As the legal fight continues over whether a Sedgwick County grand jury can have access to 2,000 patient records of abortion provider George Tiller, some may view such a handover as justifiable because they’ve decided Tiller is breaking the state’s late-term abortion law.
But as we say in today’s editorial, people go to the doctor expecting privacy, and “there’s something chilling about the idea of 15 strangers on a grand jury poring over someone’s patient records and discussing and second-guessing her medical and sexual history and mental health — even if she is nameless.†And as this latest petition-mandated grand jury probe of Tiller proceeds, we can’t help but wonder how many more are still to come.
171 Comments
Has the Eagle worried about the “privacy rights” of the Medical Doctor from Haysville, who is being prosecuted for narcotic prescription irregularities?
Has the Eagle ever worrieda bout the “privacy rights” of patients, when Medical Doctors are prosecuted for Medicare or Medicaid or other Insurance Fraud?
We do have laws in this country.
Stop treating abortion clinics like they are expempt from our laws, like some foreign embassy.
Tiller is no “diplomat” and he doesn’t have “diplomatic immunity” of any type.
You do not give a rip about the “privacy rights” of patients.
You are protecting a late term abortionist.
That is your ONLY motivation.
Otherwise, you would be concerned when we force our OTHER laws, against Medical Doctors who do not do abortions.
Not taking sides on this one.
However, I wouldn’t know what I was looking at viewing medical records. I’ve looked at mine and there is some stuff I have no clue what it was suppose to say.
I would say that misinterpretation of technical information (records) could cause wrong conclusions to be drawn.
But, that’s me.
Didn’t I hear about electronic acess to medical records from Obama last night? I guess he was trying to help us from outselves. Medical records are private and we don’t need the friendly lawyers involved.
GOOD illustration Richard Crowson!
Spot on!
Excellent point Econ101. To preserve patient privacy, the records are redacted of personal information. But it’s not a privacy issue anyway, or the Eagle would be raising hell about every case where patient records were turned over the authorities.
What’s up with that Rhonda???
Tiller fights any attempt at oversight. Tiller is not concerned with patient rights or privacy. He is only concerned with keeping his despicalble practice going.
We have laws concerning the medical profession. Patients have a right to expect that the medical professional that operates under the license issued by the state is following the laws of that state.
Tiller should not be exempt from following the law. He makes millions from his abortion on demand practice and he is known internationally for his late term abortions.
These records will be redacted of all personal information prior to being seen by the grand jury.
There is also responsibility of the patient in this matter. If the patient seeks an abortion that is illegal in Kansas then they can no longer expect nor be allowed the ‘right’ of privacy when their medical records are involved.
SOME folks have nose trouble.
As in keeping their nose out of other people’s decisions?
Paul, I think something downright WRONG is going on with that prosecution of the doctor from Haysville. There is just simply no way this man gave unreasonable amounts of narcotics away without someone realizing it before now.
This is the thing that stinks about the investigation…that Tiller has not been found guilty by any court, no entity…and the OR people are allowed by law to continue this insane harassment has got to stop.
I want the law changed so that they can no longer call a grand jury investigation. If a patient has issues, let them bring a lawsuit just as any other patient would do. If the state finds wrongdoing, let them act in the same fashion as they would with other doctors. But STOP harassing a doctor and his patients simply because YOU DON”T LIKE what is going on. That’s wrong.
EXCELLENT cartoon Crowson.
“even if she is nameless.””
How can the above statement and “privacy” concerns be in the same discussion?
Perhaps Kansas should amend it’s Constitution to reflect stronger privacy rights. This is what Alaska has in their Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section.
It only needs to be added because some politicians need it spelled out for them.
That’s a lot of records for Bill O’Reilly to broadcast! It may take several shows to get through all of them. And it could take weeks for his high-dollar private detectives to put names to all of them, but it would be worth every cent in ratings!
If privacy is no longer of any concern, maybe someone should publish the medical (and divorce court and tax) records of OR members. I’m sure there are some disgustingly juicy details there for the country to snigger about. How ’bout it OR? You show us yours first!
Paul - I have had the same concern about the Haysville case. In that case, however, a lot is being initiated BY patients or families.
Ben none of these lawsuits went forward until the first invasion of his clinic. I’m unsure about this one but do realize that many people function daily because of their access to pain meds. Sorry that is just a reality.
Pmom as far as tiller is concerned. He has never turned over all the records he was supposed to in any investigation. His high priced lawyers have always stopped that from happening. If they didn’t some judge would just throw the case out. Or some AG would refuse to prosecute.
Let it go forward and if nothing is provable let it die a natural death. Anyone who is a health or insurance professional knows that no personal marker will be allowed in these records. No harm - no fowl.
What’s to fear from the truth.
Doug this isn’t a privacy right case no matter what Crowson thinks.
“Let it go forward and if nothing is provable let it die a natural death.”
I think it has done that several times. Kind of like that Arena vote - they kept doing it again and again until they got the result they wanted.
The grand Jury process is a right granted to the people from the state, the people on the grand Jury are subject to silence about any aspect of the case. no difference then being on a jury, their findings can only be presented to a Judge.
Fleet said it and it bears repeating.
“EVEN IF SHE IS NAMELESS”
IF that is the case then this whole debate is about nothing. There is no privacy issue.
Ben I have to disagree. There has always been some legal move which stopped the process. Never have all of the records been turned over after all pertinent markers were redacted. I’m not sure it will even happen here. The lawyers are kicking and screaming to stop it from happening and their accomplices like Rhonda and Crowson are beating the old privacy viotation drum.
I say let it go forward.
Heckler - with enough information in a medical record the patient CAN be identified. Just redacting the specific ID information does not safeguard - especially when OR already has photographs and identities of the patients overall.
Ben look at the HIPAA law. There are specific markers that must be removed before a patients records is ever released to anyone other that the patient or a physician she has been referred to. The same standards are in place for insurance companies.
I went to school for two years on this before it became law. It bears very heavy fines for any failure to do this.
This is a red herring and has no bearing on this case.
At some point, should the Grand Jury find something for which an indictment may be handed down, the identity of the individual(s) will need to be known, IMO. I’m trying hard to think of a case that might be tried upon the redacted records alone, and am having difficulty coming up with one. Well, I can come up with an example, a case involving no more than faulty record keeping that might violate some statute. I think that type of case has been filed before, and dismissed.
VT what do you propose we do here. Many people think a law has been violated. How do we find out? If indeed a patient came in for a third trimester abortion and knew it was illegal who is the victim here? Do we just let that slide?
I have lots of questions with no answers. As with lots of legal matters it has to run it’s course before we know.
Also if Tiller is violating the law then why not go after him as viguously as Schneider?
Didn’t Tiller use the Mental Harm to justify the abortions? I mean, that’s what that case where the other Doctor was a consultant to Tiller.
I think that was the exception to the statute.
I believe Reg that the violation was that the second doc signing off on the mental harm diagnosis couldn’t be employed by or work under the first doctor.
ksgrm, I’m not proposing anything right now, just pointing out what to me seems obvious. At some point, the identity of any patients who have received alleged unlawful abortions will need to come out in some form, if for no other reason than to show the patient received a third trimester abortion; using your example, she knew it was unlawful (I think, ksgrm, you should restate that; the patient’s knowledge of the lawfulness of the abortion is not relevant to what I believe the Grand Jury is investigating, the knowledge that is relevant is that of the doctor(s) involved).
While there are procedures that might be used to protect the identity, the same are not fool proof, and raise other issues within a criminal trial context.
That said; I think that insofar as the Grand Jury proceeding is concerned, the members of the body should be entitled to see the records, properly and fully redacted, to see if probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed. The tricky part, again IMO, is in the trial of any case brought under the indictments, assuming that a “Mary Doe” type indictment is legally sufficient. In other words, is an indictment alleging that the Defendant did, on a certain date, perform an abortion upon a patient identified as “Mary Doe”, which abortion violated the provisions of (insert statute number here) sufficient to apprise the defendant of the crime alleged to have been committed by him? I don’t know the answer to this.
Like you, I await the decision of the appellate court on this issue.
VT a legal question: Not sure of the answer. If during the process of the grand jury a violation of the third trimester abortion was found - would the patients who sought same be guilty of breaking a law even if they didn’t know it was illegal? Is ignorance of the law a defense?
Just wondering. I see many more things coming out as this plays out. It will be interesting.
ksgrm, I’ve not looked at the relevant statutes, and don’t plan on so doing, but I’ve a feeling that there are none which would impose criminality upon the patient. If there is such, then another interesting wrinkle appears; assuming that the confidentiality of the patient’s identity may be preserved, she would then have every right to assert her Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination in appearing as a witness against the doctor in the doctor’s criminal trial. She might be able to bargain for immunity if the prosecution determined her testimony was critical. On and on.
Thanks for the reply. Just curious. I guess I know why my youngest sons first word was ‘why’. He hears it a lot from me. Gotta go.
Of course the Wichita Eagle is so concerned about privacy. Sure they are:
http://www.kansas.com/473/story/298066.html
http://www.kansas.com/485/story/296462.html
http://www.kansas.com/485/story/294614.html
The Eagle is not concerned about patient rights or any right to privacy.
And was any information from Ms. Spears’ medical records a part of any of these stories? No, from reading ProudMan’s links. Seems like comparing green beans and oranges to me.
If your point, ProudMan, is that these stories should not have been published initially, well, I disagree again, but not on a privacy basis. While I think newsprint and bandwith are wasted with stories such as these, there are those interested in them who will buy papers, watch media reports, etc., which allow the print and other media to charge more for advertising, which, after all, is the business part of the media.
When one is in public, such as Ms. Spears’ parents, and is seen going into a courthouse, there is no privacy expectation there. When a media person such as Dr. Phil makes it known his involvement in a high profile matter (BTW, to increase his ratings IMO), there might be an ethical question raised, but as to himself, he’s waived any right to privacy. When a “friend”, hungry for his/her fifteen minutes of fame, makes statements to a person involved in the media, knowing the same will be reported, then perhaps Ms. Spears needs to evaluate her friendship with this person, but the “friend” hasn’t violated any “rights” of anyone.
Again, stories like these appear to assist the media in selling more soap.
Yes OR is so concerned about patient privacy, that’s why you’ll see so many of their press releases even items on their site by spelling out in full detail the names of people who have had abortions, as well as photos of people who are going into the clinic.
KSGRM, all the records that were supposed to be turned over were. That is factual, remember even O’Reilly got his hands on them…apparently Kline thought he could hand them out like a newspaper.
The identifying information is posted on the Operation Rescue site.
Reading the article on the hearing yesterday details defense counsel’s argument on how the names were put together with the “redacted” records, allegedly in the AG’s office, IIRC.
Spear personal life news is certainly a waste of time.
However the editorial says:
“Speaking of harassment — it was not reassuring to learn this week that Troy Newman of Operation Rescue had testified before the grand jury, suggested it acquire four years of Tiller’s records and even provided it with pictures of women entering Tiller’s clinic who were in what he believed were the late stages of pregnancy. It was bad enough that Operation Rescue has taken such photographs and posted them online.”
This is the same organization that publishes more than what Newman did about any celebrity seeking medical treatment. Rest assured if the newspapers could get their hands on Spears psych evaluation today it would be in the paper Saturday.
No doubt Ms. Spears’ psych eval would be published if it could be obtained, ProudMan. No doubt whatsoever. It would help “sell more soap” (forgot to give credit to GMC70 for this previously, as it is one of the pithy observations on the media he likes to use, and one with which I totally agree).
Since when did privacy become outside the jurisdiction of a court of law?
Don’t incite confusion about it; we have drawn the line on all legal issues in a court of law.
The most powerful people in the world are not able to supersede themselves above the law and should not.
Even God does not supersede his own laws, so why should man be an exception?
A patient has no absolute right to privacy which supercedes the law.
Why is it, that in the case of abortion, all of a sudden no laws should apply?
When an abortion clinic doesn’t meat the standards of a medical clinic set forth by the laws, all of a sudden that is ok. Who cares if they have roaches on the floor as long as they provide abortion on demand!
When an abortion clinic is providing abortions to underage kids with no parental consent, who cares, as long as they are providing those abortions on demand!
When an abortion clinic is providing ILLEGAL abortions, who cares, as long as they are providing those abortions on demand.
It is becoming fairly obvious who the extreme people are here, and it is not those like Operation Rescue. It is those who will go to any length to protect abortion on demand regardless of the legality of it.
meat = meet for all you people who love to attack spelling…
Pmom, yes there were some records handed over and one judge said they were enough to forward with. The pro aborts said he was a prejudiced judge and when the new AG came on the first thing he did was sed aside that order and refuse to prosecute.
Right or wrong let it go forward with no activist judge or AG on either side. A grand jury isn’t hand picked but should be a cross section of the community. Let them investigate and speak without interference from those with agendas.
Granny,
” …would the patients who sought same be guilty of breaking a law even if they didn’t know it was illegal? Is ignorance of the law a defense?
I’m sure you remember that back before Roe v. Wade, women were prosecuted for having abortions, and because of that, when women went to back-alley abortionists and suffered complications, too many waited too long to seek emergency treatment and died. I brought up that point to a member of OR a while back, and his response was “So what? She was a sinner and deserved to die!” Gee, and I thought christians believed in forgiveness.
Jed your obvious contemp for a question I asked says it all. You are the kind of person I would never want to converse with. And Jed the name is Ksgrm. Only my friends call me granny.
And Jed I am not now nor have I ever been associated with Operation Rescue. I do however respect their right to freedom of speech as I do yours.
Jed,
You left out a few things in your little anecdotal story.
First, how did you know that person was Christian?
Second, what that person said was obviously not very Christ like and is not representative of what most Christians believe or how they should act.
Yet, you spare no opportunity to attack Christians do you Jed?
I suppose econ has no clue on how the doctor was arrested for improper drug dispersal (Kinda how I look at it). There is a limit set by the DEA and other lettered agencies. That limit might be x amount of controlled drugs dispensed to x amount of patients. If that limit is exceeded, an investigation is ordered.
The feds don’t know who is getting the prescriptions, only that a person received them. They may send in someone as a sting operative. I suspect that is what happened.
I think there is a fine line there between pain control and misuse. I don’t think the feds do a good job understanding it. Erroring on the side of the drug laws in many cases means no pain relief for those who really need it. I also suspect the doctor is a victim of both.
Back on topic: As long as Tiller is following the law, and this is a fishing expedition, I have a problem with it. If he is not following the law, then I think the fishing expedition is still wrong, and the prosecutors need to find another way to stop him. Operation rescue needs to step back and let justice work.
By the way, I am against abortion.
JM - I think there also were a number of patient deaths and lawsuits. That tended to open the practice up with information from the Plaintiffs themselves being part of the record.
Perhaps if a number of Tiller’s patients were sueing then a similar situation would exist here.
JM,
In Kansas, it is both LAWFUL and LEGAL for a Grand Jury to be conveined in this way.
Since you are such an advocate for following the law, why are you so against this?
This is justice. If the Grand Jury doesn’t find anything then nothing will happen. If they do, then don’t you want Tiller to be brought to justice for not following the law?
Ben just a little devil’s advocate here: Who would be the person that could sue on behalf of the unborn child even if they were viable. Afterall it was their mother who sought the abortion.
JMOHO
That is the difficulty. I’m also looking at the claims being made today about patients being forced. If that happens that would make the patient a victim with standing to sue.
Yes I am afraid it will get much worse before it finishes. So many question on legalities. Hostile witnesses would be nothing new. But as VT said earlier requiring someone to testify when it could incriminate them wouldn’t happen.
I’ll watch with interest since I am a news junky.
How many times have some of us done abortion discussions now?
More than a hundred?
Let’s try something new.
I’m a single dad. So I know a little about the rigors of parenthood.
Now I can’t IMAGINE what it must be like to be a single mother pregnant with a child. But I’ll give it a try.
I’m say..?.. months pregnant. I already have 2 kids. If I work too much, I don’t qualify for aid. If I don’t work enough, I don’t qualify for aid.
I have child care expenses whenever I can work.
I am living hand to mouth.
I look at my situation and I decide for the sake of my other 2 kids that I cannot afford the expense attached to a third. To say nothing of the fact that if I continue my pregnancy, my ability to work will be limited. Too, I will have to be totally out of commission for at least a week when the baby is born. That’s IF there are no complications.
I’m on my way to get an abortion.
What do you say or do to stop me? Be honest.
JR this is a thread on legalities. Abortion is like GW - we all have our minds made up about our opinions and none of us will change. The legalities of the grand jury and patient records is the issue.
Oh and by the way, I don’t care if you have an abortion.
JR,
Have you considered adoption?
There are many parents out there that would be willing to raise your child if you don’t want him/her.
Good advise Nathan, I completely overlooked that one while considering JR having a supposed abortion.
Oh I disagree ksgrm.
This is just ANOTHER fishing expedition going after someone for something you personally don’t like.
But I understand if you do not have the courage to try a new sort of discussion. We might find out something about you!
I’ll raise the stakes.
And anybody can play. The more the merrier actually.
I am going to get an abortion. My mind is made up. YOU (anyone who wants to discuss) have it with in your power to stop me. What do you say or do to do so?
I’ve already given you my permission to have an abortion. I guess that discussion is over. Now about the legalities….
(playing the part now)
I couldn’t do that. Adopt the baby out I mean. Besides, who is gonna take care of my kids while I am in the hospital.
Please, this is hard enough. Just leave me alone.
JR this new side to you isn’t pretty. You are disgracing women by acting so much the victim. You got yourself in this mess now you and the baby daddy need to work on a solution.
JR,
Why couldn’t you give your child up for adoption? What if the kids were taken care of while you were at the hospital?
I’m just trying to have a new sort of discussion ksgrm.
Instead of the same old same old.
You folks who would like to ban abortion, I just want to see how you would tell a woman she HAS to have a baby.
You can participate or not.
Well JR there is a clinic next to Tillers clinic, It is called Choices. They will get you free medical care, find you an apartment if you need one, help with childcare when you need it, outfit the baby if you choose to have it and help you find it a good home if you go with adoption.
I think we have found an answer to your problem. Good luck.
I told you I couldn’t do adoption. I just couldn’t.
I know about that place. But they will forget about me not long after the baby is born. Please. Just let me alone.
“Have you considered adoption?
There are many parents out there that would be willing to raise your child if you don’t want him/her.”
Trying telling that to all the kids that spend most of their childhood in foster homes —
If you’re not the one adopting or finding an adopter — it’s not your fight ….. butt out
JR if you are as needy as you appear to be there are many social programs in place to help you. Choices will make sure you are on your feet and even set you up with what help is available before letting you go. They do care not only about your but about your baby who is the really innocent one here. Adoption might be a good choice for you. With open adoptions now you would be able to watch your child grow up and know that you did the right thing.
Thanks larry. I forgot about that.
In my hypothetical play, I’m black.
Also? My first two kids had some problems. It’s possible this pregnancy may not end with a pretty, healthy baby. I couldn’t do that. What kind of life is that? To grow up with no one wanting you.
It’s better if I just end the pregnancy.
Larry you are talking about something you aren’t famillar with. There are many homes available for children up for adoption.
There is however a shortage of homes for older children.
I want to stop before I go further and qualify.
I don’t want folks to ring in late and think this is for real.
I am trying a new sort of discussion as to a womans right to choose. I am NOT a woman and I will never know what it is to be pregnant. Just to be clear.
There’s no way I can know if the baby would ever be happy. It’s just wrong to bring it into that kind of world.
Two points here. Why did you allow yourself to become pregnant if you couldn’t afford it and there might be a genetic problem? Are you not famillar with birth control?
Second point which bring us back to the point of this thread. If you decide to abort then do it before the 3rd trimester. It is illegal to do it after that.
Gotta go. Good luck. Still want to know where is the daddy and why isn’t he helping you with this problem?
I gotta go myself.
Anyone is free to try this new sort of dicussion. I’ll be back later.
Look I don’t even know how I got pregnant ok? I use birth control. And I don’t want the father to know! He already stalks me. I have a restraining order against him. He beats me. I don’t even want to think about him making me marry him or him having anything to do with the baby.
Oh and before I go?
The example I am playing at above is extracted from an instance where I payed for a friend of mine to get an abortion. It’s on point except for the part about the woman being black.
One more for discussion.
I’m on my way into the clinic.
Oh great somebody took my picture! Now they’ll put it online and my psycho ex boyfriend will kill me!
Bottom line.
If there is evidence that prooves Tiller broke the law, the records should be viewed!
Food for thought:
Depleted our military and wrecked retirement benefits: “If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country. They would be paying into Social Security”
Former Sen. Zell MIller
Caused illegal immigration: “If we had those 40 million children that were killed over the last thirty years.
We wouldn’t need the illegal immigrants to fill the jobs that they are doing today”
Former speaker of the house Tom Delay
Put cops out of work: “You go from almost no abortions to one forth of pregnancies ending in abortion.
How could that not have a big impact on something? Legalized abortion was an important cause of the decline in crime”.
Freakonomics guru Steven Levitt
Created myth of global warming to justify killing babies: ”Climate liberals claim that “to save the Earth we have to reduce the human population”, widespread abortion on demand is integral to any environmental agenda”
Rev. Jim Tonkowich the institute on Religion and Democracy.
This is an interesting thought experiment, JR. Can I chime in?
“Well, I’m already pregnant. I don’t know how it happened. It was an accident. My parents are extremely strict Indians and they would disown me or worse if they knew I was pregnant. I don’t want this child, I don’t want anything to do with that horrible man.”
Lots and lots of scenarios here. Maybe the parents thing doesn’t appeal to a lot of Americans, but it’s kind of hard to place yourself in an entirely different culture.
That said, this thread is mostly focused on late term abortions, right? No woman goes through 7 months of pregnancy and then says “Whoops, I changed my mind. Get this thing out of me.”
It would have to be a compelling medical reason. And since I presume none of us are MDs, the best people to decide that would be the physician and the woman.
Well…
Once again, the point needs to be made.
Either the unborn child is a human life worth protecting or it is not.
If you don’t believe the unborn child is a human life worth protecting, then why do you need to make all these excuses? Just kill the thing.
If you do believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting, then all these excuses mean nothing. The unborn child is a life worth protecting and should be.
This is like debating about killing a 5 year old by coming up with all these excuses. It is still wrong either way. That is the way most Pro-Life people see this argument and why most Pro-Choice people sit here making all these excuses like they matter.
Your take would be EMINENTLY more invested than mine Tara. Feel free to add.
I thought this might be a new way to do an old discussion. Now it’s Friday and dead time for the blog. But let’s see what we have so far.
Well ksgrm looked down her nose and was critical of our hypothetical patient. She offered a short term answer and then really demonstrated a lot when she added “Good luck”. Nathan offered even less help and then basically started figuratively shouting “baby killer!” at our figurative woman.
Hey I gave you free and complete power in this. YOU can stop this woman from having an abortion. You have total power over her. She’s told you a little about herself and you’ve assumed some more. But you have the power to stop her. Better hurry. She’s headed into the clinic. Be honest. What will you do?
Oh you poor poor babies. Nothing is absolute, not even privacy. And how does it go, if your not doing anything wrong, it won’t matter. Besides, privacy, in today’s world of instant access, give me a break. So, we’re not even supposed to investigate to see if crimes are being committed. That’s how crimes develop, when the investigators can’t or won’t look under the rocks, or in the records.
Oh I forgot. You have total power. It doesn’t matter that our hypothetical woman is in the clinic now. But you’ll have to use your power soon.
What will you do?
JR,
If we had total power, then that abortion clinic wouldn’t exist for the woman to walk into.
I think you just used your power to outlaw a womans right to choose Nathan.
Do you wish to clarify? I don’t want to speak for you.
Put simply, if it were in your power. Just you. You would outlaw a woman’s right to choose?
And if so, what do you do to a woman who refuses to carry a pregnancy to term? Keep in mind I have give you total power over her even if she decides to go outside the law.
What do you do?
J R
Posted February 1, 2008 at 9:11 pm | Permalink
Your take would be EMINENTLY more invested than mine Tara. Feel free to add.
I thought this might be a new way to do an old discussion. Now it’s Friday and dead time for the blog. But let’s see what we have so far.
Well ksgrm looked down her nose and was critical of our hypothetical patient. She offered a short term answer and then really demonstrated a lot when she added “Good luck”.
So JR let me get this straight - because I have a different perspective than you I ‘am looking down my nose’? I offered her real help from caring people. Long term help not short term - pay me the money and get out of here help.
Please explain your statement so I won’t think you are the biggest hypocrite here.
Well duh JR.
Of course I don’t agree with the so called womans “right to choose.”
I would indeed outlaw abortions except for those which would be deemed a serious threat to the life of the mother.
I thought that was clear from my posts here over the past few years.
I would probably make it some form of manslaughter for the person who does terminate the pregnancy.
For the mother who hires someone to terminate the pregnancy or does it herself I am not sure what punishment would be used.
Probably not anything resulting with a prison sentence unless it is habitual.
I gave you more power than that Nathan.
Let’s see what you will do with it. I do applaud you your honesty.
Abortion is illegal. You have made it so. Now our hypothetical woman is going to get an illegal abortion. Forget what you would do to her after the fact. Your goal is to stop her.
What do you do?
“Ksgrm”? What have I mis stated? YOU offered your help. Almost simultaneously you blamed the woman her predicament and told her “Good luck”.
Now you have not taken away a woman’s right to choose. What do you do? A woman is about to exercise her right to choose. How do you stop her?
JR do you play on that virtual life website. I find this role play a little stupid because of course you are making all of the rules.
Not sympathetic - expecting a woman to be responsible with her own body. Using reliable birth control. As a woman I can tell you this is very possible.
No help - just because you didn’t like my help doesn’t make it ‘no help’.
Wishing someone who is bent on destroying the life they are carrying ‘good luck’. Well I think that was very big of me. Should I have said I hope you bleed to death or what. Please let me know so I will know what to say when this happens in real life.
Nathan,
I believe if you reread my post you will find I do want Tiller to be brought to justice if he is found guilty.
Yes, I think the law is the law, and if you want it changed, vote for people who want to change it. That is your business and your right.
I think it is sad when it happens, but I will not, under any lawful circumstances, judge either the doctor or the patient.
JM Walker,
How will he be found guilty if you disagree with the Grand Jury reviewing these records to see if there is enough evidence to move forward?
I think I read your post fine unless you meant something else by calling this a fishing expedition which you disagreed with?
On the contrary “ksgrm”
I am making no rules. I have invited those who want to take away a woman’s right to choose total power to MAKE the rules.
Now Nathan made his. He took away a woman’s right to choose. He still has not said how he would stop her but HAS told us how he would punish her.
And you “ksgrm” What would you do? A woman is about to end her pregnancy. You can do anything to stop it. What do you do?
The procedure is about to begin “ksgrm”.
What do you do?
JR,
How do you stop someone from killing a 5 year old?
I am not sure you could stop them, only try to prevent it through other passive means.
Our hypothetical woman HAS a 5 year old Nathan.
She is choosing to end a pregnancy to protect and conserve her limited resources for that 5 year old and her 3 year old.
When you jail her for manslaughter after she ends her pregnancy? What happens to them?
JR,
Please take the time to read my post again. I said that I don’t think jail time for the infraction would be called for except for in certain habitual cases and then it might be better for professional mental care in a facility not a jail.
I stand corrected Nathan.
You would NOT punish a woman who went outside the law you made against ending a pregnancy unless there were multiple offenses.
This saves the involved infant(s) HOW?
JR
I use your actual “nic” here, because, finally, I am impressed.
Even though ksgrm and Nathan point out some rathter obvious flaws in your approach, you are trying something new.
I applaud the effort.
I know you did not do it for me.
Even so, I appreciate it.
Now, more to the point:
As has been pointed out: Tiller is Internationally famous for late term abortions, many of those babies, killed by Tiller, could very easily survive outside the womb, if given the chance.
There are millions of Americans who agree with “abortion on demand” in the “first trimester” but would restrict access to abortion, in the 2nd and 3rd “trimester”.
Tiller specializes in these late term abortions, which require an “arms length 2nd opinion”.
Tiller HAS fudged on this requirement. Even Paul Morrioson said as much.
This is what the grand jury is all about: Is Tiller following the law on his very unusual, very rare specialty of killing late term babies?
—-
Off topic just a little bit.
I met a young man once, by the name of Angel Gamboa. He gave me permission to use his name, so get off your “privacy” issues.
Angel was upset, because he and his girlfriend (underage) had decided to carry her baby to term and raise that baby.
Naive, perhaps, as he was rather young.
However, Angel flew to Kansas to stop the mother of his girlfriend, a rather biggoted White woman, from killing his child.
The mother of his girlfriend was absolutely horrified to have a “Mexican Grandchild”.
It was late in the pregnancy.
There was NOTHING wrong with the baby.
Angel claimed that his girlfriend was drugged and forced to come to Wichita.
I had my doubts.
I went to Tillers Clinic, to support Angel.
Sure enough, when Angels girlfriend’s mother arrived, Clinic staff had to come out to assist in dragging Angels girlfriend into the clinic.
She was obviously heavily sedated, but was still resisting.
I believe she was 16 at the time.
“Right to choose”?
Who, exactly, does that right belong to, even if it does exist?
Angel and his girlfriend did continue their relationship for sometime, after the forced abortion, from what I understand.
The young girl had some obvious issues with her mother.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. There are obviously two schools of thought on abortion. One side feels it’s ok, the other thinks it’s murder. The state of KS, in an attempt to draw a middle ground, allows abortions, but only up to the third trimester. Abortions beyond this point are seen as killing a viable baby, and are illegal, except in very extreme cases. That’s the law. That’s where the line is drawn.
From what I’ve read, there is reason to believe that Tiller routinely crossed the line. That’s the issue. Don’t argue that all abortions should be permitted, nor that none should. That voice needs to go to those who make the laws. The point here is, was the law violated? Not only the abortion law, but others as well. For instance, in the case of a 14 year old pregnant woman, then, by law, statutory ra_e has occurred. Maybe incest. These are crimes, people, reflective of a society that has lost its moral compass. In the last few days we’ve seen stories of parents killing, maiming, microwaving, and doing other despicable things to their children. They are just performing post-birth abortions! And society acts surprised!
Econ, I find it very difficult to believe that Tiller would perform an abortion on an unwilling drugged woman. I do personally know two women who have sought his services, and he refuses to go through with the procedure if there is any signs of hesitation or coercion on the part of the woman. I can say for certain he has turned down one woman for the procedure, and she is very thankful today.
Going on with JR’s though experiment, I thought I’d add some more stuff:
“Not only would my parents disown me, but I would have to drop out of college. My school doesn’t have day care, and my teaching assistantship barely covers my rent and food. There is no government aid for college students. It’s been my dream my whole life to get my PhD, and I’ve invested SO MUCH MONEY and research and time into it, and now that I’m so close I have to drop out?
I can’t stand the idea of this parasite inside my body. It’s going to irreversibly change it and I don’t want this. Get it out of me!
Adoption? I don’t think people want to adopt half-Indian babies, people want babies that look like them. He or she will probably be stuck in foster care and that would be horrible, bounced around from house to house and then kicked out on the streets at 18? Besides, do you have any idea what it would do to my career and working environment if everyone in my department knew I was pregnant with his baby? They would treat me like a leper, and talk badly about me all the time, and it would affect my chances of collaborating in the future. It would be so humiliating to walk into that building every day knowing that all that whispering is about me. How can I work effectively every day in an environment filled with people who look down upon me like this? Sure that sounds selfish to think about my career first, but I didn’t ask for this. Of course I’m being selfish, I’ve worked so hard for this for so long and its all about to come crumbling down around me.
Why should people like Nathan and ksgrm get to dictate my life? I’m the one who’s going to have to live with this for the rest of my life, I’m the one that put in 24 years of life to get this far, I’m the one who’s going to be affected by this the most, why should these complete strangers have a say on what will be the most important thing to ever happen to me, the thing that will change my life entirely? They have no right!”
Yeah, that, just off the top of my head, would be a realistic situation for someone with an unwanted pregnancy.
Tara,
Once again, all the excuses in the world mean absolutely nothing if you think the unborn child is simply a parasite inside you.
Why do you need a reason at all?
Simply say you just don’t want it… because.
Every argument you make for why you don’t want it, I could make about a 5 year old child.
The only difference is that one is considered a life worth protecting and the other is not.
Tara you are really living in that dream world with JR aren’t you?
“Why should people like Nathan and ksgrm get to dictate my life?”
Where anywhere did I say you couldn’t get an abortion? I in fact told JR from the beginning he could get an abortion.
This dream world you are in has to have villans and heros - you the hero and me the villan. I would tell you to grow up and stop assigning words and thoughts to others. You are certainly judgemental.
That’s true Nathan. For me, any reason is good enough for a woman to have an abortion in the first trimester. I can judge her situation.
The excuses are mainly for the other side’s benefit. The one that wants to take away this option.
The difference between our positions is that if “I” have my way and an abortion, your life would not be changed in the slightest, but if you had your way and kept me from having an abortion, my life would be turned upside down and you wouldn’t even know about it, or care about it, or witness it.
I meant, I CAN’T judge her situation
Of course, this whole discussion is kind of moot, since we are talking about late term abortions.
Things like the department talking about them or the parents disowning them wouldn’t be an issue at this point. It would all be a result of legitimate medical conditions….so great that a woman who has invested 6-8 months of being pregnant will agree to have that procedure. I know that would be very unlikely, for many reasons.
Tara,
If I support a law that prevents you from killing your 5 year old it doesn’t effect me either.
I wouldn’t care about how keeping that 5 year old alive turns your life upside down or not. I simply don’t support the murder of little children because it is an inconvenience to the mother in whatever way.
You still don’t get it.
The difference between an unborn child and a 5 year old, Nathan, is that the woman can relinquish the responsibilty of the 5 year old without killing it. She can give it to social services, or to her parents or grandparents or boyfriends and it will stll live, and she’ll no longer be burdened by it.
If a woman is pregnant, there is NO WAY for her to relinquish the responsibility of gestating it to term without killing it. When it happens, like an artificial womb, I will definitely be pro-life.
YOU still don’t get it because you can’t know what it’s like to be pregnant, and everything that goes along with it.
Tara,
I do get it. I understand exactly what the Pro-Choice crowd is saying and why.
I have stated the difference here several times and most of the Pro-Choice people seem to have some mental block on getting this. (Not saying you are, but there are several)
Either the unborn child is a human life worth protecting or it isn’t. Period. End of story.
If it is not, then why do you even need an excuse? Just kill the damn thing, parasite, clump of cells, or whatever dehumanizing description you want to use. It shouldn’t matter.
If it is, then those reasons don’t matter any more than if the unborn child were actually a 5 year old. It is a life worth protecting.
The question I have for you Tara, is when do you think the unborn child is a human life worth protecting?
i.e. At what point is an abortion actually killing a human life in your opinion? If at all?
I might look through the blog history, where i explained my position more fully.
The truth is, with my spiritual beliefs, is that it is a human life at conception.
BUT until the child is able to live outside of the womb, where the mere act of removing it from the woman won’t kill it, is where I draw the line at a life worth protecting. Until then, the person is inhabiting the property of another person, and she has the right to expel it from her property.
Who owns this uterus inside of me?
These hypothetical scenarios, they reflect my life somewhat, but are not an accurate indication of what I would do in that situation. One, I wouldn’t make love to a man who I would later want nothing to do with. Second, I would NEVER have unprotected sex, not without two forms of birth control, unless I was married or in a committed, long term relationship where we both agreed to have children. Third, my parents, while strict Indians, would never disown me if I slipped up and became pregnant.
But this is a very real scenario for some people.
Tara you have very strong views on protecting the environment and eco-system. You have defended Cosmos many times when he makes statements about GW. Why wouldn’t it be just as appropriate for pro-lifers to feel as strongly about a unborn child.
You don’t own my part of the globe so why do you try to tell me what I should be doing in/on it?
Tara the life of the spotted owl and the snail darter are so valued that forest cutting and dam building were stopped. The egg of the bald eagle is protected by strict laws.
Why then do we put such a small value on the human life? The most vulnerable among us.
Tara,
Interesting. I don’t think I have argued the issue with someone who believes the unborn child to be a life, but not worth protecting.
So… to get a bit more technical:
You see the Mothers right to her body as trumping the life of the unborn all the way up to birth even? No protecting the unobrn child in the 3rd Trimester even?
That’s an interesting point, ksgrm.
I would say the difference is that encouraging you to follow the scientific consensus and work to reduce your carbon footprint would help everyone. And it would not force you to house a person that you are unwilling to house. Speaking hyperbolically (is that even a word?) “you” not taking action in the GW situation would cause the suffering of many people on earth. Everyone would have to live with the consequences.
A woman having an abortion does not affect anyone but herself. Her having an abortion would cause the suffering of no one. Only the woman would have to live with the consequences.
Ksgrm,
That line of argument is one of my favorites.
If the unborn child is not worth protecting then why is the unborn Sea Turtle egg so protected?
But, that line of reasoning doesn’t quite work on someone who agrees that the unborn child is a life, but that simply the mothers convienence trumps that.
I am still perplexed by Tara’s answer…
Tara,
How can you on one hand say that the unborn child is a life, but that the mothers body is more important?
Now, I can honestly say, I simply don’t get it.
Yeah, Nathan, my position tends to piss off both pro-choicers and pro-lifers. I am an unusual case. I think that a woman has a moral obligation to carry a pregnancy to term, but I don’t think she has a legal one.
As long as the mere act of removing the fetus causes the death of the fetus, the mother’s choice trumps the baby’s life. If the scenario where simply removing the fetus doesn’t cause death; i.e., if a doctor has to actively cause the fetus’s death by stopping the heart or crushing the brain, then the fetus’s right to life trumps the mother’s.
Which is why I support abortion until the third trimester, because there has never been a viable fetus before then. Should technology improve enough to push back the viability date, my views will evolve (lol) accordingly.
Of course, with late term abortions, its a different story. No woman would go through a pregnancy that long and end it simply for convenience sake. There would have to be a real, serious, heavy reason. The only people qualified to decide that are the doctor and the woman.
Here’s a cut and paste of the last time I rehashed this:
#
unborn human=human.
I often get a lot of flack from both sides because I accept the premise that the fetus is a human being, and yet I still support the right to legalized abortion.
The right to an abortion comes from a woman’s right to control her body. It doesn’t come from issues of financial hardship, 18 years of parenthood, the painfulness of giving a child up for adoption, or cutting of career options, although those are all very important concerns.
Who owns the uterus?
The woman owns the uterus.
It is her property.
If she doesn’t want a fetus residing insider her uterus, she has the right to get it removed, even when that removal results in death.
If I leave the front door open and a man comes into my house, I have no legal obligation to let him stay and eat my food and use my bathrooms. I have a right to kick him out on the street, even if he ends up dying on my front porch. If a fetus is a person, there is no difference between it and this homeless person.
Next up: Abortion is immoral
#
Tara
Posted October 13, 2007 at 6:57 pm | Permalink
If I were to walk down a path by a river and see a small child drowning in the river, I have a moral obligation to stop and save the child’s life. Even if it means I’m going to end up disfigured from scars received from low tree branches, even if it means injuring my leg so badly that I’m unable to resume normal activity for 9 month. Even if I’m wearing a $450,000 Valentino dress. I have a moral obligation to save that child’s life even though I will be sacrificing some of my comfort. The value of that child’s life is more than the value of 9 months of my work, my pricey dress and my unsightly scars.Continuing on the assumption that the fetus is a person, if a woman has an opportunity to save a child’s life (by allowing the fetus to reside in her body and use her resources for 9 months, so it can live on its own), then she is morally obligated to do so. The value of that child’s life is greater than the comfort of being able to drink alcohol, carry on normal activities and not suffer from the numerous ailments that pregnant women have to go through.
In both cases, the moral obligation is clear. However, there is no law that says that if I see a child drowning, that I must stop and save its life. My moral obligation is just that—a moral one. The law values autonomy over the life of another. Shrimp v. McFall is a good example of this.
Banning abortion would create a special case in which bodily autonomy is superceded by the rights of another. It would create this special case only for women of childbearing age. This is discrimination: Men will never have to experience having their bodily autonomy violated in order to save a life. Not unless we also set a precedent for forcing someone to donate bone marrow to a matching patient: we won’t do that because our laws value independence over everything else.
Abortion is terrible and the number of them should be reduced. But not by legislation.
#
Tara
Posted October 13, 2007 at 7:00 pm | Permalink
Note that my second post is simply my opinion. I don’t agree with abortion, but I see that I have no right to deprive other women that right.
Oh, and here’s a link to the thread, to save me from typing:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/10/abortions-still/
Thank you for the response Tara.
I might disagree with you on many things, but you are a gracious person to talk with here on the blog.
I will thoughtfully read over your comments and reply in the morning.
I don’t mind if you don’t get back to me or not. Perhaps the next abortion discussion, there will be one, we can talk again.
I need to hit the sack.
Good night.
ksgrm,
I’m not a land-biology person, but I would guess that its because dams and forests aren’t living, thriving people who have a very real stake in the right to choose what stays in their womb.
Honestly, the reason that people support conservation of these unimportant sounding animals is because their removal affects the entire ecosystem, and who know what can happen. In my field, we would protect, for example, herbivorous fishes because overfishing them would cause an increase in algae growth, resulting in a decrease in habitable niches, resulting in decreased biodiversity, resulting in decreased fish for commercial fishing/decreased tourism income as the reefs grow ugly. I mean, I buy into the argument that we are stewards of the earth and should protect the lesser life forms from our harmful effects, but the bottom line for me is that we will ALL suffer if biodiversity decreases.
/tangent
Nathan,
Thanks, and good night!
And, uh, Nathan, do you have a MySpace? Just curious to see if I found you or not.
Tara,
Yes, I do. If you see a slide show with pictures of dogs and stuff, it is me.
So I decided to watch Lost before bed… LOL
Nathan,
“First, how did you know that person was Christian?”
He told me he was a christian. Sorry, but that’s all I’ve got to go on. I have neither the time nor desire to determine whether he was a “good” or “bad” christian. He was just a self-identified christian, and thus a representative for christians in general. If you feel slighted by that, maybe it’s time for you to do some housecleaning.
And yes, when christians (or anyone else, for that matter) go out of their way to deprive me and mine of our rights under the laws of the land to practice my religion and live according to its principles, I tend to get somewhat more than testy. I don’t go around telling Christians or Muslims or Zen Buddhists that they have to live according to my beliefs, and I expect the same courtesy in return. Surely this country is big enough for all of us to worship all our various gods and goddesses in peace.
Nathan, why didn’t you add me as a friend if I got the right profile? I’m hurt now
htpp://www.myspace.com/luckydaemon
oops, you know what I meant. http….
What is really frightening here is that we all know that IT WILL NOT STOP HERE! One a precedent is set with this case, other courts all over the country are going to be invading other peoples medical records for ANY REASON, at ANYTIME and use the name of the court to do it when they want for any reason they want and there will be nothing anyone will be able to do about.
VERY FRIGHTENING!!! Can we all say, “HELLO BIG BROTHER?”
Lady Donna Royce
You should write to Tara, Nathan. What a beautiful young woman she is. I bet you can talk about a lot, because both of you seem to make friends easily.
There is NO invasion of medical records with the Grand Jury request. The patients remain completely anonymous. There is no more an ‘invasion’ of privacy than the nameless statistics health care providers maintain of almost all medical conditions and procedures. Take the cancer registry for instance. All of those cases are recorded, along with treatments and outcomes, then compiled for information purposes. I recently had minor surgery and the condition, procedure and then outcome is submitted to data bases to advance health care outcomes. The is no difference with abortion except it is a political ‘hot potato’. Get over it those that object, this is the only way to get to the truth.
Well I’m glad I could take an abortion discussion in something of a new direction. Maybe that is my perspective having sat both sides of the fence.
First “ksgrm” you carbon footprint (yes I know you work to restrict it) affects EVERYONE. This is NOT true of a woman choosing to end a pregnancy. Nice try to balance one of your issues against mine. But it really is not a valid comparison.
And now we know that Nathan wants to take away a woman’s right to choose. It took more than two years to get him to say it clearly.
Well Nathan? Until just a few weeks ago, I was like most. I figured most abortions were teenagers doing a little Tuesday morning birth control. In high school, I had a friend who did that. She was a year behind me and rode with me to school everyday. The father wanted her to have the baby. I cannot guess at the dynamic between them.
And what I did not stop to think about at the time is that it was quite honestly none of my business.
At any rate, she ultimately chose abortion. I never spoke to her again.
NOW we know that MOST abortions are due to economic reasons. This surprised me. I guess it should not have. Welfare “reform” was a clear statement by our country that some life is valuable and some is not. The onus on the individual to demonstrate that they were worthy of any societal support.
Well that comes with a price. If you tell a woman she is on her own with her choices and actions and is singularly responsible for same, it is not your priviledge nor should it be to deny her even the most difficult of decisions.
If there were not people living under bridges. If everyone had health care. If every single individual in our society were valued.
If YOU and a lot of people like you were as concerned about the welfare of a 5 year old child as you are a 5 month along pregnancy AND demonstrated it?
Then we might well look at a woman making a difficult choice and find fault.
But we don’t live in that society. As much as I wish we did and you are glad we do not.
You have to attack a problem at its source folks. You have to help these women see their child as wanted and loved by something bigger and more than just one poor woman making a hard choice. How about ideas as to how we can do that?
It’s harder I know.
I’ll give you another place to start.
Rudy Guliani will not be President. A big reason for this is that while he is “pro life”, he does not feel as free as Nathan to inflict his belief on others.
He spent 49 million dollars to win one delegate toward nomination.
One. For 49 million dollars.
Do not tell me there are not the resources to make every life valid and valued. Not when a man can spend so many millions only to fail spectacularly and largely due to the issue we are debating.
Tara
I would be proud to have you as a daughter. You are a thoughtful, honest, gracious person with a well formed conscience.
I happen to disagree with you a bit, but you seem a reasonable type of person.
I have a daughter who is only slightly younger than you. She is every bit as gorgeous, however.
This daughter found herself in a horrible spot. The father of the child has not been much help. In fact, he has been a real problem for the entire family.
My granddaughter?
She is severly disabled. She requires so much help that regular day care is out of the question. Most people “freak” when told that my 5 year old Granddaughter can not walk, is not potty-trained, can not talk, and eats most of her food through a tube in her stomach.
My daughter? She will be 24 in March. In late March, she will travel to the Phillipines, on business, to instruct a customer service class. She will be gone for 3 weeks.
Yes, this child cut short her college plans. How ever, my daughter has a rougher time, with her child, than anyone else that I can think of.
My daughter also if far more successful than most people, even those who are twice her age.
I am very proud to have such a daughter.
My Grand daughter is lucky to have such a mother.
My point?
I think that we do everyone a huge dis-service when we act as though one “mistake” will ruin a career, or make life “worse” for the individual, if the individual is not allowed to take the “easy way out”.
Also, back to your very thoughtful posts, you might want to research the “viability” issue.
I think that “viability” bar has been going down, for some time now. I believe it is around 22 to 24 weeks, currently. That would be slightly before the end of the 6th month, prior to the “3rd Trimester”.
Also, Tara, I believe Kansas Law now requires a “mother’s consent” to an abortion. I believe our current abortion law, signed by Democrat Governor Joan Finney, containes that provision.
That provision is in the law precisely because of the case I mentioned. Tiller most certainly has done abortions on minor women, without the consent of the minor.
Thus, that law was required, because Tiller will not restrain himself, without a law that tells him what is right and what is wrong.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0D91E30F937A15757C0A964958260
Another thing: Tiller thrives because most doctors will not kill viable, 3rd trimester babies.
Tiller also thrives because most people believe that he is doing this only when the life of the mother is in danger, or when the baby is very bad medical shape.
To perhaps build on Nathan’s case, upthread: Why do we accept the fact that a mother can be brutal, towards a 5 year old, and very guilty of child abuse — but we do not want to accept that a mother can “abuse” a child still in the womb?
What of the women who have abortions simply to spite the ex-husband or ex-boyfriend?
It does happen.
What if the father of the child is caught cheating on the mother of the child, late in the pregnancy.
Is this an “excuse” for a late term abortion?
Pall,
“What of the women who have abortions simply to spite the ex-husband or ex-boyfriend?
It does happen.”
I had a daughter too. One day when she was walking home from WSU, a van pulled up, two men jumped out and dragged her into the van, drove her out in the country and beat her half to death while raping her repeatedly and then dumped her naked in the snow. Three weeks later she discovered she was pregnant. I asked her what she wanted to do about it (a question you obviously never want asked), and after much thought she told me that she would never risk bringing another person like those two rapists into the world. The next day I made an appointment for her with Dr. Tiller, and went with her to the clinic. Dr. Tiller treated her with kindness and understanding, which is more than she ever got from any so-called “pro-lifer.”
Yeah, part of her decision rested on “spiting” her rapists, and part of it was rooted in the fear that those genes were truly bad news. She never once expressed regret for that decision. And there’s always more to the story that your bumpersticker sloganeers don’t want to hear or have told.
Jed
It appears that you did this in the “first trimester” — so your example does not exactly fit what we are talking about.
I just did a little bit of googling, and you are correct, the earliest stage of viability is around 24 weeks. However, it looks like it won’t be pushed back much farther, because until then, the fetus really has no working lungs. However, if we manage to overcome that, I would reconsider my position. My humble opinion is that the safest bet is to limit unrestricted abortion to the 20 weeks.
And Paul, I never thought about a situation where a boyfriend is caught cheating toward the end of the pregnancy. While that does give me pause how it could be considered harm to the woman to continue the pregnancy, I still have a difficult time believing any woman would get that far, so attached to the baby already, and then turn around and abort it. It seems wildly unlikely.
Mental conditions that would allow abortion in the late stages are things like bipolar disorder, severe depression and/or psychosis. I doubt “My bf cheated and now I want to kill his kid!” would fly for an excuse, even with Tiller.
Pall,
“It appears that you did this in the “first trimester” — so your example does not exactly fit what we are talking about.”
As far as I’ve been able to tell, you are opposed to abortion in any trimester, for any reason, so it does fit.
Jed
I have said, repeatedly, that my personal views and the law do not have to be in perfect agreement.
I have also stated, repeatedly, that, in my reading of public opinion, most people would outlaw all abortions, with exceptions for ape, incest and the life of the mother. Unfortunately, it is the radicals on the prolife side, primarily, who have kept this from happening. They want to “save all the babies” which means, of course, that we don’t save any.
I have also stated, repeatedly, that the radicals on the prolife side do not want later term abortion bans. Again, they want to “save all the babies, no compromise, no exceptions” — however, the prolife purists did go along with “partial birth abortion bans” because that is a proceedure, not a gestational indicator.
Kansas has the most liberal abortion laws in the United States. More liberal than New York! It is our own prolife radicals who have kept us from making our Kansas law more restrictive.
The United States has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the entire world.
For these reasons, George Tiler brings in business from all over the world.
word pad made me leave the r off of the ape word, sorry.
Late term abortions is a lie the “pro lifers” use.
NO woman goes through 6 months of pregnancy only to change her mind without a damned good reason.
And it is no one’s place to question that reason.
Nathan at least was honest here. The goal is to completely take away a womans right to choose AND leave her alone in her responsibility to the baby.
They’ve accomplished the latter. Now they are about getting to the former.
And that is never going to happen.
SO if those who claim to be pro life really are, they will embrace the idea that it takes a village to raise a child. Otherwise? They are complicit in abortion.
Medical records are not private when they contain evidence of CRIME.
Anyway, the grand jury is not going to see any names, probably just the lack of compliance with state laws and some falsification of records.
Uh Pall,
If a ban on abortions has such universal support as you suggest, exactly who are the people who are getting all those millions of abortions you guys continually cite?
Some several times that I saw, women who had been picketing Tiller one week were asking for special security and secrecy when they came in for theirs the next week. I think there must be a lot of you who are PLINO!
Econ101: “Kansas has the most liberal abortion laws in the United States. More liberal than New York!”
Here’s something to back up your claim:
The Red-State Freak Show
By EU standards, Kansas is a hotbed of liberal extr