Planned Parenthood: That is Not a Baby
[Guest post by DRJ]
Hot Air links this Live Action undercover video of Planned Parenthood’s advice to mothers considering abortion:
Here is Live Action.org‘s description of the video taken at an Appleton WI Planned Parenthood clinic:
“In the undercover video, when the two women ask a Planned Parenthood counselor if the pregnant woman’s 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat, the counselor emphasizes “heart tones,” and answers, “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus–can survive–which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks.” On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.
The counselor then says, “A fetus is what’s in the uterus right now. That is not a baby.” Dr. Prohaska, the abortion doctor, insists, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.” Prohaska also states that having an abortion will be “much safer than having a baby,” warning, “You know, women die having babies.”
In 2006, Patterico posted a photo array of babies in utero and addressed the question of “When does a fetus resemble a baby?” I think it helps to see the photos as you consider Planned Parenthood’s advice.
— DRJ
Cha ching.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:44 pmThese are about on par with the ACORN videos. How much more proof do we need that “progressive” means “we can do whatever the hell we want and call it enlightened?”
Oh, and, “and of course continue to get a pass because whenever anyone gets caught it’s dismissed as just an isolated incident?”
Progressives: “Morality is soooo passe’.”
Steve B (5eacf6) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:38 amThose “heart tones” display more heart than any proponent of abortion has ever evinced.
Icy Texan (8624b7) — 12/10/2009 @ 2:39 amGetting an abortion is reprehensible.
Getting between a woman and her health care provider is equally reprehensible. If not then how is this different from the death panels of the health care bill versions before our national legislature? How is it different from Oregon telling a woman she is too old to get the medication and surgery she needs to stay alive?
The federal government has no place in the abortion discussion at all. State governments have no place either. Local zoning regulations can determine whether or not the community cares to allow abortion clinics in the area. That’s as far as I am willing to go.
I will also continue to counsel any women who think they need an abortion that it is an evil choice that will prey on their minds the rest of their lives. Then I will wash my hands of the matter since I have no moral authority to restrain them.
{^_^}
[EDIT: Note — This is a different JD than our regular commenter JD. — DRJ]
JD (847e52) — 12/10/2009 @ 3:38 am[…] one option in that choice. Yet, their clinic actively promotes abortion to those it counsels, and even uses Orwellian tactics in its counseling to try to steer women towards abortion. In this video, taken at Planned Parenthood in Appleton, […]
Planned Parenthood’s Orwellian Tactics | Axis of Right (4bdcf7) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:19 amThey’re probably trying to make the mother feel better about it. They’re trained to do that. Personally I am fed up with the medical/therapeutic establishment’s efforts to prevent guilt.
cassandra in MT (05cc41) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:34 amThat is a different JD than I.
JD (6a0bfc) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:50 amDitto Cassandra.
Honestly, a video with a Planned Parenthood staffer telling a pregnant woman that yes, that’s a heartbeat, would shock me more. A woman who is looking to Planned Parenthood for counseling isn’t looking for a lot of medical information, she’s looking for absolution and confirmation that she’s not doing anything really bad, because see, it’s not a human yet, technically. It’s not like she turned to her local church, you know.
An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. A life is gone because of a choice you made. For better or for worse.
A soul who thinks they can walk away from that unscathed because of a technicality scares the crap out of me.
em (11cf60) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:52 amDoes the phrase, “The banality of evil” mean what I think it does? Appleton is where I lived during Jr. High and High school. Overall a “very nice” “large town”/”small city”.
I know it is usually more inflammatory to mention Nazi Germany than helpful, and the nondescript abortion clinic is a far cry from Dachau, but they are on the same continuum; the civil authorities enabling the destruction of human life.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:00 amThe ultrasound is the end of abortion …
bill-tb (541ea9) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:04 amInteresting that no one is discussing the gross violation of these womens’ privacy by someone promoting a political agenda. This is also illegal under HIPA.
JEA (cfcb76) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:14 amWas this done without their consent, JEA? Let’s assume so, for the sake of argument, which is worse- the privacy violation or the conduct of the doctor?
JD (a606ad) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:31 amJEA.
The post talks about an “undercover video”. It is my assumption that the women clients are the ones doing the recording, and if so, there is no violation of patient confidentiality, nor HIPPA.
Whether the filmers are at risk for a civil complaint is another thing. I think this is much more an assumed “private” discussion than an ACORN office, but I don’t know, and I don’t know what Wis. laws are.
If the women truly clients/patients, then certainly there is a problem, though technically HIPPA would not be violated unless there was a link to some potentially personally identifiable fact, like SSN, address, phone number, etc. I am not sure if first name alone would be a violation, but it may be- again- if the people involved were true clients who did not know the conversation was being recorded.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:42 amJEA, maybe the pregnant woman was part of the group producing the video. Her privacy would not be an issue.
One of the saddest stories I’ve ever read was the NY Times piece about a couple the night before the woman was to have an abortion. The guy was writing the column and, at one point, his girlfriend suggested she shouldn’t have a glass of wine because it was bad for the baby. It was very clear who was most motivated for her to have the abortion.
I tried to find the column, which was written about a year ago, but couldn’t find it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 12/10/2009 @ 6:43 amWhat a bunch of killers.
JEA – since the woman patient is the one wearing the camera, I’m going with she knew. Since no one’s face was shown, I’m going with still anonymous. Thus, no HIPA laws were broken.
I hate abortion. I hate Planned Parenthood.
Those lies are lies and told to women to get the money for the procedure. Oh, that it helps them not feel guilty helps them write the check. Later, when these women find out what they have done…
I’m actually quite astounded that women are gullible and uninformed enough to believe these lies. All of this information is out there. You can find unbiased scientific explanations of fetal development all over the place, on the web, in books, everywhere. It’s a willing gullibility.
Vivian Louise (eeeb3a) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:06 amAs a “dont care about abortion” conservative, I agree with them. When a fetus can survive on its own its a baby. Until then its part of the mother. That being said I would never let my wife get an abortion nor do I condone other people who do. Ever hear of Dr. Leroy Carhart? His clinic is less than 2 minutes from my house. IM also tired of seeing the protestors with thier dead fetus signs while I take my son to school less than a quarter mile away from his stupid clinic. I want them all to go away.
Dopey (a812c5) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:34 amHow many women die having babies?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:50 amAs a “dont care about abortion” conservative, I agree with them. When a fetus can survive on its own its a baby. Until then its part of the mother. That being said I would never let my wife get an abortion nor do I condone other people who do. Ever hear of Dr. Leroy Carhart? His clinic is less than 2 minutes from my house. IM also tired of seeing the protestors with thier dead fetus signs while I take my son to school less than a quarter mile away from his stupid clinic. I want them all to go away.
Comment by Dopey — 12/10/2009 @ 7:34 am
Yes, it is inconvenient, and upsetting, to see the reality of the violence taking place inside a building less than two minutes from your house. It would indeed be easier to deny it’s going on, and tell those who are trying to speak for the voiceless to “shut up and go away.” Nothing new there – it’s a common reaction to extreme injustice whenever human rights are being violated so egregiously.
How about this: since you “don’t care about abortion,” please don’t presume to dictate the actions of those who do care about unborn children being torn (quite literally, I assure you) limb from limb.
Perhaps when you’re doing all you can to stop the atrocities from being committed just 2 minutes from your house, then you can object re: your son needing to be properly shielded, due to his tender age (not sure how old he is), from the truth. Until then, we pro-lifers are sorry that sensibilities must be offended, but if it means not letting everyoe roll over and go comfortably to sleep while tiny helpless human beings are being slaughtered in their backyard, then it’s a risk we have to take.
no one you know` (196ed7) — 12/10/2009 @ 7:59 amBTW: a baby is NOT “part of the mother”. It’s a completely separate, albeit dependent, human being with its own DNA, heartbeat, brain, organs, etc. etc. When a pregnant woman is present there are two human beings there. That’s not an opinion – it’s scientific fact.
no one you know` (196ed7) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:01 amDear Dopey, at no time is a fetus “part of the mother.”
I guess it’s possible to not care about abortion and still consider yourself a conservative. There are conservatives who don’t care about various groups of people, sometimes even their own spouses or children. But not caring about abortion is not an excuse for not knowing what you’re talking about. Whether you care about their lives or not, each fetus is an unborn *child*. It is a distinct human being with its own DNA, it’s own inate talents and predispositions. That child will reveal character traits that the parents will gradually discover as he or she grows, assuming they don’t kill their child before it is born.
You may be a “conservative” who does not care about unborn children. But you don’t get to decide if they’re children or not. That’s a fact of biology.
Gesundheit (cfa313) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:08 amNow that the right has a blogosphere and is adopting the techniques of investigative journalism, it’s like they are exposing a heretofore secret world, a world we didn’t even know existed because the media suppressed it. We are not alone anymore.
Amazing.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:10 amAppalling, absolutely appalling. These scoundrels employ innocuous words to mask their monstrous iniquity while they entice frightened girls into unnatural carnage. I don’t know how they sleep at night.
ropelight (80456f) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:12 amIf its not a “Baby”, then you are not pregnant.
Abortion is beyond appalling, it is nothing more than murdering children at the altar of selfishness. Heathens have done this throughout history, in the past they just called it a religious ceremony of some sort.
Abortion is also a constitutional rights issue, except in this case it’s a their rights trump any of your rights.
ML (f060a0) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:24 am“It was very clear who was most motivated for her to have the abortion.”
Yep, Roe was the best thing that ever happened to…men.
cassandra in MT (5a5d33) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:28 amWe could argue about what a fetus is (if it is anything it is a young human life) – but wait…
It is indisputable that the Planned Parenthood counselor is being grossly dishonest. Why?
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:30 amI was one of those “don’t care conservatives” at one time. If only those pro-lifers would JUST SHUT UP!
What changed my mind and heart was watching an abortion, and then having to ask myself “if that’s not a baby, then what is it?”
I realize that abortion is an explosively touchy subject, but I don’t think we can get away with pretending that it’s not a baby.
Obviously it’s something. And simply calling it a different name doesn’t change what it is.
As for surviving on its own? I doubt many teenage boys would qualify for that, given how little attention they pay to sanitation and safety without the constant intervention of their parents.
steve miller (882687) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:31 am#24, cassandra said, “Yep, Roe was the best thing that ever happened to…men.”
Except if that man wants a child and his wife has a secret abortion. That’s not the best thing for the man, or the child. Wouldn’t you agree, or don’t they count?
ropelight (80456f) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:33 am[…] are slight:” Happy National Post-Achievement Day! Patterico’s Pontifications: Planned Parenthood: That is Not a Baby BUUUUURRRRNING HOT: Why Stop at Condemning Swiss Religious Discrimination? Texas For Palin: […]
Is Obama offended by Norway’s ‘whiteness?”; BHO snubs royalty and concert but likely will blame Bush for it « VotingFemale Speaks! (ea1fd5) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:47 amMany things to be outraged about here, not the least of which is the deliberate distortion of our language by so-called progressives. “Planned Parenthood” and “choice” are but two examples of this.
Old Coot (166f79) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:17 am“When a fetus can survive on its own its a baby.”
A six month old baby can’t survive on its own either. I guess I don’t get the distinction.
Dave Surls (da5013) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:28 am27, too true.
that’s got to be one of the worst things that could ever happen to a man, having your baby aborted against your will or without your knowledge.
Abortion was the best thing to happen to sleazy men who value available women and the ida of consequence free sex. A lot of things that have happened in the last 50 years have really been good for these types. For a real man? Not so good. The idea of dating has been replaced with hooking up, and fetuses ‘aren’t really babies growing in there, or anything like that’. Babies are a disease that the president wouldn’t want his daughters punished with.
cha ching
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:39 amDave, an 18 week old baby has a hard time surviving without his mother too. i know your example is much more on point, but indeed, a lot of abortion supporters agree that a young baby is no different, morally, from a developing fetus.
“we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being’s life”
You know, whatever it takes. This man lost family to the Nazis, and talks about how, because young babies and fetuses don’t feel any pain (ha), lack “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”, it’s OK to kill them.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:48 amFurther proof that these loons favor abortion on demand right up until birth: “fetus” techncially is a full-term gestating human from embryo through birth.
magma: lava
fetus: baby
See how it works? (But both magma and lava are molten rock. All that’s changed is whether the earth’s given birth to it.)
Mitch (890cbf) — 12/10/2009 @ 10:13 am“Wouldn’t you agree, or don’t they count?”
Of course they do, but it seemed to be a relatively recent wrinkle. The world I remember was very anti-child in the days of Roe, and people were eager to throw off obligations. And it was pre-ultrasound.
I’ll wager for every guy who truly wanted to be a father there were at least 10 who said “get rid of it.” IMHO.
cassandra in MT (5a5d33) — 12/10/2009 @ 10:29 am“Health care provider” is quite the euphemism for someone who destroys human life.
Right, like you have any say in the matter… nor would you if it were your 13 year old daughter.
An abortionist can destroy your 13 year old daughter’s unborn child and you have nothing to say about it – but let a real doctor treat them for anything else without your consent and see what happens.
quasimodo (4af144) — 12/10/2009 @ 10:46 amThe Privacy Privilege resides with the patient IIRC. If the patient waves privilege, then the practitioner has no expectation of privacy.
AD - RtR/OS! (281bb6) — 12/10/2009 @ 11:23 amWith today’s advanced electronics, one should be careful to always speak in facts, and not in propaganda,
for the lies, half-truths, and deceptions enherent in that propaganda can – and will – come back to bite you.
#17 – Michael Ejercito
How many women die having babies?
— The answer is, far fewer than the number of babies intentionally torn from the wombs of their mothers. Let’s look at an extreme example: India. Every year in India 136,000 women die in childbirth; 1.1 million children die at birth or soon after . . . and 2.4 million abortions take place there.
In the U.S. there are about 450 maternal deaths, 28,800 infant deaths, and 1.3 million abortions.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:02 pm“That being said I would never let my wife get an abortion…”
This is why laws exist to protect women’s rights.
imdw (e66d8d) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:26 pmIsn’t it unfair that women have the right to kill, but men do not?
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:34 pmThere is an unfairness here. Yes. If men got pregnant there would be a lot less controversy about abortion.
imdw (1b7248) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:36 pm“Abortion is also a constitutional rights issue, except in this case it’s a their rights trump any of your rights.”
Please clarify exactly which right of yours applies here.
Abortion is not something I think most women take lightly. I’m sure there are some percentage who do, but every article I read written by a women who had one talks about what an agonizing decision it was. So anyone who thinks most women casually stroll into a clinic and plunk their money down on the counter should actually take some time to talk to/read what women actually have to say.
The right loves to talk about being opposed government interfering in our lives, yet has no problem whatsoever interfering in these womens’ lives.
Conservatives love to talk about abortion being wrong, yet don’t want to discuss what happens to these children when they’re born, will deny health care to children (as the Republicans did a couple of years ago), will eliminate programs to help children in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility.’ So which is the greater responsibility, opposing abortion or taking care of children after they’re born?
As for abortions being available up to the time of birth, I’d like to know exactly where that’s true, becuase I haven’t heard of any state that allows that. In fact, most don’t allow them after the first trimester.
JEA (cfcb76) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:37 pmThere are a lot of people who better hope that Post-Partum Abortion is never legalized.
AD - RtR/OS! (281bb6) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:41 pmSo JEA is running away from its initial asshattery and is now arguing with an army of strawpeople, while lying about conservatives. Par for the course.
JD (533be4) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:48 pm“Conservatives love to talk about abortion being wrong, yet don’t want to discuss what happens to these children when they’re born”
I think we do want to discuss it, but we don’t automatically agree that the government should spend tons of money on every single problem you think exists. We disagree, but we are talking about it.
Look, the government doesn’t have any money. Obama is punishing these children enormously by spending huge sums of money on pork instead of job creation or… paying down the deficit (which has a host of economic consequences).
SCHIP still helps kids in need. The democrats wanted to help kids not in need. That the republicans didn’t automatically agree to increase spending again doesn’t mean you an say they don’t want to discuss the consequences of choosing life.
This is what the democrats know will happen once they regulate health care. They will keep pointing to any fiscal discipline as the GOP killing people.
We don’t have infinite dollars, and the government can’t be involved in everything. Can you accept that there is a legitimate view that less government would increase job opportunities and wealth for poor people. Just the existence of the view. That’s all I’m asking. You seem to be denying it even exists.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:49 pm“Obama is punishing these children enormously by spending huge sums of money on pork instead of job creation”
yeah, pork, not job creation.
imdw (c3c479) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:53 pmI’m sure I can find something at Madame Tussauds’ that looks *just* like a baby…
Does its appearance make it a baby, or is it actually substantially more complex than that?
When you try and reduce the profound and important question of “human life” to something as stupid and simple as this, you sound no different than your average libtards trying to justify any equally idiotic positions with a single sentence.
If a baby is born with no arms or legs, not even stubs — does that make it not a human?
What it is to be “human” is not simply DNA nor is it appearance. Attempts to argue from either position are inherently stupid and ignorant.
What makes a life “human” is far more complex in every way.
O Bloody Hell (8ca3a3) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:55 pmyeah, pork, not job creation.
Comment by imdw
Um, you think otherwise, after all the recovery.gov scandals and lies? Your government is telling you it made jobs and sent money to places that don’t even exist. They are admitting they are dishonest in inflating how many more people are working thanks to these job creations. We’ve spent more than we did on WWII, and millions fewer people are working. PORK. Like bacon covered ham stuffed with hot dogs.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:59 pmAbortion is not something I think most women take lightly . . . anyone who thinks most women casually stroll into a clinic and plunk their money down on the counter should actually take some time to talk to/read what women actually have to say
— It does not matter if they ‘casually stroll in’, or ‘take it lightly’. A wrong decision is still the wrong decision, no matter how much the person making it agonized over it.
Conservatives love to talk about abortion being wrong, yet don’t want to discuss what happens to these children when they’re born,
— Untrue. Conservatives support adoption.
will deny health care to children (as the Republicans did a couple of years ago),
— Opposing the expansion of sCHIP to cover teenagers and above did not deny ANYTHING to children.
will eliminate programs to help children in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility.’
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 12:59 pm— And of course it IS the government’s responsibility to help children; the parents should be spared that particular burden, shouldn’t they?
As JEA probably knows, the real fork in the road is, “At what point in gestation does (a) a developing human’s right to go on developing, and be born and live, outweigh (b) a woman’s right to have something removed from her body that she doesn’t want in there anymore.”
Most lefties just loooove to skip over that. Golly, though, even Roe v. Wade didn’t do THAT. It just made up a legislative-style answer that appears nowhere in the Constitution and is flatly at odds with the Tenth Amendment, if not the Fourteenth.
Mitch (890cbf) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:17 pmMitch, my con law professor told me that the 10th amendment is but a truism. That if the federal government finds a power for something, like via Commerce->Wickard, it automatically means the tenth amendment doesn’t apply. It might as well not even be written in the constitution, despite expressio unus style legal reading principles.
There is no tenth amendment. You could look at the Con Law final exams at the top 100 Universities in the country, and you will find zero correct answers that cite the tenth amendment as the controlling doctrine. Thus, we don’t have a federal system of government at all.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:27 pm“deny health care to children (as the Republicans did a couple of years ago)”
SPC Jack Klompus (c1922b) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:43 pmWhere has this ever happened? Give one example of “Republicans” preventing a child from having access to health care and prove that you argue from fact and not bombastic talking-point infested rhetoric.
Actually, the SCOTUS interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment — “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” — in a literal manner. Babies in the womb have not been born yet, and therefore are not citizens.
Of course, as Mitch is referring to, the 14th goes on to say: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Ooh, there’s a sticky wicket! Okay, at first it specifically refers to citizens, and — as our betters from on high have informed us — the unborn are not citizens. BUT, then it separately & distinctly refers to “person(s)”. Are the unborn “persons”? They certainly are classified that way — sometimes — when someone murders a pregnant woman and is charged with TWO counts of murder.
Icy Texan (dccb58) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:45 pmSPC Jack – That kind of dishonest bombast came from someone that decries the incivil rhetoric of political discourse from … drumroll … the Right.
JD (5375e6) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:57 pmDustin, it’s not that you and your teachers are wrong; it’s that what was supposed be a “well, DUH” comment isn’t so unecessary anymore, because Congress has arrogated powers unto itself nowhere granted in the Constitution. (If you think Congress hasn’t, then we haven’t much common ground to discuss things further. Yay Wickard!) So I fail to see how, today, pointing out the reminder, “If it wansn’t granted to Congress, then the power remains with the States and the People,” is somehow an irritating irrelevancy.
Mitch (890cbf) — 12/10/2009 @ 1:57 pmAs for abortions being available up to the time of birth, I’d like to know exactly where that’s true, becuase I haven’t heard of any state that allows that. In fact, most don’t allow them after the first trimester.
JEA @ 12:37 p.m.
Here is a good state by state reference.
Also, as you can see states vary in what they permit and don’t, but abortion is available throughout the third trimester.
38 states prohibit some abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.
24 states initiate prohibitions at fetal viability.
5 states initiate prohibitions in the third trimester.
9 states initiate prohibitions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24.
The circumstances under which procedures are permitted after that point vary from state to state.
30 states permit abortions to preserve the life or health of the woman.
4 states permit abortions to save the life or health of the woman, but use a narrow definition of health.
4 states permit abortions only to save the life of the woman.
Some states require the involvement of a second physician when a later-term abortion is performed.
10 states require that a second physician attend in order to treat a fetus if it is born alive.
10 states require that a second physician certify that the abortion is medically necessary.
Also, United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.
It happens.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:21 pmPresident BHOmbastic himself is on record for possing partial-birth abortions, so it would seem that some libs want to support ‘partial’ infanticide as well.
Shades of Moloch worshipping, if you ask me.
Gregory (f7735e) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:47 pm#34, cassandra, not to put too fine a point on your wager, one in ten is more than my experience indicates as a fair estimate. However, I’m in general agreement with your opinion. Men were overly quick to see advantage for themselves in Roe v Wade, and you were correct to say so.
ropelight (80456f) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:47 pmMitch, you’re right. It’s a breathtaking deception and extremely irritating. You’re supposed to read law so that every single point is relevant. If something was written in there and you say it doesn’t matter, then you’re reading it wrong.
Except when it comes to the tenth amendment. What a sad thing. But we de facto do not have a tenth amendment or a federal government, because the Court has created a federal government with almost unlimited regulatatory power.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/10/2009 @ 5:51 pm# 41 Comment by JEA
“Their rights” refers to the “rights” of the mother. “Your rights” refers to the rights of the yet to be born child.
ML (f060a0) — 12/10/2009 @ 8:26 pmIncidentally, the “Wade” in Roe v Wade was Henry Wade, the same Dallas DA who would have prosecuted Lee Harvey Oswald, had not Jack Ruby curtailed the investigation of Officer Tippit’s death shortly after JFK was assassinated. Wade also prosecuted Ruby for the murder of Oswald.
ropelight (5c6f98) — 12/11/2009 @ 10:58 amAnd I assume most people know that “Roe” deeply regrets her being a part of that legal precedent, and has complained that others were the driving force, not her. (If any have more or contradictory details, please share).
As far as the abortion decision being an agonizing one or not, there are a substantial number of women that have had multiple, which suggests to me anyway that the agony of the decision was often not helpful in preventing the situation from happening again. (Certainly true in the few patients I’ve known in that sutuation).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/11/2009 @ 1:47 pm