"Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that," [says the grand jury report]. "But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion."...That's Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, challenging the news media to explain their noncoverage.
Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn't make national headlines?
But it isn't even solely a story of a rogue clinic that's awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them....
April 12, 2013
"Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story."
"The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
525 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 525 of 525Yes, he was adhereing to libertarian principle. Less government.
I admire your logic, St Croix, but the personhood of preborn humans really is complex.
Defining these babies as property does not seem to have resolved it!
I do not think we can overestimate how much violence this dehumanization has done to our culture, and to babies. It was just a legal argument. "The Framers did not intend to protect the unborn." But right after saying the baby was a legal non-person, the Supreme Court held that her life was irrelevant. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
Defining the baby as sub-human property is the very basis of these brutal murders that Dr. Gosnell committed. So I am quite serious when I say the Supreme Court shares the blame here.
For one thing, there is the distiction of the fetus requiring the maternal life support. There is a real issue with bodily autonomy there.
Yes, but the cases did not work out that way. There was no "you have a constitutional right to remove the trespasser from your uterus and put the baby into a NICU." The cases jumped right to kill, kill, kill.
Also, the baby is there because mom helped create him. It is entirely legally justifiable to hold parents responsible for any babies they create. We do this to fathers all the time!
Pregnancy may be an "accident," but it's also a highly predictable result from sex. You consent to reproductive sex, you consent to making a baby. You did it.
I agree with you there are lots of issues, many of them tricky. But recognizing the baby's humanity is the big issue, and the Court's failure to do that is what is leading to all this strife.
Tom Ridge would self-identify as Karma Chameleon if it suited his political aims.
Agree with your last post, St Croix.
I don't personally think that bodily autonomy for the mother trumps right to life for the fetus. Quite the opposite, and for me that resolves it ( for the reasons you stated....because she can protect her autonomy before beoming pregnant.)
But this needs to be returned to the states, and the people, for debate and decisions weighing all of those factors.
I think there are two main "pro-life" issues. One is the baby's future life. When you terminate a tiny embryo, you are terminating a person's entire future. An embryo is a specific individual, who is utterly unique. Never to be seen again! So it's really awful to think about making a unique person disappear. You think about all that could have been, and you feel guilt.
And of course there is our concern about infanticide. The Supreme Court has utterly ignored infanticide. Instead it's pretended that the pro-life movement is only concerned about the first problem. But the Carhart opinions discuss decapitation and dismemberment of partially-born infants in graphic detail. And we've seen photographs of corpses.
I think what the Supreme Court needs to do is address the infanticide issue and take it off the table. Infanticide is unacceptable. We cannot allow abortions that are homicides under state law (with the obvious exception of killing in self-defense).
As to the first pro-life position, that has to be resolved by the people and our elected representatives. So, yes, overturn Roe v. Wade. But also enforce the baby's humanity and her right to be protected under our death and homicide statutes.
Inga said...
From his page I linked, scroll to bottom of page.
You left out the "pro choice" part.
You left out the "pro choice" successor who just happens to be a Democrat.
You're a fucking idiot.
Inga said...
Yes, he was adhereing to libertarian principle. Less government.
No moron, he was adhering to a "pro choice" principle as was pointed out to you several times by various people
You're either really, really, fucking dumb or a liar.
Which is it?
It is also comical that you swallow whole any self-description by a politician when it suits your absurd political views.
My God, you have no capacity for embarrassment.
Inga said...
Tom Ridge the governor who stopped inspections of abortion clinics in PA, self describes as a libertarian Republican.
Why do you think you left out the "pro choice" part?
Why do you think you left out this part:
Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995. the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions
Because you're dumb, or dishonest?
Because those are the only two choices.
C Stanley said...
Jay in terms of the partisanship, it is important to note that GOP Gov Ridge does not seem to have clean hands here.
Tom Ridge has blood on his hands.
What happened here is the logical extension of being pro choice in America today.
So a pro choice libertarian is a cold hearted person. We agree.
And a pro life libertarian needs to come to terms with a role for government.
I said earlier that Ridge may have been acting on abstract principle. I really don't know though. It may have been entirely a case of fake principles as bought by the highest bidder. I really don't know enough about him.
And pro choice liberals needed to stand up against late term abortion unequivocally. And if they were even more honest, they wold recognize we need a law in place to protect unborn babies with brain activity, the same way laws are in place to define death.
They aren't going to, Inga, because the Democratic Party is for late term abortion. Our current HHS secretary protected a late term abortionist, Tiller.
It would be great if we could discuss this issue, but Democrats don't get grilled with abortion questions the way Republicans do.
Inga said...
So a pro choice libertarian is a cold hearted person.
Um, Tom Ridge is not a "libertarian"
Notice how you simply can not accept that the people you align yourself with politically are culpable here.
How fucking pathetic are you?
What Maybee said, Inga. The window of time for holding Dems feet to the fire has passed. They have become a pro abortion party.
Focusing so much ire on libertarianism is misplaced. The libertarian position is mixed, and those that go too far with limited governance are still only the enablers, not the proponents of evil. It's like blaming FDR for the holocaust.
Patriot Act and gun control Tom Ridge I thinks he is a libertarian? Now that's funny. Last I heard he was against gay marriage, too.
I have no problem with govt. enforcing criminal law, Inga. Hopefully we can make some headway there. But once again, your reall opposition is going to come from NARAL, etc. Not the CATO Institute and Reason Mag. They may write furious articles about it, but they won't do anything about it. Legislators fear being labeled Warriors Against Women! not starry-eyed libertarians.
Jay, who are you to say what he is or isn't, he SELF identifies as a Libertarian Republican. Get lost you have no argument.
I guess in Inga's mind it is all just a big coincidence that a "pro choice" Governor started a policy, his Democratic successor "Pro Choice" successor continued, but said policy was ended by the Pro life Governor.
It must be fun to tell yourself such silly lies.
I'd also add: The current Pro Life Governor is for much, much smaller and limited government than Tom Ridge.
Inga said...
Jay, who are you to say what he is or isn't,
Because stupid shit, I live in PA, and just a cursory review of Tom Ridge's actions in government demonstrate he's in no manner, shape or form a libertarian.
How fucking pathetic are you?
Inga said...
Get lost you have no argument
I'm not the one pathetically arguing that Democrat Ed Rendell, who kept in place a "libertarian" policy of not inspecting abortion clinics, is somehow a libertarian.
How fucking pathetic are you?
Jay, I do not care where you live, don't address me again, I really despise stupidity, the type you display daily.
Shana said...
Patriot Act and gun control Tom Ridge I thinks he is a libertarian?
OH no, don't point out to Inky that Ridge was the first ever DHS secretary!
She'll then have to create more lies to pretend he is a "libertarian"
Inga said...
I really despise stupidity,
Which of course is why you're pathetically and dishonestly pretending not inspecting abortion clinics was some grand libertarian idea.
You "despise stupidity" so much you're actually pretending that Democrat Ed Rendell, who kept in place a "libertarian" policy of not inspecting abortion clinics, is somehow a libertarian.
How fucking pathetic are you?
Inga said...
Jay, I do not care where you live
Stupid shit:
In case you missed it, this happened in PA.
I happen to know a lot about PA politics.
Shut the fuck up, you silly, pathetic, lying woman.
Inga said...
I really despise stupidity,
Please then explain, factually, why "Inspections finally resumed in 2010 after more than 15 years. When pro-life Republican Gov. Tom Corbett took office in 2011" doesn't demonstrate that "pro choice" policies dictated that abortion clinics not be inspected in Pa.
Please. I can't wait to read all about this.
I can only assume we will be hearing a lot of deflection to "small government" proponents for culpability, now that the left leaning media has been forced to cover the Gosnell horror.
Inga would be better off if she targeted those who've actually been in control of the state government (specifically PA) for the past 25 or so years. Yes, Tom Ridge had his part.
Democrats and Republicans have controlled the state in that duration ... not Libertarians.
The neglect that led to the horror show in Philadelphia is more likely from lack of local attention, the socio-economic conditions of the vicinity, and the pro-choice position of most of those in power (Ahem, Philadelphia?) in various positions along the chain of command.
Matthew Sablan said...
Mind you, I'm actually OK with abortions to some extent. I don't like them; I think in an ideal world, no one would ever need to have one.
But, the Gosnell case makes it clear that many places in the country have been too soft in ignoring the fact that abortion is a serious medical procedure and needs to, on a medical and legal front, be treated like one.
Abortion is not a serious medical procedure of any kind. It is a procedure of death and in this case, willful murder. There is no sustainable fact that says otherwise no matter how you cloak it because the participants are engaged in the 'medical' profession.
Gosnell was the member of a protected class in Philadelphia. Protected not by LIbertarians, but most likely, by Democrats.
Inga, after realizing PA actually had a Dem Gov after Ridge who did the same thing on abortion clinics as Ridge, is probably furiously searching Google for a singular, partial, semi-favorable quote from Ed Rendell regarding Libertarians.
Or should could just be ignoring the fact Rendell was ever in charge.
You folks should be happy I haven't blamed Republicans.
C Stanley has said two very important things in this thread:
1) "We now have a president who voted against legal protection for infants born alive after botched abortions. Why isn't anyone asking him about this?"
2)" I can only assume we will be hearing a lot of deflection to "small government" proponents for culpability, now that the left leaning media has been forced to cover the Gosnell horror."
So Inga is in the vanguard of Democrat strategy. It was those dastardly libertarians all along.
Inga said...
You folks should be happy I haven't blamed Republicans.
Considering how thoroughly you have beclowned yourself here, that would give one cause to blame Democrats.
Speaking of Obama, here were his concerns on the born alive infant bill:
SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?
Isn't that nice?
Right, Inga, this is the pro-lifers' fault. Your deflection abilities are amazing.
Shana, same thing goes for you, did you read the entire thread or are you as intellectually dishonest as Jay, or are you stupid too? My patience has worn thin, I'm done dealing with people like you. YOU Shana are the worst enemy of the unborn child, because of your intransigence and absolutist position. Shame on you.
My God Jay! I'VE blamed Democrats and pro choicers, you incredible ignoramous.
Seriously do not engage in a debate if you haven't read the thread.
-------------------
Shana that was a typo, which I now corrected, but now know who is the greatest threat to the unborn and it's not me.
"Jay, who are you to say what he is or isn't, he SELF identifies as a Libertarian Republican. Get lost you have no argument."
-- And Nixon is not a crook, and Clinton didn't have sexual relations with that woman.
Because all politicians are 100% honest and accurate.
What absolutist position, Inga? Did YOU read the thread? I've stated repeatedly that I am in favor of incrementalism. I have never insulted you personally either.
Inga said...
My God Jay! I'VE blamed Democrats and pro choicers, you incredible ignoramous.
Liar.
ONLY after I told you to listen to St.Croix Shana, NOT before. I think you are a dishonest person, I don't respect people like you.
Inga said...
My God Jay! I'VE blamed Democrats and pro choicers, you incredible ignoramous.
Yes, note the blame of Democrats here!
Inga said...
The government didn't control the clinic, they stopped inspections. Too little government interference, too much greed.
4/12/13, 8:58 PM
Yes, note the blame of Democrats here:
Inga said...
So libertarians still think less government interference is a good thing? It's obvious when it comes to life and death what the answer should be.
4/12/13, 9:15 PM
Yes, note the blame of Democrats here:
Inga said...
Shana, yes libertarians are as complicit. Less government, private enterprise is KING! Oh, a little greed won't hurt anyone.
4/12/13, 10:07 PM
You're a fucking joke.
Good grief, Inga. I have been pro-life for over 20 years. I am not a johhny-come-lately. And while I hold the position that life begins at conception, I have always believed in taking what we can get. Any reduction in the number of abortions is a good thing.
That you, what with trying to blame Gosnell on libertarians, would accuse ME of dishonesty, is mind boggling.
Oh, here is the big super duper blame inga engaged in:
Inga said...
Shana, you're being dishonest. I didn't say libertarians prevented inspections. BUt the libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT. Get it?
The government of PA that neglected to inspect the clinc/ clinics are to blame. If they were pressured by the Pro Choce movement then damn the Pro Choice movement, get it?
Wow!!!
Note the blame of the Democrats here:
Inga said...
Nurses hate libertarians, lots and lots of liberal nurses, you know. Keep that in mind.
4/12/13, 11:28 PM
What a silly, pathetic person.
"Perhaps now is the time to have a national discussion on Life Statutes for unborn babies, it's time, past time. I think even pro choice people would agree, we do need to DO SOMETHING. And libertarians can come along in the discussion or balk at "doing something"."
4/12/13, 9:37 PM
----------------------------
"No one should get away with dehumanizing these unborn babies, St Croix. They are human and it is murder after a certain point in development. When is that point? 9 weeks?Neural activity? We have laws governing brain death, based on lack of activity on an EEG."
4/12/13, 9:21 PM
---------------------
"Libertarians need to come down to earth. Pie in th sky and unicorns won't keep babies from dying. Liberals and pro choicers need to be HONEST with themselves, face the music, do the right thing."
4/12/13, 10:01 PM
------------------
"I'm being VERY honest here, as I said its past time for pro choicers to do the right thing.
Define when life needs to be protected by Life Statutes. I think you might be surprised that there are more pro choicers who feel as I do."
4/12/13, 10:18 PM
-----------------
"The government of PA that neglected to inspect the clinic/ clinics are to blame. If they were pressured by the Pro Choce movement then damn the Pro Choice movement, get it? "
4/12/13, 10:33 PM
--------------------
"Would you be willing to work in opposition to those in the prochoice movement who fight against regulation of abortion in any form, inga"
4/12/13, 10:37 PM
"Yes I've made that clear C Stanley."
4/12/13, 10:40 PM
"Exiled it wouldn't have been OK with me. When there is neural activity in that babies brain, at what 8 weeks or so, it's too late. I was willing to say 1st trimester, but if we have Life Statutes, shouldn't life be defined as brain activity? Same as death statutes?"
4/12/13, 10:49 PM
Inga thinks saying "if the government of PA was pressured by pro-choicers, is blame.
Hilarious.
Inga makes 6 posts trashing libertarians (remember dumbass you, and you alone speak for all nurses) and one suggesting "if" pro-choicers did something they are to blame and she pats herself on the back.
What a silly, pathetic person.
St Croix, another time. You've influenced me, a pro choicer, you can do a lot of good, I want to see your book on the best seller list.
4/12/13, 11:04 PM
" Inga the prochoice movement's response to the proposition that 2nd or 3rd trimester pregnancies should be prohibited would be that some women don't find out they are pregnant until late in first trimester or even later, and they don't have adequate time to make a decision, procure funding, etc. or there are women who find out about fetal health issues later. Or there needs to be a health exception broad enough to include mental duress, which is signed off on by clinic doctors for women whomsay they are stressed by the unplanned pregnancy.
How would you counter these arguments?"
4/12/13, 10:59 PM
"Sorry CStanley I didn't see this comment in the flurry of name calling. With the advent of very early accurate pregnancy testing, it is possible to know you're pregnant before even a missed period and and if a woman chooses an abortion before the 8th week, it would fall in a Life Statute ( if one existed) that would define life as beginning at neural activity. IF pro choicers such as myself and pro lifers, who were not absolutists, could agree on it."
4/13/13, 12:07 AM
@ Everyone
Really? You are wasting your time reading anything Inga has written? Personally I no longer bother. At best she is boring and at worst a mediocre hack.
If I want to read hackery I'll just look up whatever bullshit James Carville is pushing today.
"You know what? Absolutists and pro life extremists will only make pro choicers dig in deeper. Types like Tim and Shana and Chuck won't ever get pro choicers to work for change. And it wont happen without us. You need to follow St. Croix's lead."
4/13/13, 12:54 AM
--------------
"NO, Exiled, it's not myself I'm referring to. I've made up my mind about when life begins, I'm not much of a pro choicer anymore, but I know how they think."
4/13/13, 1:03 AM
It's people like Jay that put the STUPID in The Stupid Party, he's all yours.
Is he your son Shana?
Sadly St. Croix, because of people like Shana and Jay, I have VERY little hope that things can change.
Inga now reveals she doesn't understand the meaning of the term blame. Let's help her, using her own words.
This is blame:
Inga said...
I didn't say libertarians prevented inspections. BUt the libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT. Get it?
A clear, unqualified negative statement about an individual or group.
Said action was made several times against libertarians.
This, not blame:
If they were pressured by the Pro Choce movement then damn the Pro Choice movement
Why? Well, it was qualifed, and frankly made only in a transparent attempt to establish credibility.
I'd also add that other statements suggesting pro-life people are reasonable, or have good points has nothing to do with blame which of course given what Inga did above, is why she's doing such things.
Finally, it is obvious and inarguable that pro-choice policies are to blame here ("the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions") and Inga has been unable to say that. Which is why the idea that she has blamed Democrats or pro-choicers is silly and absurd.
Thanks.
Jay, YOU and people like you will be responsible for millions MORE unborn babies' deaths, live with THAT. Think about that you very very stupid person.
I used to be on board with the people who say "it's ok as long as it's done before brain activity", but then I read another argument.
Lets say you have a 20 year old man, Mike. 20 years and 2 months ago, if he were aborted at 7 months pregnant, Mike at 20 ceases to exist.
If he is aborted at 4 weeks pregnant, Mike at 20 ceases to exist.
Why is wiping a person's potential existence off of the universe acceptable in the second case just because he didn't "feel" it?
Why do we have the right to terminate his existence for "choice" at all?
You see, if we can decide that, then we as a people have decided that he government can activel intervene offensively and terminate existences it deems to not be life.
If the government is capable of just voting on that, what is the remaining moral and de facto foundation keeping the govt from voting on using that power for other measures?
First, do no harm. I'm not sure where I stand on very, very early abortions yet. Still, this argument gives me pause. Do we even have the right to pick and choose like this at all? And if we do, where can we possibly draw the line after we have admitted we are willing to sacrifice some of us for the rest of us?
Tilon, I see it the way you do but because I'm an excellent critical thinker (heh, and modest too), i think I can present the rebuttal argument.
Mike, if aborted at 7 mos., is no different than "Sally," the child that would havenbeen born if Mike's parents had chosen to have sex that one night when they had run out of condoms and the drugstore was closed. Or "Jenny," the daughter they would have had twomyears later if Mike's mom hadn't started using birth control pills.
IOW, to some people there is no difference between ending a life in progress at that very early stage, and simply choosing actions to prevent the life from starting in the first place.
And without using a religious argument, it's hard to say whynthere is a difference. If humans are ensouled,mthen it's easy to see why we should leave it to God's discretion and assume he created this new beings for a purpose. But if one doesn't believe that, then what is the difference?
I doubt Roe v.Wade will ever be overturned because of arguments by absolutists that would prohibit every single abortion no matter how early. A woman's choice would be eradicated entirely and illegal abortions would once again be done, in clinics JUST LIKE Gosnell's. The Pro Life movement will not win any elections for Republicans, and Pro Choicers will dig in and Democrats will keep winning elections.
Babies would continue to die, because some people MUST control others totally.
Who are the moderate prochoicers, Inga? Can you name any current politicians or organizations that even come close to supporting the middleground approach that younhave advocated on this thread?
CStanley, if ever there was a time that a groundswell of moderate pro choicers could gain a foothold, it would be now, after this Gosnell horror. It could happen. But probably won't, one just has to read this thread and one can see the handwriting on the wall.
Nothing will change.
So if you want to see this potential groundswell happen though, where should you focus efforts?
Perhaps St. Croix could point some out, he had a couple of
links upthread. But who knows? Maybe I'm all alone, and I will just have to continue to be a mainline pro choicer, because...... What choice do I have?
Can you name any current politicians or organizations that even come close to supporting the middleground approach
-------------------------------------
There are none. Her efforts in this whole thread have been an incredible misdirection intended to make the pro-life position and anyone supporting it responsible for Gosnell's mass murder.
Inga is either delusional, a liar, or an enabler/apologist for the mass killing of the unborn.
She sickens me actually.
I know Commuter, he comes on to a thread to debase and belittle, never discuses issues. Same old shit. I'm sick of it. I'm not going to bother. Back to being a pro choicer I guess.
People like him are dishonest assholes, makes me proud to be a liberal.
Do you know any people in real life who feel as you do? A lot of. Prople seem to hold to those beliefs if we look at public survey data. Perhaps discussing it, discussing Gosnell, discussing Obama's refusal to vote for protection of born alive "products of conception"....
Write letters to your representatives, to the White House, to your local newspaper editor.
Just some thoughts.
And "commuter/ PMJ, you can go straight to hell, the blood of these babies are on YOUR hands too.
Seriously? Your opinion on whether babies should be murder flips when someone calls you names?
I've been ignoring all the noise and was about to suggest you do the same, but I suspect that advice isn't going to help.
C. Stanley, I belong to the Democratic Party in my state, I go to meetings, I've voiced my concerns.
Glad to hear it. And the response has been?
And no, my opinion is the same, but I'm not going to bother voicing it here anymore.
Interest.
The stridently zealous pro-choice lobby that wants no limits made on women's access to abortions, and which uses their lobbying powers to influence politicians, need to face the fact that they are enabling sickos like Gosnell . My guess is they won't. It would take an uprising of disgust from decent people demanding action to stop baby-killers like Gosnell, to have any dampening impact on the actions of the pro-choice lobby. Which is why the pro-choice media and our pro-baby-killing President are trying to avoid talking about this.
(As for the libertarians, they have had zero influence on abortion policy, and as yet have hardly any political clout. It is silly to try to blame them for atrocities like Goswell's clinics that have been operating aided and abetted by our govt. for decades )
CStanley, if ever there was a time that a groundswell of moderate pro choicers could gain a foothold, it would be now, after this Gosnell horror. It could happen. But probably won't
It can't happen, because abortion is not resolved by voters, or statutes. It's resolved by unelected jurists dictating rules. They can't rewrite Roe (again!) All they can do at this point is keep on allowing for infanticides, or admit they screwed up.
As the infanticides become more and more public knowledge, the attacks on Roe will become harsher and harsher.
"Moderate" pro-choice people recognize that Roe went too far, and babies have been killed. But of course that is, by default, a pro-life position. It puts you in opposition to the Supreme Court and what they did.
Thus our abortion regime requires massive amounts of denial, repression, and censorship. Once the media starts exposing the infanticides, Roe v. Wade is in big, big trouble.
I as a liberal and pro choicer think we need to have laws that defines when life begins and as we do for when it ends in order to avoid such scenarios as Gosnell, don't you understand?
Except, as Gosnell shows, you cannot rely on the government to actually enforce their own regulations.
What good are laws that are ignored?
Whether I comment or not I read the threads and form an opinion. I stand by the one I expressed about your "position".
And what is this Commuter/PMJ nonsense?I do not comment under any other name
Why is wiping a person's potential existence off of the universe acceptable in the second case just because he didn't "feel" it?
Tilon, I think the future life argument is strong.
Another argument I like to make is the comparison to a work of art. Suppose a rich guy buys a Monet, and then puts his foot through it.
I would be outraged. Why am I upset? It's not my painting. And yet I am. I am angry about the disrespect for an amazing work of art, a miraculous creation.
A tiny human baby is similar. It's a miracle of creation. And it's far more amazing than any work of painting or sculpture. So we should respect that, not flush it down the toilet.
Having said that, those two arguments are not resolved by our Constitution. In fact our Constitution does not mention crimes like rape or murder, either. But we do know that every person is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. So what I do think the Constitution requires is that no state can allow an abortion if it violates the states own murder and death statutes. States have to follow their own laws!
And if they were even more honest, they wold recognize we need a law in place to protect unborn babies with brain activity, the same way laws are in place to define death.
Shouldn't abortion advocates start the ball rolling on fighting partial birth abortion?
Abortion supporters are more than mildly supportive of the practice.
Jay, who are you to say what he is or isn't, he SELF identifies as a Libertarian Republican.
If I self-identified as a woman, it would not make it so.
Ridge is not a Libertarian. He was the first head of the DHS, for God's sake. Hard to get less Libertarian.
YOU Shana are the worst enemy of the unborn child, because of your intransigence and absolutist position.
Not advocates who fight any attempt to stop partial birth abortions? Or is that too absolute a position?
I'm also opposed to rape. I guess that position is also too absolute.
Let's say Roe v Wade is overturned.
What would happen?
The states would decide if they'd allow abortions and they'd decide on what is permitted and what is not.
How is that not preferable to what we have now?
you cannot rely on the government to actually enforce their own regulations.
You can embarrass them in public and fire the bastards.
What we really need is a constitutional amendment giving Americans a retention election over Supreme Court Justices.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/12/17723512-fundamental-culture-change-on-abortion-conservatives-make-gains-on-restrictions?lite
It is the usual suspects going to court against restrictions, though. I guess we'll see what the next elections in those states bring.
Hey, now Los Angeles is hearing about Dr. Gosnell.
You can embarrass them in public and fire the bastards.
They'd have to have shame to feel embarrassed.
We have people who do not enforce gun laws demanding MORE gun laws before they actually enforce what is already there.
They'd rather LOOK like they are doing something...not ACTUALLY do something.
Although it's interesting that his murder case is only on the opinion pages. It's not news, apparently.
What appears to be making this story national is the allegation of bias in news media coverage. People are writing opinion editorials asking why editors and journalists who decide what the news is have decided that this murder case is not news.
It's almost like a revolt. Journalists are being shamed and embarrassed in public. In essence they are being accused of being partisan hacks. And if these stories keep getting repeated, eventually what happens is that people start going elsewhere for their news.
I think they will have to cover the story now. They will try to figure out how to spin it. What's the pro-choice angle? There must be one. Find me a pro-choice angle! But not covering the story is not an option anymore.
I expect people to talk about Dr. Gosnell on the Sunday talk shows. Yes? They will talk about Dr. Gosnell and they will talk about media bias.
And then it will blow over, unfortunately.
St. Croix, I hope you are correct. I believe you are. Maybe something good will come out of this horror.
Or the clinics will be inspected regulatory now, that's my bet.
Inga said...
People like him are dishonest assholes,
You couldn't point out a singular post of mine that has ever been "dishonest" you goof.
It will be darkly humorous to see the media rows suddenly filled up at the trial on Monday. WaPo definitely promised to send someone and I think the others will have to follow.
Inga said...
Jay, YOU and people like you will be responsible for millions MORE unborn babies' deaths, live with THAT.
I love how you keep screeching this as if it means anything.
Of course in the next breath you go on to assert I'm "dishonest"
You're projecting, goofball.
Or the clinics will be inspected regulatory now, that's my bet.
4/13/13, 5:29 PM
In PA the new GOP governor has taken steps, apparently (needs to be watched for follow through.)
Other states are passing more stringent oversight rules and the pro abortion lobby (and lefty blogs like TPM) are raising holy hell about it. After all, there's no evidence that the oversight is needed, now, is there?
Oversight is desperately needed, that was the problem, lack of oversight. But then again, I'm not your typical pro choicer.
So why aren't you arguing with the typical prochoicrers instead of folks here?
What I don't understand is that there were several different people from the Philadelphia health department employees regularly visited the Women's Medical Society to retrieve blood samples for testing purposes, but said nothing.
How those people are sleeping at night is a wonder...
Another employee inspected the clinic in response to a complaint that dead fetuses were being stored in paper bags in the employees' lunch refrigerator. The inspection confirmed numerous violations... But no follow-up was ever done...
How do you look at yourself in the mirror now?
Believe me, I have argued with pro choicers, many aren't anymore reasonable than many pro lifers here.
But some are willing to listen. It's a start, but I'm not positive that anything at all will change except for more oversight.
Tom Ridge, I'm sure you voted for him Jay, aren't you proud?
Prochicers unreasonable? No way! I'm shocked.
Do you not realize that most of the prolifers here have taken abuse far worse than anything on this thread when 'debating' with prochoice zealots? I once had a guy tell me that he hoped one day he'd meet me outside an abortion clinic so that he could put his steel boot in my face like he'd done to a prolife protester once before.
And do you also not know that everyone on internet forums who regularly takes bait and then chums the waters with bait in kind, is going to get caught up in these stupid insult contests?
"Perhaps the worst part of the horrifying allegations against a Philadelphia abortion clinic is that it operated for 17 years before anyone did anything.
72-year-old Kermit Gosnell has been charged with killing seven babies and accused of killing hundreds in gruesome and illegal late-term abortions.
Prosecutors claim Gosnell "snipped" the necks of viable babies and exploited low-income, immigrant women who couldn't get abortions anywhere else.
Gosnell — who wasn't licensed to practice obstetrics and gynecology — is also accused of giving women venereal diseases by using dirty instruments, and of causing the death of a 41-year-old immigrant from Nepal. His lawyer insisted in court Wednesday that the clinic never killed any babies.
The clinic was not inspected from 1993 to 2010, when FBI agents finally raided the place. They found moaning women covered in blood-stained blankets and jars with severed fetus feet, according to the 281-page grand jury report.
The grand jury report that lays out allegations against Gosnell has an entire section called "How did this go on so long?" The simple answer is politics.
Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.
Health department lawyers "changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors," health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions.
In 1999, high-level Pennsylvania officials met to consider starting up regular inspections again but decided not to, state lawyer Kenneth Brody testified, according to the grand jury report. He told the grand jury that officials were concerns that abortion clinics wouldn't meet inspection standards and then there "would be less abortion facilities.""
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com
Yes C Stanley, I do know this and I reserve the right to defend myself, as well.
Pro lifers unreasonable, no I'm not shocked at all, just a bit sad that only St. Croix gets the point accross to people like me, after all he doesn't need to preach to the choir here. You folks are already pro life.
And the best defense is a good offense, eh?
I' m not trying to take sides in all of that and there's clearly history here. It's just so pointless, and annoying, to have to scroll past dozens of "yo mama" posts.
Ross Douthat shames the New York Times.
So is there anything I've said that was offputting?
I'm sure it annoys me more than you CS. :)
No, CS, you've been as reasonable as st. Croix.
I'm sure it annoys me more than you CS. :)
4/13/13, 6:07 PM
Ignoring assholes and assholish comments isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign of wisdom.
And strength, which I don't always have.
Alrighty then...off to enjoy the evening. Be sure to keep the conversations going with your Democratic prochoice friends, Inga. Hopefully you will connect with others who feel that the hardline proabortion lobby does not represent your views.
"Pro-choicers support quality women's health care, and are the enemies of those who force women into underground clinics like Gosnell's."
@AmandaMarcotte
This is what we have to look forward to. They are testing their talking points now. Blame the pro-lifers!
Tom Ridge is a .... Libertarian??
ROFLMAO!!!
Only someone utterly beyond stupid would believe something ridiculous as that.
Inga cited ....
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com
Whoo Hoo...Inga cited my link from around 10:23 AM this morning...specifically:
http://www.businessinsider.com/kermit-gosnell-clinic-not-inspected-2013-4
And yet, tonight once again, even Fox News is covering Beyonce' & Jay-Z in Cuba.
We must keep focused on important stuff! If MSNBC won't do it, then others must step up.
Fuckin'-A right!
Tonm Ridge, the real guy :-))
If I need to explain...here goes:
""The song is about the terrible fear of alienation that people have, the fear of standing up for one thing. It's about trying to suck up to everybody." ~ George O'Dowd, aka "Boy George"
Tom Ridge, I'm sure you voted for him Jay, aren't you proud?
Maybe he voted for Ed Rendell.
Post a Comment