their role in abortions that made me think of this. What would you think about a Paternal Consent law?
Janet,
If the penaltys for breaking the law were mandatory prison time then I think they would comply
Posted by: truthseeker at July 15, 2008 10:08 AM
So, if I understand you correctly, we’ll lock up the pregnant woman for a year (or more) for failing to identify the father. And she won’t get her abortion either I’m guessing. I don’t think the public will get behind your proposal TS.
TS,
I have met some men that REALLY wanted to be their for their girlfriends, wives when they became pregnant. They were against the abortion. Heartbreaking. What if the girly does want the abortion and the man doesn’t?
Still thinking about it……:)
A birthfather can block the way for a birthmother who really wants to place her child with an adoptive family. I’m currently working with an agency on my second adoption, and this just happened to a birthmom my social worker was working with. After making the selfless decision to carry to term and the responsible decision to make an adoption plan, the birthfather essentially forced this young girl to parent by refusing the sign a parental release (even after she had already selected an adoptive family for her child). How about one document that would give paternal consent to either abortion or adoption? If the ball is totally in the woman’s court if she wants to have an abortion, why can a father still block an adoption? Since a father needs to sign a release for an adoption, why does he have no rights in the matter of abortion?
“Since a father needs to sign a release for an adoption, why does he have no rights in the matter of abortion?”
He just doesn’t. That’s the way it is.
Hal–
“He just doesn’t. That’s the way it is.”
Hmmmm. Not exactly a thoughtful response. Should the father have rights in an abortion decision? Or, should he have no rights in an adoption decision? Or, do you see no problem with the status quo?
EH, I see no problem with the status quo. If a mother wants to give a baby up for adoption, I see reasons for letting the father have the baby instead. If the mother wants to have an abortion, I see no reason to allow the father to stop her. (won’t work anyway, just as a practical matter).
Maybe the father wants to be a daddy to his baby? Just a thought, Hal.
Maybe the father wants to be a daddy to his baby? Just a thought, Hal.
Posted by: Carla at July 15, 2008 1:43 PM
Too bad. Have a baby with somone who wants to deliver.
Kinda like Neener, Neener, Neener……too bad, you want to be a Dad but I’m having an abortion…..
Are you serious?
Hal —
Did you want the two kids your wife aborted? Or were you in agreement to having them killed? Why the change with the one(s) she delivered?
Would you have felt differently if she had wanted to put them up for adoption? Or was it all about control and giving the children up would have been a loss of control for you or were you just submitting to your wife’s will?
I stop by every now and then to see if you are still here posting proudly about having your babies killed.
TS,
That is an interesting point, so if the guy doesn’t give his consent and then winds up being a deadbeat dad, can he be charged with something, thrown in jail, fines, what?
And I’m not just talking about money here, cause anybody can pay their child support, I’m talking about if they don’t see the kid, take care of him/her, should the guy get charged with something, pay a fine, etc?
“Since a father needs to sign a release for an adoption, why does he have no rights in the matter of abortion?”
Hal: He just doesn’t. That’s the way it is.
Were he the one pregnant, it’d be different. Hal is right – he’s not. (And of course, that’s the way it is.)
So, if I understand you correctly, we’ll lock up the pregnant woman for a year (or more) for failing to identify the father. And she won’t get her abortion either I’m guessing. I don’t think the public will get behind your proposal TS.
Posted by: Hal at July 15, 2008 11:15 AM
No Hal,
No prison time unless she aborts without Paternal consent. So no pregnant women would be jailed.
A birthfather can block the way for a birthmother who really wants to place her child with an adoptive family. I’m currently working with an agency on my second adoption, and this just happened to a birthmom my social worker was working with. After making the selfless decision to carry to term and the responsible decision to make an adoption plan, the birthfather essentially forced this young girl to parent by refusing the sign a parental release (even after she had already selected an adoptive family for her child). How about one document that would give paternal consent to either abortion or adoption? If the ball is totally in the woman’s court if she wants to have an abortion, why can a father still block an adoption? Since a father needs to sign a release for an adoption, why does he have no rights in the matter of abortion?
Posted by: EH at July 15, 2008 11:41 AM
Interesting EH.
That is an interesting point, so if the guy doesn’t give his consent and then winds up being a deadbeat dad, can he be charged with something, thrown in jail, fines, what?
And I’m not just talking about money here, cause anybody can pay their child support, I’m talking about if they don’t see the kid, take care of him/her, should the guy get charged with something, pay a fine, etc?
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 15, 2008 7:01 PM
As a legal guardian I think the father could be guilty of neglect if the child was not cared for. But why would a man fight to save a child if he didn’t care for the child?
Were he the one pregnant, it’d be different. Hal is right – he’s not. (And of course, that’s the way it is.)
Posted by: Doug at July 15, 2008 9:28 PM
Doug, why couldn’t we right a law where the act of consentual sex is a contavt to support the life if a baby is conceived?
should have read:
Doug, why couldn’t we right a law where the act of consentual sex is a contract to support the life if a baby is conceived?
If there are no paternal “rights” or ownership of baby until said baby is born, then shouldn’t the man be able to legally opt out. It would still then be the woman’s decision but the man would get “off the hook” and have no legal financial responsibility if the woman decides to continue “HER” pregnancy.
No Ts, that’s not what I mean. I mean, if the dad won’t co-sign for the abortion, and then leaves all the child-rearing responsibilities up to the mom. It’s not like neglect because the child is still being cared for (by the mom), but the father isn’t living up to his end of the bargain. So if he refuses to sign for the abortion, I think he should sign a contract to take part in the child-rearing responsibilities. That way, if he doesn’t, he can get in trouble for breaking a contract. See what I mean?
The guy could be morally opposed to the abortion and still end up being a deadbeat dad.
I agree G’sMom, a father who would refuse to sign on to an abortion should be held to the same, if not greater, child rearing responsibilities that mothers are currently held to.
Hal, should a father be able to opt out of responsibility up until birth via legal writ since he has no legal decision over wether or not woman kills said child during pregnancy?
Okay, TS, but if it’s equal rights, couldn’t a man legally force a woman to have an abortion just like he could force her NOT to have one?
Doug, why couldn’t we right a law where the act of consentual sex is a contract to support the life if a baby is conceived?
Truthseeker, it’s not impossible, certainly, but the matter of the unborn being inside the body of the woman makes it dicey, to say the least.
If there are no paternal “rights” or ownership of baby until said baby is born, then shouldn’t the man be able to legally opt out. It would still then be the woman’s decision but the man would get “off the hook” and have no legal financial responsibility if the woman decides to continue “HER” pregnancy.
TS, society looks to the welfare of the child. If the woman is the custodial parent, she can certainly not pursue the man for monetary support if she so wishes, but the man’s desire not to pay isn’t going to trump the need for the child to be supported.
Okay, TS, but if it’s equal rights, couldn’t a man legally force a woman to have an abortion just like he could force her NOT to have one?
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 16, 2008 12:55 PM
No. The law would define if either of the parents who enter into the consentual procreative act is willing to take resonsibility then they have a right to protect that child from abortion.
If there are no paternal “rights” or ownership of baby until said baby is born, then shouldn’t the man be able to legally opt out. It would still then be the woman’s decision but the man would get “off the hook” and have no legal financial responsibility if the woman decides to continue “HER” pregnancy.
TS, society looks to the welfare of the child. If the woman is the custodial parent, she can certainly not pursue the man for monetary support if she so wishes, but the man’s desire not to pay isn’t going to trump the need for the child to be supported.
Posted by: Doug at July 16, 2008 5:09 PM
I think you miss the point Doug. If the pregnancy is HERS alone then the baby is HERS alone. If she has a legal right to abort then it is completely her decision wether or not to accept financial responsibility. To hold a man responsible for the care of the baby only if the woman decides he should have to is doscriminatory and makes no sense to me at all from a judicial perspective.
I think you miss the point Doug. If the pregnancy is HERS alone then the baby is HERS alone. If she has a legal right to abort then it is completely her decision wether or not to accept financial responsibility. To hold a man responsible for the care of the baby only if the woman decides he should have to is doscriminatory and makes no sense to me at all from a judicial perspective.
Truthseeker, this is a great topic.
I agree – there comes a point where it’s 100% up to the woman whether there will be a child or not. Society does not say anything different from that.
However, once the baby is born, society looks to the welfare of the kid. It’s no longer a matter of weighing the woman’s desires against the man’s. Since the man is not the one pregnant, his chance to “opt out” comes earlier in time than what is true for the woman.
Yes, it is “discriminatory,” but it’s just society making the distinction between the man and the woman. It can’t be “equal” because their biology isn’t the same.
For the born baby, society is saying the right to be supported by the parents is greater than the rights of either parent to opt out of paying.