As expected, a state panel tossed out a dubious ethics complaint against Sedgwick County District Court Judge Paul Clark, saying that it “contained no facts evidencing judicial misconduct.” Also as expected, the anti-abortion group that spearheaded the complaint, Operation Rescue, responded by questioning the integrity of the panel’s investigation and saying that “Kansas’ judiciary has almost become a laughingstock in the rest of the country.”
The group, along with Kansans for Life, is now back to pressuring lawmakers to force Attorney General Paul Morrison to refile misdemeanor charges against Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller that Clark dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. But the last thing politicians should do is to insert themselves into an ongoing criminal investigation.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
88 Comments
The criminal organization Operation Rescue is no different than the Phelps family. They only serve to pester the public and feed off of media attention. Sadly the Wichita Eagle is more than happy to give it to them.
You know I have been thinking I should establish contact with the Commission on Judicial Qualifications perhaps they might be of some assistance. I don’t think it could work unless there were copies filed with various Senators,Congressional and Federal offices. I guess you have to be like Homer,seeking an honest man (or woman) with a latern!
The problem with what operation Rescue is doing is that they are appealing to the wrong court system and about the wrong laws.
The Spanish inquisition is the court they should be appealing to as it is God’s law that they feel is being violated. A little time on the rack and the threat of being burnt at the stake and Tiller would be more then happy to confuse!
“But the last thing politicians should do is to insert themselves into an ongoing criminal investigation.”
Who is/are the politicians of which brownlee speaks? It’s not clear to me from the article.
It’s not clear to me from the article.Posted by: fleettwood | April 24, 2007 at 07:17 AM
This has to be one of the most-covered, and most-blogged, stories in the Eagle for the past year. Fleetwood, there’s no way you can claim ignorance about Brownlee’s comments.
Well, maybe there is, but I won’t go there.
I say again, which politicians are brownlee refering to. None are mentioned.
I am extremely anit-abortion, but after seeing what happens here on the blogs and out there with the radicals on both sides of the issue, I think that the abortion issue needs to be fought from a different angle. We need to teach our kids to be and how to be responsible about sex. Abortion by itself only rallies both side to defensive positions and gains no traction in either direction.
I’ve read here a few times that no one ‘likes’ or is ‘for’ abortion as it is murder. It’s time to finally take the fight to the SOURCE of the problem and not the PRODUCT of the problem. Teach kids to be and HOW to be responsible when it comes to sex.
Bingo, SolDev.
Many nations where abortion is almost completely illegal have higher abortion rates than the US. Abortion may be horrible, but it can’t be legislated away.
The only things that really seem to knock down abortion rates are family planning and contraception, and rising wealth and education levels.
THANK YOU SOL!
That’s the entire thing. However, there will always be a need until all diseases are cured, all pregnancies are always wanted, and nothing can go wrong in pregnancy.
But we CAN reduce the number to almost miniscule. SAFE LEGAL and RARE!
P_Mom,And I think that is the problem the anti-abortionist / pro-lifers have. Abortions are anything but rare in this country.
But the main point is abortion is the focal point BECAUSE it is disgusting. You can’t fight this battle from that point. You have to step back a month or two and keep it from happening. Keep unwanted pregnancies from happening that is. EDUCATE. EDUCATE. EDUCATE and enforce on your kids RESPONSIBILITY. It might even help them outside the bedroom :-)
Sol and Pmom, Many people think that the abortion rate is high because of the kids who get pregnant. This is shown not to be the case when you look at the ages of the people who get abortions. In Kansas fewer that 2% are under 15, 24% 15 to 19 and the largest percentage , 31% 20 to 24.
Nationwide these numbers hold up with over 32% falling into the 20 – 24 age group. At this age birth control should be a way of life. Instead many use abortion for that purpose.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/age.asp
The latest numbers I could find were 1995 but looking at past years the trends didn’t change.
This is a social issue and not a political one but when we look at abortion as just another form of birth control we devalue life.
This isn’t a Christian Conservative issue even though it is often presented that way to take the focus off the real issue.
At this age birth control should be a way of life. Instead many use abortion for that purpose.Posted by: ksgrm | April 24, 2007 at 10:41 AM
That’s about the meanest thing I’ve ever seen you type, Ksgrm. You have zero evidence to back your smear – that Kansas women use abortion as just another form of birth control.
There are MANY reasons why people have abortions. I never said it was mostly kids.
Ksgrm,I wonder of those in the 20-24 age bracket were raised that abortions were fine and dandy? That it is the woman’s right to chose because it is her body?
I think that sends drastically the wrong message. There is NOTHING fine and dandy with abortion. The more you tell the daughters that, the more they believe it and go thru with it.
Teach your kids that abortion is anything but OK unless there are drastic forces at work. Teach them that abortion is NOT birth control.
Without bringing party lines or religion you can still get the message across that abortion is NOT ok.
Tom,Look at the numbers. They don’t lie.
P_Mom,
As you have stated, RARE. With the numbers of abortions each year, how can you possibly say that they are rare?
Sol,
Numbers are NUMBERS, not motivations. To say that one number or another in abortion statistics by age tells you the state of mind of the woman, or the reason for the pregnancy, or the reason for the abortion, is worse than ludicrous. It’s nothing more than a smear attack.
You can try to paint this picture as pretty as you like, but the odds that these abortions are due to danger of the mother’s life, birth defects, or financial devastation is apologetic.
By pounding into the public’s mind that abortion is a ‘woman’s right’ and ‘her choice’ it takes away from what it is she is actually doing. She is killing her baby. Until you start pounding THAT into people’s heads, abortion will never be rare. Until you start pounding RESPONSIBLE sex into people’s heads abortion will never be rare.
Sol,
There’s a huge problem with your numbers. They don’t take into account the number of live births in the same age groups. The reason there are more abortions in the 20 to 25 age range is simple: THERE ARE MORE PREGNANCIES. Take a look at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t991×13.pdf
THERE ARE MORE PREGNANCIES._________________________________________Posted by: Tom | April 24, 2007 at 11:22 AM
_________________________________________
but the odds that these abortions are due to danger of the mother’s life, birth defects, or financial devastation is apologetic.By pounding into the public’s mind that abortion is a ‘woman’s right’ and ‘her choice’ it takes away from what it is she is actually doing. She is killing her baby. Until you start pounding THAT into people’s heads, abortion will never be rare. Until you start pounding RESPONSIBLE sex into people’s heads abortion will never be rare._________________________________________Posted by: SolDevVB | April 24, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Abortion IS a woman’s right. Abortion IS a woman’s choice. Not yours. Not mine. That right to that choice have been upheld again and again and again.
You and Ksgrm misused some statistics to smear every woman who has to make the tragic choice to terminate her pregnancy. I call that ludicrous and shameful. You aren’t in those woman’s shoes; you don’t know why they end their pregnancies, you don’t know the circumstances of their lives. Instead you say that they just use abortion as another means of contraception. It’s as though the woman’s life means nothing to you.
And it is as if the child’s life means nothing to YOU.
It is voices like yours that lead women to believe there is nothing wrong with abortion. Let me ask you directly, is killing a baby OK? And when is it the BABY’S choice? When is the BABY’S voice heard?
You are part of the problem Tom. You are promoting the deaths of children as okie dokie. Until people see abortion for what I is and start being RESPONSIBLE and PROTECTING themselves and the lives of children, the abortion rate will not drop.
Get off your Woman’s Right to kill soap box and get on the “Let’s PROTECT our nation’s children by being RESPONSIBLE !!!!!
A fetus is not a child. Sorry.
Its not? Really, Geeze, then where do children come from. Oh, you think the stork brings them right? If that fetus is left unmolested in the mother’s womb, what is most likely to pop out several months later? A cat? A dog? Noooooooooooooo. A CHILD isn’t it?
And there is no charge for today’s biology lesson Tom.
Abortion is simple. If you’re a woman and against it, don’t have one. If you’re a man and against it, don’t cause the need for one.
Quoting Sol: “By pounding into the public’s mind that abortion is a ‘woman’s right’ and ‘her choice’ it takes away from what it is she is actually doing.”
I don’t think so, but I have no evidence I can extract from the minds and memories of women who’ve had this procedure. The problem with this argument, though, is one of personal sovereignty. To control what is done with another’s body is tantamount to slavery or incarceration. And, really, it is *that* simple.
Lil ol’ Me
Sol,
It’s funny that you would compare a woman’s uterus to a stork. Funny in a dark an ironic way, but still funny.
In your analogy, the stork is just something that brings a baby. It’s of no consequence, no importance to what’s really unfolding. I’m afraid your attitude towards the pregnant woman is the same as your attitude towards the stork: It doesn’t matter what becomes of either after the delivery.
I don’t take that position. I believe that the pregnant woman is a WOMAN. A human being, with inalienable rights, one of those rights being that SHE gets to decide what’s done or not done with her body.
This is the basic disagreement between the two sides of the abortion debate.
Tom,
And you disregard the life that the mother is carrying.
You saying that a fetus is not a baby, then relating a stork to a woman? O…K… You seem to think that something magical happens when a baby breaches the birth canal. What exactly is that magical thing Tom? What happens in that moment that turns a fetus into a child in your eyes?
So you are fighting for a woman’s rights. Bully for you. A woman is a human and has rights. But her baby on the other hand, the baby has no rights what so ever. So you are choosing the comfort of an adult over the LIFE of a child. You should be proud of yourself.
Lil,You are correct – “If you’re a man and against it, don’t cause the need for one.” Couldn’t agree more. I think THAT should be the message rather than hiding the slaughter of babies behind a rights moniker. Be RESPONSIBLE !!!!!!!
Sol darling,
You’re the one who equated pregnancies with storks. I merely decided to play in your universe for a few minutes, just for the fun of demonstrating how silly it was.
Anyway…
Babies have rights. They’ve been BORN.
It even infers just that in the US Constitution. Check the 14th Amendment.
As you side step again, I’ll ask again, what magical event happens when the baby breaches the birth canal? What is the difference between a baby one second before birth and one second after?
Before birth: Not born. Part of the woman’s body.
After birth: Born. No longer part of the woman’s body.
No magic. Even an idiot like me gets it.
:)
So before it is born, even though it is a perfect little body in there, it is property. At the disposal of the woman who bares it.
Great way to think about babies. Again, you should be proud of yourself. Your respect for life is astounding.
Your respect for life is astounding.Posted by: SolDevVB | April 24, 2007 at 01:20 PM
As is your respect for women.
Storks. Heh.
It would seem that you related the storks to women Tom. Jumping from “Oh you think the stork brings them right?” that I said to “It’s funny that you would compare a woman’s uterus to a stork.” Seems a pretty broad jump and more towards distraction than discussion.
A fetus is not a child. Sorry.Posted by: Tom | April 24, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Its not? Really, Geeze, then where do children come from. Oh, you think the stork brings them right? If that fetus is left unmolested in the mother’s womb, what is most likely to pop out several months later? A cat? A dog? Noooooooooooooo. A CHILD isn’t it?And there is no charge for today’s biology lesson Tom.Posted by: SolDevVB | April 24, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Sol,It’s funny that you would compare a woman’s uterus to a stork. Funny in a dark an ironic way, but still funny.
………Posted by: Tom | April 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM
And it still fails to address the fact that you believe an unborn child is property at the disposal of the mother.
And still you prove the point I made at the beginning of this thread, that responsibility should be taught as opposed to debating the aftermath – that being abortion.
You have no desire to stop the killing of children. You have no desire to help the woman you claim to support. Your only desire seems to be to fight. To fight for the right to kill.
How about you fight for prevention of the need to kill. Or does the image of aborted babies give you a warm fuzzy?
Sol,
If you scroll upthread, you’ll see that you’re the first one to bring storks into this conversation. You did so in an attempt to trivialize my opinion on this issue. I took it as a pretty lame attempt at ad hominem.
You’re the one that made the connection between storks and pregnant women. Not me. You’re the one who had that connection already in your head. I doubt I’ve even *thought* of storks in that context since the last time I watched “Dumbo” with my daughter. That would have been when she was three, so probably 1990 or thereabout.
Sol, a fetus is not a baby. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it is; it’s not. A fetus has the potential to become a baby. A fetus has no rights; I even pointed you to the US Constitution in support of that position.
American women are not biological vessels for giving birth to the next generation of Christian soldiers. They’re individuals who are guaranteed rights under our Constitution by virtue of being *born* here.
The problem with the anti-choice crowd, the reason you all are so angry all the time, is that you know you don’t have the political muscle to change the Constitution. If you had the power to tinker with the 14th Amendment, you would. But you don’t, so your next best bet is to attack the integrity of the vast majority of Americans who don’t agree with you.
========
Ah, you have a new post up since I started writing this one.
A fetus is not property anymore than a woman’s body is property. A fetus is part of that woman’s body, and that woman has *rights.*
I don’t kill children, Sol. You keep trying to call fetuses children, babies, etc. Problem with that is, they’re not. (FYI, I’ve never killed a fetus, either).
Dang Tom, I can’t make it anymore clear to you. I re-posted the exact words. Cut and paste is AWESOME. So, please re-read. You related a woman to a stork. Can’t you read your own post?
So that little baby you feel kicking in a woman’s womb, that is not a baby. Huh. You can use semantics all you like Tom. Fact is, that is a little person in there. Not a lump of cells, not a mass of tissue, but a human.
And again, you still want to talk about ending life, ending life, the rights to end a life. Don’t you want to protect life?
You know this started out as a pretty good discussion. P_Mom, the most radical pro-choicer on the blog, even states abortions should be rare. We started talking about educating instead of killing. Protecting instead of killing. All Tom wants to talk about is storks and killing.
Great voice for your position Tom. Death and rights. Warm fuzzies.
Sol,
Actually, if you go back, you’ll see that you and Ksgrm were using completely irrelevant statistics to claim that women between the ages of 20 to 25 had abortions just for contraception. My dispute of that characterization led directly to you calling me a baby-killer.
Check your 11:41 post. It’s incredibly offensive.
******************************************And it is as if the child’s life means nothing to YOU.
It is voices like yours that lead women to believe there is nothing wrong with abortion. Let me ask you directly, is killing a baby OK? And when is it the BABY’S choice? When is the BABY’S voice heard?
You are part of the problem Tom. You are promoting the deaths of children as okie dokie.Until people see abortion for what I is and start being RESPONSIBLE and PROTECTING themselves and the lives of children, the abortion rate will not drop.
Get off your Woman’s Right to kill soap box and get on the “Let’s PROTECT our nation’s children by being RESPONSIBLE !!!!!
Posted by: SolDevVB | April 24, 2007 at 11:41 AM
************************************************
And the point stands Tom. All you have done so far is promote the right of a woman to kill – ok this one is JUST for you Tom – the LIFE inside her.
Here is my post prior to that…
*************************************************You can try to paint this picture as pretty as you like, but the odds that these abortions are due to danger of the mother’s life, birth defects, or financial devastation is apologetic.
By pounding into the public’s mind that abortion is a ‘woman’s right’ and ‘her choice’ it takes away from what it is she is actually doing. She is killing her baby. Until you start pounding THAT into people’s heads, abortion will never be rare. Until you start pounding RESPONSIBLE sex into people’s heads abortion will never be rare.
Posted by: SolDevVB | April 24, 2007 at 11:14 AM
******************************************
And you have had nothing to say about that. Just that it is a woman’s right.
Will you now tell me that abortion does not end life? If you want to call and unborn baby a fetus and that helps you sleep at night, more power to you buddy. But you can’t take away the fact that abortion ends life.
If ending the life of the most precious and innocent is what makes your clock tick. More power to you. I would rather see less killing especially of the defenseless.
“On its face, what it looks like is that they just read a letter submitted by the accused saying he was not guilty and dismissed it. It’s moved from being odd to absurd. Kansas’ judiciary has almost become a laughingstock in the rest of the country.”. . . Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, on the sham review and dismissal by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications of the ethics complaint against baby-hating, corrupt Judge Paul Clark, who is shocked – SHOCKED – to find that Tiller’s abortion lobby hasbeen funding his election campaigns with contract killing profits. . .Judge Clark is guilty of more than the failure to recuse himself when DA Foulston dragged him by his twisted arm into this case. He is guilty of furthering his political career, and furthering the promise of a few more campaign”donations”, by stepping on the backs of illegally killed viable babies.You don’t stoop much lower than that.Defeat Judge Clark’s 2008 reelection campaign.
“If you want to call and unborn baby a fetus…”
It’s not what I want to call it. It’s what it *is.* I’m not the person who makes up words or writes the dictionaries or things like the 14th Amendment.
Words mean what they mean, Sol. No amount of calling me a baby-killer is going to change that. The Constitution says what it says. No amount of saying I hate children will change that, either.
Every woman knows what being pregnant means. No woman that I have ever met says in triviality “well, I didn’t feel like using a condom, because I figured I could just get an abortion later.” That’s what you and Ksgrm were pushing earlier, and that’s where this argument started.
If I’m a baby-killer because I support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own body, fine. Call me a baby-killer. But that name calling that you’ve been engaged in for three hours says a WHOLE lot more about you than it says about me.
TTFN
womens rights. Womens rights. Lets not do anything but preach women’s rights…..
Oh yeah, and talk about storks.
How about trying to end the need for an abortion. Haven’t heard a peep from you on that one Tom. Women’s rights. Womens rights. End a few more -pregnancies-
THE BRENTWOOD CONSTITUTIONAL AND CONSUMER LAW CENTER
For Immediate Release Contact: Anne E. Brown http://bjbrownsblog.blogspot.com/April 24, 2007 (785) 272-8997FORMER SUMMER OF MERCY RESCUER APPLAUDS COMMISSION’S EXHONERATION OF JUDGE PAUL CLARK ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGEBryan J. Brown, who served as a Deputy Attorney General under former Attorney General Phill Kline, applauds the Commission on Judicial Qualification’s dismissal of the ethics complaint recently filed against Judge Paul Clark.“I had advised those who sought my counsel that Judge Paul Clark would not sell out for campaign contributions, no matter how he personally viewed the abortion issue,” Brown recently recounted. “All pro-lifers,” he added, “should join me in congratulating Judge Paul Clark for being cleared of these charges.”Brown stood in the dock before Judge Paul Clark in 1991. He was on trial as a result of arrests during Wichita’s Summer of Mercy. Judge Clark exonerated Brown on the charges leveled against him by the City. Judge Clark’s precedent-setting ruling also exonerated hundreds of other pro-lifers who were arrested during Wichita’s Summer of Mercy protests sixteen year ago.“It is my experience,” Brown further noted, “that Judge Clark is a principled jurist who follows the letter and spirit of the law, not the pragmatic path more commonly chosen.”Brown drew upon his own experience before Judge Clark to explain his high regard for the Kansas jurist:“The City of Wichita used two laws to arrest rescuers during the Summer of Mercy. One was a state trespass law, used against those who were arrested upon abortion clinic property. The other was a city ordinance against loitering, employed to arrest those impeding traffic on public property. The City made over 2000 arrests in about three weeks in July, 1991. The bulk of those arrests were on loitering charges.I was arrested five times the first eight days of the pro-life activities that fateful summer. Most of those arrests were charged as loitering. I pled “no contest” to the first, as advised by pro-life counsel, and immediately paid the $25 fine. I then rejected the advice of counsel and pled “not guilty” to the remainder of the charges. I instead sought my day in court.The City of Wichita determined it best to drop three of the charges against me and proceed to trial with just one. That one charge was loitering. I represented myself before the municipal judge, using that golden opportunity to lecture him on how the nation’s abortion jurisprudence was an affront to Natural Law and the historic foundations of the American Republic. I moved his Honor to such a degree that he leveled the maximum fine of $500 against me, opining that his only regret was that he could not jail me on the ordinance conviction.I appealed the ruling and my case was then docketed in the District Court of Sedgwick County. It was assigned to the Honorable Judge Paul Clark. At the trial, and after the City had put on its case, his Honor asked me to tender my closing argument to him in writing. This was more than a year before I started law school. Undaunted by my lack of legal acumen, I filed a brief arguing that I did not loiter, building my argument of innocence upon the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.Judge Paul Clark pretty much ignored my amateurish briefing. He also ignored the United States Constitution. Judge Paul Clark instead authored a very well written memorandum opinion applying the free speech and freedom of worship clauses of the Kansas Constitution to the facts at bar. In that brief Clark demonstrated his thorough understanding of Kansas history, his deep respect for the framers of the Kansas constitution and his admirable ability to judge without cognizance of the political implications of the ruling. Judge Paul Clark’s lengthy memorandum opinion thus demonstrates both his intellectual acumen and courage as a judicial officer. Judge Paul Clark disappointed the City of Wichita by finding me not guilty, and by further informing the City that the use of their loitering ordinance to arrest worshippers who are petitioning the government for a redress of grievances constituted an affront to the Kansas constitution.His February 18, 1992 order plainly states that the City of Wichita’s arrest of me was “contrary to law.” That ruling left the City wide open to federal litigation. (If I had only known then what I know now!)In other words, Judge Clark ruled that it was the City of Wichita, and not Bryan J. Brown and hundreds of his pro-life compatriots, who had violated Kansas law during the Summer of Mercy! Issuing such a ruling in Wichita in 1992 took much moral courage and intellectual honesty.Judge Clark’s courageous and well thought out ruling was a breath of fresh air when compared to the overreaching statism that federal Judge Patrick Kelly was demonstrating in the same time frame. Judge Kelly’s public tirades and overbroad proclamations were later rebuked and reversed.The City appealed Judge Clark’s ruling. The City lost that appeal on a technicality. While I did little to hasten that loss, it was my first win on appeal. Justice Abbott authored the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision. It can be located in any Kansas law library. Ask the librarian for The City of Wichita v. Bryan J. Brown, 253 Kan. 626 (1993). (Unfortunately the High Court did not replicate Judge Clark’s memorandum opinion in its opinion.)Judge Paul Clark’s memorandum opinion setting me free from the $500 fine and finding Wichita “guilty” of misapplying its loitering law remains the law of Kansas. Judge Paul Clark exonerated me from the charge of breaking city law. I am pleased to be able to congratulate the good judge on his exoneration from the charge that he allowed the same trifling amount to blind his view of Lady Justice.I knew that justice was not for sale in Judge Paul Clark’s courtroom. I hope that all Kansans now share my opinion on that subject.”Judge Paul Clark’s February 18, 1992 ruling will be made available to any who request the same through Bryan J. Brown’s blog at http://bjbrownsblog.blogspot.com/.
Sol,I worked for about four years as a clinic support volunteer at several clinics. It was my job to stand between the clients and the howling fundies. I also checked the client’s ID’s and scanned for weapons. I often talked with clients while waiting for the next one.Let’s dispel a few myths:First- I saw very few underage girls come in- less that a dozen in four years- and those were always accompanied by one or both parents. The one that really got to me was a nine-year-old girl who had, according to her mother, been raped by her sunday-school teacher.Second, many if not most of the women who came there were married and already had children. I heard a lot of stories about getting laid off and losing health-care coverage. Others had the family they wanted, and the pill, or whatever other method of birth control failed. Many simply couldn’t afford another child.Third- very few were repeat clients. Given the cost of birth control vs. cost of an abortion, nobody with half a brain would use abortion as a primary means of birth control. We did run into a few teenage girls who thought that birth control was immoral because it was planning to have sex, but if sex “just happened,” it was okay. Between their situation and the clinic personnel, they got set straight.Now I don’t know anyone, and that includes the doctors, who thinks abortion is a great thing. We’d all much rather avoid the situation to begin with. Unfortunately, that will never be 100% sucessful; but with real education (not propaganda) and increased availability and reliability of birth control, health insurance, and meaningful aid for poor couples and single mothers, we can certainly make a significant dent in the numbers. Doesn’t that make more sense than giving jobs back to the illegal abortionists?
Phill Kline took money from anti-abortionists like Troy Newman but he never recused himself from abortion related issues. The antis have to come up with some actual corruption stories before they accuse politicians and judges of being corrupt. Until then the anti-choice folks are just making unsupported defamatory comments.
Jed,I have stopped with the end all abortions argument months ago. What I am spouting about these days is pretty much what you are saying – EDUCATE and bring up responsible children.
Parents who teach their kids that birth control is immoral should be slapped, and slapped hard and often.
My whole argument is that abortion is disgusting. Fighting about abortion is pointless. What EVERYONE should be fighting for is to end the NEED for abortion.
The only thing I can think of is education kids. Make your kids understand that abortion is taking a life and should be the very last choice. IMHO abortion should only be used to save lives or in the cases of rape and molestation.
I think that there should be a gov’t funded program to meet the needs of EVERY child. Medical, education, and food should be available for EVERY child. If we took the money spent thus far on the Iraq war, how many babies could have been saved?
If given the choice of delivering her baby into a program like this vs. having her baby killed, I would be highly suspicious of any woman that would choose the latter.
Tom I will expound on my posting of statistics about the women who get abortions. At the age of 20 any women can get birth control on her own. She can use said birth control when she is anticipating having sex. If she is the kind of person that is controlled by her passion, she must be a lib according to Kev, she should take something like the pill, or have the cartridges inserted in her arm, or use an IUD, there any many ways she could avoid getting pregnant.
Knowing that abortion is available is a good solution to cover bad judgement. Animals mate indiscriminately. We are not animals. We have minds and controls.
And your stupid argument that until a baby is born it doesn’t become a baby is just your male ignorance speaking. Any woman who has carried a baby can tell you that from that first movement at about 4 months you know you are carrying a baby and not a blob of tissue.
Sad to say this is the same argument that was used by slave owners to justify controling slaves, they weren’t really people so it was ok. Do you believe that to be true? Well I don’t believe that anymore than I think that a woman has the right to kill a viable baby just because it hasn’t been born yet.
Give that man a cigar.
Sol,”If we took the money spent thus far on the Iraq war, how many babies could have been saved?”Both American and Iraqi babies.
granny,Yes, women can get birth control, and should. The same insurance that pays for Viagra should pay for it. Unfortunately, no method of birth control is 100% effective.
Sol, I’ll get behind you on that. We need to quit punishing women for having babies. Finances should not be the reason so many women have abortions, but it is, and it’s legitimate right now. We need a volunteer program for women who need a break and their families are not available. Somewhere where a woman in need can be matched with a family who would be willing to take the baby at any time for emergencies. That might cut down on abuse and neglect as well.
I’d really like to see education centers for these women, not just to get GED’s, but like outreach from college programs that are free or seriously reduced so they can get degrees. Then the women won’t need to be supported forever.
I have a question about Bryan Browns comments stated above.
It says that the judge ignored the constitution and sided with Kansas law. Doesn’t the Federal law trump Kansas law?
I have no problem with protesting, but what these people did that year was beyond protest. They made a royal pain in the ass of themselves by blocking access, blocking traffic.
Sol your comments to Tom are off the mark. FORCING mothers into parenthood when they don’t want to be as a punishment is not the answer. You cannot guilt them for not being responsible enough because they already feel enough guilt.
NO woman makes the decision lightly. It’s usually a very a painful, life changing event. But having a baby is too. And guilt rules when you can’t care for it either.
I will support that we should try to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but there will always be need for abortion. Stop the guilting.
Pmom you are projecting your own feelings into the minds and hearts of all the women who choose abortion. You couldn’t possibly know that NO woman makes this decision lightly. I have friends that have had abortions and some are just relieved that the problem will go away but to some it wasn’t anything more emotional that having a boil lanced. I have one friend that had her first abortion at 16 and her second at 21. Fifteen years later she is suffering from extreme depression and can’t stop thinking about the children she didn’t have. I understand that this is not all that unusual. This is why I have serious doubts about a teens ability to get an abortion without parental consent eventhough a teacher can’t even give them an aspirin without parental consent.
I know all the arguments, incestual relationships, rapes, father/mother unreasonable, etc… Not all situations are like this and parental right should be honored more that they are.
Abortion isn’t in danger of becoming illegal anytime soon but I hope more controls are in place to make it a rare procedure
Bryan; I agree with you. Thank you speaking up for Judge Clark. I am pro-life, but when Operation Rescue decided to file an ethics complaint against Judge Clark, they made a bad decision.
I wonder sometimes whether the pro-life leadership believes that this battle is for the hearts of people. Winning that battle is the only way the number of abortions will be reduced. The impression that some of the more strident actions (like this one) leave is negative to the uncommitted person, and thus unhelpful in the big picture.
Controls? No. If there was a woman who took a procedure like an abortion as if it was getting a boil lanced, she should not be having children in the first place. But I suppose you know the deep recesses of their minds? Maybe they just chose not to share how they felt with you?
People put on a lot of faces and fronts, especially with people they know disagree or disapprove of something they’ve done.
I’m sorry for the 21 year old having a hard time with her decision, she should get counseling. And at 21, she should also realize by now that raising babies isn’t easy for someone who was as young as she was. Depression happens for a lot of reasons, compounded by other reasons.
Granny,I can’t say there are NO women who make that decision lightly- there are always going to be stupid people around- but having had contact with many women who did decide to, I can say that I never met one who didn’t think it through. Also, having known a number who had abortions, I’ve only met one, a catholic- who felt guilty about it. That includes a woman who at age 94 told me about the abortion she had in 1931. She and her husband went on to raise two of the finest sons anyone could, and she continued her career as a teacher well into her 90’s.I can’t say that I haven’t met women who didn’t think through having children. There have been quite a few of those; their children suffered, some horribly!
Abortion restrictions work so well…that’s why Today, the highly Catholic nation of Mexico voted to legalize it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/mexico_abortion
Why would a Catholic nation do this? Because of all the women who are being butchered by illegal ones. The estimated number of women hurt is enormous.
Jed, I suppose that children that don’t exist anymore are no problem at all to their mothers.Weak arguments to justify abortion. Mom thinks she isn’t ready for a child. Or children might have challenges in their lives. I would submit that they are not qualified to judge whether a life is worth living.
I’m qualified as the mother of that child to decide if I want my child to suffer a horrible life or not.
Pmom and Jed what I was saying was that no one could know what was on someone elses mind or heart when the abortion happened. And Pmom the reason I knew about these in the first place was because they trusted me and needed someone who would listen and not judge. The 21 year old told me after the fact. My first episode with this was a 17 year old girl who was working for me at the time. She had to drive to Tulsa to get it. She was Catholic and very conflicted. Afraid to tell her parents not because she was afraid of them but because she knew morally they wouldn’t agree with her. I have often wondered how she has handled it in the years since then.
The funny thing was at that time I had no firm opinion about abortion, after I moved to Wichita and saw that truck with the graphic pictures for the first time I knew I could never look at abortion in the same light again.
No, you’re not Mom. Especially if the “reason” is economic disadvantage. Abortions for that reason are wrong. Every time. No exceptions.
Pmom what is different from that and what the lady in Texas did to her children. She thought that if they had lived they would have been corrupted so if she did away with them early so that wouldn’t happen. Granted there is an age difference but you both wanted what was right for your child.
Out,”Especially if the “reason” is economic disadvantage. Abortions for that reason are wrong. Every time. No exceptions.”If that’s your argument, then isn’t, by extension, economic disadvantage itself a moral issue that should never be allowed? When did you turn communist?
Granny,If that’s your reason, then you’ve been had! Take it from someone who uses it every day, those pictures have been photoshopped within an inch of their lives to make them look gruesome!
Jed boby parts are body parts. No way around that. If your stomach doesn’t turn when you see them then you have become very jaded. Whether you draw the same conclusion that I do is immaterial but you can’t tell me what is real and what isn’t or how to react to something like this.
That is your opinion Outlander, but not mine. Economics has a lot to do with things.
Remember when a mother was berated for locking her kids in a trunk while she worked because she had no daycare? Poverty keeps women down where they can’t pull themselves up. It’s a hopeless feeling situation. Depression, suicide, drugs.
But that wasn’t what I was referring to when I made that statement and you know it.
I was referring to watching your child suffer.
Well if gruesome images are all it takes to change your opinion, here I’ll find some for you.
Here’s a nice one on depleted uranium and what it does to babies.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thecedarsoflebanonweep.com/DUB54.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thecedarsoflebanonweep.com/&h=485&w=352&sz=19&hl=en&start=102&um=1&tbnid=yVS13D40Nel0VM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=94&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedical%2Bimages%2Bbirth%2Bdefects%26start%3D100%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enUS218US218%26sa%3DN
agent orange
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bhopal.net/otherbhopals/archives/dioxin_affected_child.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bhopal.net/otherbhopals/archives/2006/05/three_decades_l.html&h=600&w=450&sz=14&hl=en&start=153&um=1&tbnid=J_H1zd30swy_xM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedical%2Bimages%2Bbirth%2Bdefects%26start%3D140%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enUS218US218%26sa%3DN
More DU
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://files.blog-city.com/files/A05/141484/p/f/dubaby.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tabacco.blog-city.com/depleted_nuclear_weapons_genocide__thats_right__the_united_s.htm&h=352&w=414&sz=39&hl=en&start=208&um=1&tbnid=l-1OjcOAaeFwAM:&tbnh=106&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmedical%2Bimages%2Bbirth%2Bdefects%26start%3D200%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enUS218US218%26sa%3DN
Or this painful condition
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Muscle_Neuro/Basics/EpidermolysisBullosa_Sm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pediatric-orthopedics.com/Topics/Muscle_Neuro/Basics/body_basics.html&h=262&w=259&sz=29&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=jcjB0VUD-33hZM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Depidermolysis%2Bbullosa%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GFRC_enUS218US218%26sa%3DN
So if these were your children…
Yes, they’re extreme cases.
Are any of these things involved in the abortion debate in Wichita, Kansas. I am sure there are baby with deformities. What makes you think my family has been spared?
I’m sorry that you don’t look at the body of a baby, easily identified as such, and feel the revulsion that I feel. But that doesn’t make it any less real for me.
In a perfect world no one would have diseases, deformities, retardation, or any other malady that afflicts man. But we are not in a perfect world. What if we started looking at every baby before they were born and rejected some because of sexual preference, or some other trait some might find wrong, would this upset you? There are many people with Down’s Syndrome children that think they have been blessed. Would you have denied those children life? When mere humans start deciding these things that slippery slope get much steeper.
No hard feelings, got to call it a night. Life calls.
I do look at a baby as a baby. In a perfect world we wouldn’t need abortion. We were discussing why people have abortions, and someone said we can’t decide as parents if our children would suffer.
Do any of you think these kids didn’t or don’t or wouldn’t suffer?
Pretty good debate here today – so nice to see no name calling etc ….
I’ve always been pro choice, believing in the right for all of us to chart our own destiny — but after watching Bill Maher (please don’t skewer me — he can be like Bob here, funny, amusing with his poignant challenges, etc, but I don’t agree with everything he says — anyway….)
He had a British Conservative Gentleman on this weeks program who in rather graphic detail ( I don’t need pictures to all the time ) talked about abortions in the 3rd tri-mester — I haven’t yet changed tunes on being pro-choice yet — but it certainly made me pause and wonder and …. WINCE (a term I think he used to describe the fetuses reaction to the procedure), my stomach turned — it is a tough choice for any woman —
(Until hearing him, I honestly had not paid much if any attention to the third trimester debate and any pics of aborted fetuses [I still have no desire to see the pics] …. believing that it is a womans right to choose, pretty much ended the debate for me)
I would not accuse any woman of being a murderer for having an abortion – and I won’t pretend to know the agony of the decision — no matter — as everyone else she has a right to choose and answer to her own conscience and her god, no one else. The third tri – mester description has caused me to rethink — at least the 3rd trimester portion of the discussions …. jury is out for me at the moment on that …
Thought just crossed my mind, from what I remember from my parents stories and rumors around the school (Catholic Grammar School – at one of the largest parishes in Chicago) — unwanted babies were dropped off at the rectory or convent for them to care for the baby — and in some cases, parents would send their daughters to the nuns “Mother House” to have the children who would then be put into Catholic orphanages, we thought it was part of what the Church was supposed to do, provide comfort and care for mother and child — that issue (religious organzations providing a relief valve — so to speak) has been discussed here before —- do similar things still occur as an alternative to abortion?
(Although I still consider myself Catholic [I was an altar boy til i was a Senior in High School] — I am not a regular practioner — haven’t been since I was about 30, when many of the things the church was doing or not doing — seemed to be guided by politics / economics as opposed to religious precepts .. but thats another thread another day …
Good night all — Cookies for everyone !!!!
We took a step back from laughinstock of the country when we voted out Kline.
I have always been severely out of step with my fellow libertarians on this issue. I could call myself Pro-Choice, but it would be inaccurate. The way I see it, you drop your drawers you made your choice. It does not matter if you are the male or the female because there is a third party involved.
Our society has condoned murder of a living human being simply by legal definition. That is morally reprehensible.
Ah the punishment defense. yeah good one. Children are punishment.
Should I understand then that death is not to be considered punishment for the unborn because they committed no crime?
I suppose then we are left to call them victims, and the crime is murder.
No, they’re not victims, and it’s not a punishment to the unborn.
granny,I spent most of my life working and living with people with disabilities. Some families have sufficient strength and resources to deal with disabled children, and they and their children are a joy to behold. I met a lesbian couple a few years ago who had adopted six special-needs kids, and I’ve never seen a happier, more cared-for, joyous family. Of course it helps if one parent is a pediatrician and gets free medical help from colleagues and makes a good income, and there’s plenty of love to go round.Unfortunately, it doesn’t take too much less than a perfect situation for the needs of a disabled child to destroy a family. The demands on time, where one family member requires 80% of the available attention for years deprives other children of necessary parenting and leaves a marriage in name only; money, where medical bills far outstrip insurance caps, and debts can mount literally into the many hundreds of thousands, leaving nothing for any decent life for any of them; any semblance of hope, when every emotion the family has left is nowhere near enough.Only the people involved are in a position to know what they can or can’t do. You have no business dictating to them what they must do, based only on your interpretation of some religious doctrine. It’s their decision to make; let them make it in as much peace as possible. In other words, Butt Out!
Jed you have absolutely no reason to jump on me for my beliefs. I think that abortion is reprehensible because I am a human being. My relegious views were never brought into it.
You paint a really horrible picture of a family forced to care for a disabled child while pretending that you are the only one who knows how this would impact a family.
My sister has a severly handicapped son. He was the youngest of 4 children. The kids all loved him and helped care for him. My sister was forced to work because the expenses were high but he never went without care. At the age of 13 he choked on something he was eating and wasn’t able to be saved.
I guess you and Pmom think he would have been better to never have been born. He was loved, cared for, his family stayed together, he was missed when he died. He was just part of our family and all the cousins helped watch and care for him at reunions and family gatherings. I think it made them more compassionate people.
Please don’t make blankets statements assigning blame on things you know nothing about.
Granny,You apparently didn’t read the whole post. Of course a family can care for a disabled child. I took care of my daughter through years of problems associated with her brain tumor. Fortunately, she mostly recovered in her late teens; unfortunately the radiation she was treated with at the time killed her 32 years later.Of course it can work, if everything else works. That doesn’t always happen. I have seen too many families for which the burden was too much, and it destroyed the child and everyone else in the family. Parents who only saw each other when they were too exhausted to even talk because the husband was working two or more jobs and the mother was dealing not only with the needs of the child, but everything else, children who were forced into responsibilities they were far too young to handle or denied attention and care because of a disabled sibling, crippling debts and doctors who refused to take them as patients because they couldn’t pay, employers who fired them because they were called home to care for a child too many times, etc, etc. I have seen marriages dissolve when the father can’t cope with a mother whose sole obsession is her disabled child.I knew a family that became homeless when collection agencies took their house and car and the husband lost his job because the car was required, his wages were being garnished, and the company’s insurance company refused to cover him.I lived next door to a disabled child who died when he was placed in a hell hole you couldn’t comprehend after his mother died of a stress-related illness.Yes, it can be done. It isn’t easy in the best of circumstances. Would the child be better off dead? In a few cases, I would have to say yes. Who decides? Certainly not someone who will never have to cope with whatever situation they create.
It looks like I will have to pass on the possible filing with the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications. One of the requirements is that the matter and actions cannot be made public. The bright sunlight is the best cure for things completed in darkness,so I will pass.
Political “Mom”,
Where is your compassion?
You want to help women because you think they cannot make as much money as men.
You want give-aways to people in poverty because they cannot help themselves.
However when it actually comes to a helpless individual you simply define them as non-human and cease to care.
Grm, there is no question the toll disabilities take on the entire family. My daughter created a support group for siblings of children with disabilities, because they do get left out. Divorce rates are highest among our groups as well.
I have a mother of 4 , 2 auties, whose husband just walked out on them because of the stress. Now who will provide for them? She can’t work because she has to care for her two. She got kicked out of her house and had to move halfway across the country to move back in with her abusive mother because she had nowhere else to go. THAT is the kind of stuff that happens to our families.
I was so stressed out that I almost committed suicide a few years back. My husband forced me to get help. It’s damn hard.
PM it’s not that I cease to care. I don’t want them to happen, but it’ll be a cold day in hell before I put a fetus before the mother’s wellbeing.
P_Mom,Then you start looking at ‘designer babies’. If parents pick and choose, then where do you draw the line?
In order to make abortion rare, you have to face what abortion is. A fetus is a baby. Abortion kills that baby. I don’t think raising ANY baby is a walk in the park. It takes responsibility, patience, leadership, loving, caring, and a plethora of other traits.
To marginalize ending a life is a disservice to everyone. Parenthood is not a punishment; it is a natural result of an action taken by two adults (in most cases). And in the same breath you say that abortion is not a punishment for the baby? Of course it is. The baby is being punished for living. Its punishment is death.
To make abortions rare, you have to educate people to protect themselves, be responsible, and that abortion kills.
Political Mom,
Two things and I am going to let this thread go.
1. Mother’s wellbeing only applies when there is a choice between the life of the mother or the child. As is consistent with my basic philosophy, people should face the financial hardships born of their choices.2. I apologize for changing your name in my previous post. It really bugs me when people do that to me. I should not have done that to you.
“I would submit that they are not qualified to judge whether a life is worth living.”
Who could possibly be the final authority on this subject? And I am restricting this question to those of us on this earthly dimension.
Steven,EXACTLY !!!!!!!
Proudman,What about when someone’s pants were pulled down against their will?
Should a woman be forced to bear a child that she did not choose to have when her immediate physical health is not at jeopardy?
Where and does an individual lose the ability to choose what happens to their body?
I can feel something kicking and moving inside me right now. What right do you have to tell me what to do about/with it? Whatever it is, whatever you call it, it is inside of and a part of me.Why do you act like what is inside me more important than me? Do you care more about its welfare than mine?
(BTW: I think it is the Mexican food from lunch moving in there)