Althouse: "Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell?"

April 28, 2013

"Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell?"

"And do we want to know?"

270 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 270 of 270

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Nice to see you resorting to cliches when your point is refuted, Synova.

So by "culture of death" do you mean the one the Irish forced upon Savita Halappanavar?

Two can play this game.; 4/29/13, 12:47 AM
Synova said...: Of course secure in one's person means getting to kill anyone else sharing your space.

Sort of like being secure in your home means you can beat the shit out of your wife.; 4/29/13, 12:47 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 12:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Palladian, you're being a hypocrite. You would deny a woman the right to her own body, even when the baby inside of her doesn't have brain activity, yet you feel that gay people should be given the right to be legally married?; 4/29/13, 12:49 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Of course secure in one's person means getting to kill anyone else sharing your space.

Such as Savita Halappanavar?

Sort of like being secure in your home means you can beat the shit out of your wife.

So the "home" of the so-called "pro-life" movement means they get to beat the shit out of Savita Halappanavar?; 4/29/13, 12:49 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: You would deny a woman the right to her own body, even when the baby inside of her doesn't have brain activity, yet you feel that gay people should be given the right to be legally married?

I think, to be fair, he's also ok with making sure that brain-dead gays also have the same rights, too.; 4/29/13, 12:50 AM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Are there more? Almost certainly.

Do we want to know? Yes.; 4/29/13, 12:51 AM
Anonymous said...: It's control they want, many of them don't care about the mother and probably not the baby either.; 4/29/13, 12:51 AM
Saint Croix said...: I agree that a lot of what people would like to do is impractical... but I don't then decide that they're lying about it.

I should clarify too that I don't object to people who are pro-life from conception. What I object to is the argument that the Constitution forbids all abortions.

I think pro-lifers are far better off arguing that the Constitution forbids some abortions, but would allow others.

Specifically, the abortions that would qualify as homicides under state law are forbidden. Why? Because they are homicides under state law!

As to what we should do with early abortions, that should be resolved democratically, by state officials elected by voters.

Although I do think the Supreme Court could and should affirm the birth control case, Griswold v. Connecticutt, and in particular should emphasize that rape victims have a constitutional right to emergency contraception.; 4/29/13, 12:52 AM
Synova said...: What point was refuted? I didn't feel like anyone refuted my point.

Have you no idea at all how to have something as simple as a conversation, Ritmo? Dumb question, I suppose.

All I did was express my opinion... that while life can never be perfect, not ever, it's not improved by encouraging society to accept some humans as non-persons.

Your single-data-point-that-proves-all is irrelevant to that.; 4/29/13, 12:52 AM
Synova said...: "It's control they want, many of them don't care about the mother and probably not the baby either."

Right.

So nevermindthen.

War on Women. RAH!

(It's late, I'm going to bed, and I see no point in taking someone seriously who makes blanket statements about the motivation in other people's hearts. So screw you.); 4/29/13, 12:54 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: It's control they want, many of them don't care about the mother and probably not the baby either.

No doubt.

The urge to control usually emanates from a lack of self-control.

We've seen a few meltdowns tonight. Connies need strict lines defining things in order to feel that their world even has the structure they require to feel secure.

So, better to define arbitrary limits than to abide by some definition as meaningless to them as "sentience".

And yet, they set themselves up as moral arbiters. Sentience means nothing to them, but they are experts on the meaning of morality.

Amazing, isn't it?; 4/29/13, 12:55 AM
Anonymous said...: I didn't mean YOU Synova, but whatever.; 4/29/13, 12:56 AM
Palladian said...: Synova, can we oppress women together? I think by teaming up we can oppress a lot more women.; 4/29/13, 12:56 AM
Saint Croix said...: Abortion has been around for over a thousand years.

Anesthesia has only been around for 160 years or so. So what kind of abortion are you talking about?; 4/29/13, 12:57 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: What point was refuted? I didn't feel like anyone refuted my point.

I feel and know that Inga refuted your point.

You made a hasty conclusion from imperfection to the rhetorical (and boring) firebomb about "culture of death".

It was desperate. Maybe still gets a few hairs to stand up on a few Neanderthals' necks. But we know how you really feel about life and death when your friends over here forced Savita Halappanavar to die.; 4/29/13, 12:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Ritmo, actually it's sickening. They must not really want to reign in abortions, because with such absolutist nonsense they will only get pro lifers to dig in deeper. St. Croix at least is seeing it realistically.; 4/29/13, 12:59 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "Abortion has been around for over a thousand years."

Anesthesia has only been around for 160 years or so. So what kind of abortion are you talking about?

Chemicals, dude.

Read up.; 4/29/13, 12:59 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: St. Croix at least is seeing it realistically.

Too bad he's the only one.

Even Synova used to be more morally sensible than she's being tonight on this.; 4/29/13, 1:00 AM
Palladian said...: Inga, please don't take my comments personally. I decided a while ago that you're an ok person and that I would give you the benefit of the doubt. We agree about some things, disagree about others, but I hope that we can have even heated discussions without exchanging personal animosity.

My advice, though, is to be wary of the motivations of people who think that they can speak for you, or who believe that you'll automatically support them just because you seem to agree on some issues.; 4/29/13, 1:03 AM
Anonymous said...: St. Croix, women used to drown themselves when they found out they were pregnant, or drank poison, primitive things, stick things into their uteruses. You don't think it was happening? Maybe you're right, they just killed the newborn, I suppose.; 4/29/13, 1:03 AM
Palladian said...: Now they just stick things into the newborn's cervical vertebrae.; 4/29/13, 1:05 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Whose motivations are you wary of, Palladian? And are you sure you're in the right position to be giving Inga advice tonight?

Stick to the topic. You're having enough of a time with that, as is.; 4/29/13, 1:06 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Or at least, advice on that?; 4/29/13, 1:09 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 1:11 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Good night.; 4/29/13, 1:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Palladian, Ritmo doesn't control me, he probably doesn't want to nor could he if he did.; 4/29/13, 1:11 AM
Anonymous said...: Nite Ritmo.

Nite St. Croix.; 4/29/13, 1:13 AM
Saint Croix said...: You would deny a woman the right to her own body

We do this all the time. Prostitution is illegal. Injecting heroin is illegal. Working for $1 an hour is illegal.

Roe v. Wade itself rejects the idea that people can do whatever they want with their body.

Would we say there is a constitutional right to plastic surgery? Regardless of health risks? And regardless of the fact that the Constitution says nothing of the sort?

There are lots of reasons a state might want to outlaw even early abortions--for instance, the increased risk of future miscarriages, premature deliveries, and breast cancer.

Or maybe people think that doctors should follow the Hippocratic Oath (which forbids abortion and assisted suicide, and implicitly forbids plastic surgery, too--"first, do no harm").

Or maybe people are upset about the blatant disrespect to human life and human creation. Which is more amazing, a Monet painting or the DNA of a tiny human infant? Why is it wrong to destroy one and right to destroy the other?

And finally democrats and republicans can and should get very angry with unelected officials who dictate their political beliefs to our country. They have violated their oath of office. Popular sovereignty should be respected.; 4/29/13, 1:18 AM
Saint Croix said...: nighty-nite!; 4/29/13, 1:18 AM
Palladian said...: Palladian, Ritmo doesn't control me, he probably doesn't want to nor could he if he did.

Oh I didn't think so!; 4/29/13, 1:21 AM
Saint Croix said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 1:30 AM
Miss Emily said...: Yes.
And yes. America needs to know.; 4/29/13, 5:01 AM
Matt Sablan said...: You'd think that abortion clinics would have learned now that they've been stung so often by undercover activists/journalists.

Can you think of any other industry where a history of malfeasance would not be met by skepticism and requests for further scrutiny? Imagine gun dealers laughing off background checks during a secretly taped transaction and how quickly we'd have people pushing for more legislation.; 4/29/13, 5:19 AM
edutcher said...: Yes and yes.

And they should all be prosecuted.

And the remains of what they did should be sent to the Oval Office.

PS Nice to see Ritmo stayed up all night making an ass of himself again.; 4/29/13, 5:56 AM
Brian Brown said...: Well of course there are more doctors like Gosnell.

The left pretending to care is hysterical.; 4/29/13, 6:44 AM
Brian Brown said...: O Ritmo Segundo said...

The urge to control usually emanates from a lack of self-control.

Yes, and people like you can't stop themselves from trying to control their fellow citizens.

It is kind of pathetic that people like you pretend that simply because you're for abortion you're some sort of "government should be hands off" libertarian.

You're a silly, ignorant idiot, who takes to the Internet to say silly, ignorant things.; 4/29/13, 6:47 AM
Saint Croix said...: I hadn't seen this before. Or rather I had, but I didn't know where it came from. In Gonzalez v. Carhart, Justice Kennedy cites the testimony of a nurse who is speaking before Congress.

What's interesting is that she was extremely pro-choice, until she actually witnessed abortions in Dr. Haskell's clinic. Just like that, she became a pro-lifer.; 4/29/13, 6:48 AM
Saint Croix said...: Here's more on the William Waddill case. Althouse asked for Gosnell-like cases. This is almost exactly like Gosnell. A newborn was murdered, and the doctor was prosecuted for the murder. This was in 1977, just four years after Roe v. Wade.

They even use similar terms. "Baby W."; 4/29/13, 7:02 AM
Cody Jarrett said...: Wow. Over 50 posts from Ritmo. Most of them attacking/bullying/insulting.

Almost none of them making any actual sense.

Yet what is it he says about those who don't march in his lockstep?

What a very boring life he must lead.; 4/29/13, 7:09 AM
Saint Croix said...: There was some coverage of the Waddill case in the local media. Although the only article I could find was after the trial was over.; 4/29/13, 7:11 AM
Saint Croix said...: More on the Waddill case. Interesting to me that the media would use the "baby" word back then. Contrast the New York Times coverage of the Gosnell case. The newborns are described as "fetuses."

Here is the New York Times apologizing for the Pulitzer prize that its reporter, Walter Duranty, received for his cover-up of the murders done by Stalin.

Here is the Pulitzer committee insisting that no mistakes were made. Kinda reminds me of Justice Kennedy.; 4/29/13, 7:25 AM
Saint Croix said...: Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell?

This poor woman gave birth on a toilet.

And note how the clinic refused to call an ambulance for the dying baby.; 4/29/13, 7:34 AM
Saint Croix said...: The baby Rowan seems to me quite similar.

Horrific pictures of a dead baby.

Staff who refuse to help the patient or call for an ambulance.

The sketchy "doctor" who had already been in trouble with the law.

And the story only shows up on pro-life websites. Traditional journalists see no story here at all.

So if you're wondering why the media was so slow to cover the Gosnell case, or why the coverage has been so sparse--this is how they've always done it.

There is an ideology here that is hostile to facts, information, or truth.; 4/29/13, 7:46 AM
Saint Croix said...: Apparently giving birth on a toilet was standard procedure at Dr. Tiller's clinic.

This woman talks about her experience. She was 14 at the time.; 4/29/13, 8:06 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Obama is pro late term abortion.; 4/29/13, 8:18 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Anyone who thinks it's OK to kill a viable baby - is an asshole.; 4/29/13, 8:19 AM
Big Mike said...: Are there more Kermit Gosnell's out there?

The likelihood has to be well over 90%

"And do we want to know?

Define "we." In Virginia a law was passed requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as any other clinic performing outpatient surgery. The Washington Post is still giving this state Hell over it. So I take that to mean that if one is sufficiently far to the left, access to late term abortion trumps safety of the woman.

But don't liberals believe that abortion should be legal and safe?

Yes to the former, and if the woman is poor enough they don't much care about the latter.; 4/29/13, 8:35 AM
jr565 said...: Inga wrote:

I think some of us are in agreement as to when a human life begins, that being brain activity. As for the absolutists here who think that abortion will be eradicated because of laws that prohibit legal abortions, think again. What I see is a bunch of authoritarians that want to control a woman's right to choose what she can do with her own body.

If you think you can force a woman to carry a baby, you better be prepared to set up the Pregnancy Police, for real.

are you for a pregnancy police for abortions after 24 weeks? Considering, of course you think abortions after that time frame should be illegal. If illegal, wouldn't there be a pregnancy police in those cases?
So, again, you're trying to have your cake and et it too. Are you not an authoritarian after 24 weeks of pregnancy?; 4/29/13, 8:40 AM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 9:46 AM
n.n said...: Saint Croix:

The ideology which defends and demands this nonsense is either liberal (i.e. large variance) or selective. These are women, and men, who dream of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification without perceived consequences. They exhibit precisely the character flaws which they claim to observe in others (i.e. competing interests).

This is the same nonsense behind the contemporary environmental movement which follows the doctrine of "out-of-sight and out-of-mind," which justifies shifting or obfuscating environmental disruption to favor their preferred solutions and interests.

This the same nonsense behind other movements which offer selective consideration for individual dignity, value of human life, equal protection, etc.

This is not a simple left-wing ideology. In the Soviet Union, it was simple. The communists employed overwhelming and persistent force to implement their ideology. In the West, the Left does not posses sufficient leverage to implement their vision, so they have instead embraced a progressive doctrine to overcome latent resistance. The only common feature is that in both cases it's one class of interests competing with another.

The consequences of fulfilling their dreams is denigration of individual dignity, devaluation of human life, and distortion of the conversation, as the make their appeals to individuals who are opportunistic, degenerate, or vulnerable.

In any case, the issue is equal protection. According to America's national charter our unalienable Right to Life is recognized from "creation". This may mean conception. It may mean the first heart beat. It may mean the emergence of consciousness. It is confirmed with the equal protection clause of our Constitution.

The arguments of prescribing policies based on exceptions is ridiculous. We constantly address exceptions, including premeditated murder, and we have no illusions that the legal proscriptions are mostly reactive, not preventative. I don't know why anyone would resort to an inherently fallacious argument.

As for elective abortion, it is a choice. It is a choice which arises because women, and men, are incapable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. That is the cause and it needs to be addressed, because the consequences of normalizing dysfunctional behavior are not limited to the termination of an unwanted, innocent human life.; 4/29/13, 9:58 AM
damikesc said...: "And do we want to know?"

Do WE want to know?

Me? Yes. I have little reason to assume Gosnell is an aberration.

Do YOU? I doubt it. The unpleasantness of your policy preferences is ugly.

All you proponents of Personhood Laws from conception onward, any ideas of how these laws should be enforced?

How about you first tell us how you will handle crime when you pass your preferred gun control legislation.

That is a more pressing concern, and as a man, the concerns about women being imprisoned for an abortion is of little to no concern for me.

And it's a horrible idea to ask the Supreme Court to dictate a rule in regard to when life begins. All pro-lifers should do is insist that the baby's life be recognized under our law, and protected.

Why are human children kept at a lower standard than animal offspring? Endangered species babies have more protections than human babies.

You want to force women to have babies that they irresponsibly conceived?

Are men legally obligated to support children born in identical situations?

Or maybe keep the baby and abuse it to death?

Women who buy kittens might abuse them to death as well. Let's go ahead and repeal animal cruelty laws --- but only for women.

Since you don't think your gender is capable of responsibility.

If you think you can force a woman to carry a baby, you better be prepared to set up the Pregnancy Police, for real.

OK.

Men have dealt with that for years now.

she needs a window in which to make that choice.

Before the unprotected cock enters their unprotected pussy isn't time enough?

Abortion has been around for over a thousand years.

So has slavery.

I don't see you calling for that.

...or do I?; 4/29/13, 10:14 AM
damikesc said...: You would deny a woman the right to her own body, even when the baby inside of her doesn't have brain activity, yet you feel that gay people should be given the right to be legally married?

Gays have no brain activity? Kind of a stretched point here to argue something.

I'm not sure what your argument here is...but I doubt you do, either.

It's control they want, many of them don't care about the mother and probably not the baby either

Inga, listening to you describe women, control might be a beneficial thing.

I wouldn't allow my three year old to make a ton of his own choices because he's not terribly responsible or logical.

For you, women are the same way.; 4/29/13, 10:18 AM
jr565 said...: If you think you can force a woman to carry a baby, you better be prepared to set up the Pregnancy Police, for real.

If you think you can force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want, you'll have to set up a child support police.

Oh, wait.....
But what if the dad was irresponsible with his evacuate? Should he be forced to pay for his mistake for a kid he has no interest in raising?
Why is it the assumption that men must be responsible, but women don't have to be or can't be? Maybe we should rethink the whole woman having a right to vote thing.; 4/29/13, 10:22 AM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 10:28 AM
jr565 said...: You want to force women to have babies that they irresponsibly conceived?

You want to force men to pay for babies they irresponsibly helped to conceive?
Maybe the not having the abortion is the irresponsible choice on a woman's part. Why should a man have to pay for a woman's choice if its not his choice and if she knew going in that he probably wasn't going to be there and she couldn't raise the kid on her own.

Her irresponsibility should not only be paramount when it comes to what goes on in her body, but also what comes out of a mans pay check?; 4/29/13, 10:30 AM
Æthelflæd said...: In the same way that liberals often engage in "the soft bigotry of low expectations" in racial policy, pro-abortion women engage in a soft misogyny of low expectations.; 4/29/13, 10:45 AM
jr565 said...: A woman has a right to choose to be a mother or not be a mother. BUt also has a right to choose whether a man should pay child support, in effect be a dad.
Why should her choice carry over to his choice?
Can't a man make the same argument that a woman can make when she chooses an abortion when it comes to raising or not raising a kid?

Suppose he says "if YOU as the woman want to have a kid, I have no say anyway, since I'm just a sperm donor at that point. IF I wanted to be a dad, but you didn't want to be a mom I'd be shit out of luck, since it's your choice. But, if you want to be a mom but I don't want to be a dad, why shouldn't the same rules apply?"

It's the womans right to choose while in the womb, but the choice is for her alone. Why can't a man say therefore, when faced with a child support payment "It wasn't MY choice, it was hers. IF she wants to be a mom I wont stop her, but why must I pay for a kid that I never wanted?"

People who are pro choice should also be pro choice about dead beat dads. It's all about the freedom to choose, right?; 4/29/13, 12:09 PM
jr565 said...: If a woman assumes sole resposibility for the baby in her womb, then she shouldn't expect child support paymetns from men who don't want to be daddies.

The lack of child support should be one of the considerations that a woman goes through when deciding to keep or not keep her baby (if the man doesn't want to be a dad). For the Inga's of the world, are you going to force people who don't want to be dads to pay for a choice made by a woman, simply because she made that choice?

Inga gets all outraged that the state would dare tell a woman what she can do with her pregnancy, yet sees no problem with the state telling a man he has to pay for a child he doesn't want? What about the financial hardship argument that goes into the calculation of whether to have a kid in the first place? Does it not apply to child support payments?
If I have to pay child support for kids I don't want I might not be able to go to the college of my dreams, all because a woman chose for me.; 4/29/13, 12:15 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 12:27 PM
jr565 said...: Here is an about.com article on why women might choose an abortion.
Why Women Choose to have abortions

According to various studies, the top three reasons given for wanting to have abortions are:

Negative Impact on the mothers life

Financial Instability

Relationship Problems and/or Unwillingness To Be a Single Mother

So, lets apply that to a man having to pay child support. What if paying child suppport has a negative impact on his life? What if paying child support causes him financial instability. What if he simply doesn't want to be a single dad, or have any dad obligations of any kind?

They may be selfish choices, but those choices are perfectly valid for a woman to kill her baby. And note, the choice of the woman to abort a baby based on thess considerations deprives the man the ability of being a dad.
Whereas, if a man chose to not bear any responsibility to be a dad, it wouldn't prevent a woman from being a mom.; 4/29/13, 12:30 PM
jr565 said...: O Ritmo wrote:
"So by "culture of death" do you mean the one the Irish forced upon Savita Halappanavar?

Two can play this game."

You can try to play that game, but you'd be wrong. Because someone dying of an infection in a hospital is different than a culture that says it's ok to view the child growing in your womb as a clump of cells to be destroyed.

Savita, died of an infection. You could make the case that the hospital was negligent, certainly. But that doesn't mean the hospital has routinely kills women by choice, who come to their hospital.

And maybe 99.9% percent of pro life people would say if a pregnancy would lead to a mothers death (whch this one would)that abortions should be allowed.; 4/29/13, 12:56 PM
jr565 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/29/13, 1:05 PM
jr565 said...: for example, Savita didn't go into the hospital for an abortion. She got an infection while in the hospital and was suffering from sepsis which the doctors dind't note.
That's medical malpractice, regardless of any questions about abortion.

If you have sepsis, then a hospital needs to have you treated so you dont die of sepsis.

How is that a culture of life question, unless you think the hospital is making the conscious choice to not treat people with sepsis.

If a woman goes to an abortion clinic and the end result is a dead baby/fetus, that's not a case of malpractice, that's the intended result.

See the difference?; 4/29/13, 1:06 PM
jr565 said...: O Ritmo wrote:
So, better to define arbitrary limits than to abide by some definition as meaningless to them as "sentience".

And yet, they set themselves up as moral arbiters. Sentience means nothing to them, but they are experts on the meaning of morality.

Amazing, isn't it?

This is garbage. (as is most of your postings).
Even though there does appear to be a lovefest right now between you and Inga, it sounds like she has a different standard as to when a baby shouldnt be aborted than you do.
She is the one saying what Gosnell did should be illegal and that abortions after the first trimester (or was it second trimester) should be illegal.
If that's the case then she is setting herself up as a moral arbiter just like pro lifers.
Like for you, is sentience when the baby starts brain function, or when the baby is viable and out of the womb?
Depending on where you think life begins determines where you draw your line.
But if you have a line you will be a moral arbiter concerning that line being crossed.; 4/29/13, 1:14 PM
jr565 said...: ALthouse earlier stated her position that abortion IS murder, but she thinks it should be legal.Inga chimed in that she agreed with the position.

Here in the case of Gosnell, the abortion doctor is literally being charged with murder. Yet Inga says that he should be charged with murder.

So when Althouse and Inga are saying abortion should be legal even though it's murder are they making a distinction between THESE abortions which are murder, and those other abortions which are ALSO murder?

One actually entails putting Gosnell in jail, wheraes another a doctor (like Gosnell) should not be be punished for performing.; 4/29/13, 1:22 PM
jr565 said...: If both are murder, why are we punishing Gosnell in one case for comitting murder, but not charging other doctors who are also commiting murder (as defined by Inga and Althouse).
it SOUNDS then like the use of the word MURDER to define one of those abortions is wrong.; 4/29/13, 1:25 PM
jr565 said...: Should normal abortions just be Murder, whereas Gosnell's abortions, or later term abortions should be MURDER MURDER, to distinuguish which ones should have doctors facing criminal charges. and which ones shouldn't?

If you really considered abortion MURDER could you make the argument that it should be legal?

People like INga really think what Gosnell did should be a crime and that he should be punished.

If we applied the standard that Althouse used, namely that late term abortions are MURDER but should be legal, people like Inga would disagree. Because Gosnell MURDERED babies.

Do you see then how little sense it makes to call something MURDER but then say it should be legal?; 4/29/13, 1:44 PM
Known Unknown said...: "Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell?"
"And do we want to know?"

Nah. Let's just go to a party.; 4/29/13, 10:37 PM
Unknown said...: you buy best dental instruments and best quality instruments in the world.

tooth extracting forceps
dental forceps
dental instruments
dental elevator; 5/9/13, 5:51 AM