When Sarah Palin booked a flight to Europe, the French immediately surrendered.

calendar   Saturday - February 15, 2020

babies and bullets

Ok, this started out as a post of two weirdo Leftist news items ...

Former Colorado Springs Mayoral Candidate And Her Daughter Arrested For Attempted Baby Kidnapping And For Drugging Infant’s Mother

A former Colorado Springs mayoral candidate and her 16-year-old daughter have been arrested after allegedly drugging a woman in an attempt to steal her newborn.

Juliette Parker - who ran for mayor in 2019 - was charged with multiple felonies after she and the unidentified minor were detained Friday at her home on the 4100 block of 220 Street East at around 2.30pm.

Parker was charged with a count of assault in the second degree and attempted kidnapping, according to booking records.

A release from the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department state that the pair were arrested following an extensive investigation and after reports that they may have been posing as newborn baby photographers.

Operating under an alias, Ms. Parker pretended to be a photographer taking free baby pictures to establish her portfolio. She made several visits to one home, taking plenty of pictures of the kid but also selfies of herself and the baby. And then her daughter fed the new mom a laced cupcake ...

Parker received about a third of the votes for mayor in 2019. I never heard of her before today, and the only thing I noticed is that she has an extensive chest tattoo featuring a bunch of birds. Research shows all the Colorado candidates were labeled as Independents.


Alabama Forced Vasectomy Bill

Alabama State Legislator Rolanda Hollis (D) has introduced a bill requiring all men who father 3 children, and all men over the age of 50, to have a vasectomy. This bill will go nowhere, but she introduced it as payback for the State’s recent abortion law, which would limit abortion to within a 10 days of conception, or in cases of ectopic pregnancy, or in cases of “lethal anomaly” of the fetus. The Republican governor, Kay Ivey signed the bill into law in May 2019 knowing full well that it would be shot down. The federal courts almost immediately did just that, blocking it in October 2019 before it went into effect.

Since 1837 Alabama has been dominated by Democrats in their legislator and governor, except for a few years after the Civil War, but has had a Republican governor since 2003 and Republican dominated houses since 2011.

So this is empty virtue signalling. Every one of these laws has been throw out AFAIK.


But then I wondered, why is it that a blanket SCOTUS decision abort abortion can not be infringed upon in any way shape or form, yet the Second Amendment, which pre-dates even the Supreme Court, and specifically says it can not be infringed, is subject to all kinds of limitations all over the nation?? Abortion - which many people consider to be murder - is sacrosanct, but the right to protect yourself from being murdered is open to constant (always negative) interpretation. Go figure. It must be raycism at work again. Or Trump. Or Climate Change.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 02/15/2020 at 01:36 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsFREEDOMGuns and Gun Control •  
Comments (0) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - January 23, 2016

europe in crisis over migrants as more and more invaders arrive

First some good news.
It reported that some 40 or 45 migrant invaders are tonight sleeping with the fish,
the numbers depend on which paper you’re reading.
The really, really awful and depressing news is ….
some 70 of the worthless sub human vermin, were rescued.

In other happenings here ….

It’s been transgender this and transgender that for weeks now. 
By which I mean, in the news.  Even some laws are about to change, or new ones introduced.  There’s even an investigation into what is described as “the last bastion of acceptable institutional discrimination”.
I really had no idea they were being discriminated against.  Unless authorities and those in power regard just looking askance at one, is some kind of hate crime. Hey, this is modern Britain.  It could come to that and the USA also. And why not?
The whole f*&%!^g world is mad .

So help me out here.  Does this decision mean that a guy who wants to be a she, will compete against females?  I don’t follow the Olympics.  Don’t even follow baseball anymore.  I don’t much care who competes against who.  But it just somehow seems odd.


The policy change would be in line with NCAA standards in the United States, which allow male-to-female and female-to-male transgender athletes to compete without having gender reassignment surgery, according to ESPN.
The current Olympic rules acknowledge transgender athletes’ right to compete, but with specific provisions under the Stockholm Consensus, which was adopted in 2004.
The policies, adopted before the Athens Olympics, say transgender athletes have to have gender reassignment surgery and have legal recognition of the gender they were assigned at birth. They also have to have undergone at least two years of hormone replacement therapy after surgery.
The proposed new rules would allow transgender athletes to compete after one year of hormone replacement therapy and no surgery is required.


Reach out and touch a muzzbot or something like that.
When I say the world is mad …. would you think this qualifies ?


grow a beard and make nice?

Sure thing.  Communicate, compassion, accommodate, and all that other crap.
And this is what you’ll get in return.

From Amanda Platell’s column in the Mail.

The excellent Channel 4 documentary The Jihadis Next Door revealed that two British fanatics laughed over ISIS beheadings and ran their campaign of hatred against Britain from their homes here.

Mohammed Shamsuddin has lived on benefits since the age of 18, claiming he suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome (though it hasn’t stopped him working tirelessly for his warped vision of Islam).

Abu Haleema is a bus driver from Kilburn, London. A bus driver? Thanks, but I think I’ll walk.

AND .... migrant shits have rioted and burned camp in Calais.

Truck driver robbed at knife point by muzzbot migrant scum.

Sure thing. Reach out.  And lose a hand. If you’re lucky, that’s all you’ll lose.

The EU wants Britain to agree to a quota system, there will be penalty if refused.

And finally .....




Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 01/23/2016 at 11:44 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Friday - December 19, 2014

human rights parasites should be tried for treason. why bother? an asbo would be only result

It’s been ongoing for years, and scummy rat bastard left wing lawyers have struck gold. 

Here’s just a couple of headlines to, give you an idea.
The guy pictured is not one of the lawyers, he is the head of the Labour Party.


And this is Richard Littlejohn’s article on the subject today.

I suppose war crime charges have to be answered but these bottom feeders knew from the get go it was all based on lies.
The country was at war, I see it as treason.  Why haven’t they been hung already?

These human rights parasites should be tried for treason

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail

Dateline: Germany, April 1945. Allied forces have crossed the Rhine and are advancing towards Berlin, closely followed by a team of lawyers hoping to drum up allegations of war crimes against British soldiers.

Solicitors from Birmingham-based Shyster & Shyster Ltd scour the battlefield encouraging the Germans to sue the Army for human rights abuses.

You could be entitled to compensation, they tell their potential ‘clients’. And it won’t cost you a penny because the bill is being picked up by British taxpayers.

How do you think Field Marshal Montgomery would have reacted? He’d have rounded up these spivs and put them in front of a firing squad for treason.

Can anybody please explain the difference between that scenario and the odious Phil Shiner pursuing an opportunist, politically-motivated vendetta again our troops in Iraq?

Following a formal inquiry, Shiner’s Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) and another outfit called Leigh Day have been condemned for bringing baseless charges against British soldiers.

The allegations were ‘wholly and entirely without merit’ and founded upon ‘deliberate and calculated lies’, it concluded.

Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in the Commons that these lawyers had made a ‘shameful attempt to use our legal system to attack and falsely impugn our Armed Forces’.

Shiner claimed that his clients had witnessed ‘mutilations’. We now know that they made up these allegations.

Yet neither Shiner nor Leigh Day will apologise. Outrageously, Public Interest Lawyers has been paid around £3 million for co-operating with the inquiry, which cost taxpayers a total of £31 million. Shiner himself insisted on a full inquiry, prolonging the innocent soldiers’ ordeal for ten long years.

The truth could have been established a decade ago, but lawyers acting for the detainees refused to co-operate with the original Ministry of Defence investigation.

I crossed swords with Shiner on television during the Iraq war when his representatives were harvesting claims in the backstreets of Baghdad and Basra while hostilities were still going on. Since then he’s made a fat living representing Iraqis claiming to have suffered abuse at the hands of British troops.

He currently has 1,500 cases in the pipeline and has persuaded prosecutors at the International Criminal Court to investigate alleged ‘war crimes’ by our soldiers.

While allegations of genuine torture must always be taken seriously, does anyone really believe that British forces were guilty of widespread abuse on the scale Shiner maintains?

When Piers Morgan published fake photographs of troops apparently torturing Iraqi suspects it rightly cost him his job as editor of the Daily Mirror.

So why is Shiner still allowed to suckle on the publicly-funded legal aid teat while bringing equally bogus claims before the courts?

This isn’t the first time he’s been criticised for using taxpayers’ money to bring worthless claims. As recently as May, two High Court judges called for Shiner’s PIL to be stripped of the right to receive legal aid after trying to win compensation for a Somali-born murderer denied the vote in jail.

While PIL acts across the ‘yuman rites’ spectrum, Shiner specialises in claims which are aimed at demonising and discrediting our Armed Forces.

Last year he told the BBC that 85 Afghans were being held unlawfully at a ‘secret’ facility, implying that this was Britain’s Guantanamo Bay.

Shiner knew perfectly well that this wasn’t true, since he had brought a case connected to the camp in open court in 2010.

That didn’t stop him claiming that the facility was ‘completely off the radar’ and unknown to Parliament, while adding sinisterly: ‘People will be wondering if these detainees are being treated humanely and in accordance with international law.’

Shiner now says he was referring to the period of time people had been detained before 2010. But there was no evidence that anyone was being mistreated in secret, so why try to plant the idea in people’s heads?

Needless to say, he found a willing accomplice in the BBC, which also echoed his false allegations about the abuse of Iraqis in a Panorama special.

What’s Shiner’s problem? Was he turned down by the Army Cadets when he was a boy and now feels the need to spend his entire life wreaking revenge?

Most people will find it nothing short of monstrous that our taxes, including those paid by serving military personnel and their families, are being used to pursue vindictive legal actions against blameless British soldiers putting their lives on the line thousands of miles away.

But this is simply part of the much wider human rights racket, a scandalous conspiracy by unscrupulous Left-wing lawyers designed to turn justice upside down.

Most of the actions brought by the human rights parasites are part of a concerted assault on our institutions, aimed at demolishing traditional notions of fair play and common decency.

Smug, self-regarding Shiner describes himself proudly as a socialist. He lists comedy among his interests, but appears to confuse wearing red spectacles with having a sense of humour.

He looks like the legal profession’s answer to Timmy Mallett.

Shiner may fancy himself as a comedian, but he’s having a laugh at our expense. Why should he be allowed to use public money to pursue malicious, mendacious claims made by foreign nationals?

As I’ve argued before, we could end this racket overnight if the law was changed so that the full cost of these unsuccessful cases had to be met by the lawyers who bring them.

Failing that, I’m sure those soldiers falsely accused by Shiner’s clients would be happy to form a firing squad.


This is just one issue among many, why I keep saying the West won’t defend itself. This verdict is not enough. Not even close.
There should be a final solution to certain kinds of lawyers.  In fact, there are certain types who should not be allowed into law schools.

Here’s more from Littlejohn on this turd, from a year ago. Just want you to know what Brits put up with. Of course, so do we in the USA.
And we have guns.  Why is it that of all the weapons in the hands of so many ppl in the USA, scum like this fellow are never, ever shot graveyard dead? How come?  Deleting sub species like this is defending your country, just as if you are in uniform on the front line. Except the front line is now inside our countries. Why are they allowed to thrive?

Phil Shiner and The Great Human Rights Swindle

By Richard Littlejohn for the Daily Mail

Human rights lawyers are not famous for their sense of humour. So it was something of a surprise to learn that the sour-faced solicitor Phil Shiner lists comedy as one of his hobbies.

For the past decade, Shiner has made a handsome living suing the British taxpayer — at the British taxpayers’ expense.

Shiner is head of the Birmingham-based Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) — not to be confused with the post-punk band Public Image Limited (PiL), put together by Johnny Rotten after the self-immolation of the Sex Pistols.

Rotten once starred in a movie called The Great Rock ’n’ Roll Swindle. If Shiner is ever immortalised on the silver screen it should be called The Great Human Rights Swindle.

Shiner’s firm specialises in bringing actions against the British Army.

I first crossed swords with him on TV during the Iraq war when his representatives were harvesting claims in the back streets of Baghdad and Basra. PIL is a yuman rites version of one of those Blame Direct outfits who advertise on daytime TV.

Have you been tortured by a British soldier? You could be entitled to com-pen-say-shun.

Shiner is always on the lookout for a jihadist with a grievance which can be used to discredit the Army and win some hard cash. Unlike Blame Direct and the rest of the ‘no win, no fee’ brigade, Shiner gets paid win, lose or draw.

He is bankrolled out of the legal aid budget.

Over the years he has secured £3 million compensation for his clients, mostly foreign nationals who have alleged abuse at the hands of British troops in Iraq.

His work won him the prestigious accolade ‘Human Rights Lawyer of the Year’ in 2004. I bet that was a fun night.

As part of the proposed £350 million cuts, members of middle-class households with an annual income of £37,000 will no longer be entitled to legal aid for a whole raft of civil claims, including debt and divorce.

Yet the funding for firms such as PIL to bring claims for damages on behalf of foreign nationals over incidents alleged to have taken place thousands of miles away would appear to be unaffected.



Posted by peiper   United Kingdom  on 12/19/2014 at 09:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - December 17, 2013

A truly evil woman


This is Edite Estrela of Portugal. She’s a member of the EU Parliment. She went on a rant today when the EU rejected the report that bears her name. The rejection left the ‘sexual left’ flabbergasted.

Read the article

Why do I call her (and her allies) evil? Here’s some of the provisions that would have been imposed on the EU:

Children aged 0-4 should be informed about: “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body”, “early childhood masturbation”, “different family relationships”, “the right to explore gender identities”, “the right to explore nakedness and the body, to be curious”, etc. They should also develop “curiosity regarding own and others’ bodies” and “a positive attitude towards different lifestyles”.

How is this done unless you are going molest the child? The infants? A pedophile’s dream!

Children aged 4-6 should be informed about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body”, “early childhood masturbation”, “same-sex relationships”, “sexual feelings (closeness, enjoyment, excitement) as a part of all human feelings”, “different kinds of (family) relationship”, “different concepts of a family” and should develop “respect” for those different lifestyles and concepts.

Children aged 6-9 should go on learning about “enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body (masturbation/self-stimulation)” but they also should be informed about “different methods of conception” and “the basic idea of contraception (it is possible to plan and decide about your family).”

Children aged 9-12 should be informed about “first sexual experience”, “orgasm”, “masturbation” and should learn to “make a conscious decision to have sexual experiences or not” and “use condoms and contraceptives effectively”.

This from European Dignity Watch

There are other provisions, like universal right to abortion, no ‘conscientious objection’ rights for doctors because that interferes with the right to abortion, etc.

Like all truly evil scum, they were trying to work in the dark:

Some believe the Estrela report was an attempt to undermine the One of Us campaign. What pro-lifers were achieving through participatory democracy, abortion advocates planned to render moot through bureaucracy.

Pro-life groups mobilized again. Members of Parliament received hundreds of e-mails daily, complained Ulrike Lunacek, co-president of the Parliament’s LGBT group. This was unsettling to her. European institutions, as well as the UN, are used to working in isolation, only hearing from groups largely funded by them, radical billionaires, and wealthy foundations.

Like all evil Leftists (but I repeat myself) she didn’t take defeat with grace:

This turn of events, spurred by massive citizen participation, upended the system of rule-by-bureaucracy that she counted on. Estrela lashed out at her colleagues on the floor of Parliament for not accepting the Women’s Rights Committee report. It was terrible, as she saw it, that “the most extremist and fundamentalist movements should have prevailed over the will of members.”

People like her should be taken outside and retroactively aborted.


Kudos for the EU for rejecting this slimey woman’s (allegedly a woman) ‘report’. I would personally label her a terrorist. She’s going to try again.


Posted by Christopher   United States  on 12/17/2013 at 11:49 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionCommiesCULTURE IN DECLINEDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsEUro-peons •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(2)  Permalink •  

calendar   Tuesday - April 30, 2013

Jersey Boy: Outrage Over Gosnell Black Out

h/t to Wardmama


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 04/30/2013 at 12:16 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionCrimeDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - March 30, 2011

This law makes no sense

New Arizona Law: No Race Based Abortions

I’m confused. Has this been a problem in Arizona before? Are girls out having some ethnic adventure and then dumping the “side effects” if “they get caught”? Is there some kind of “racial purity” movement going on there that I haven’t heard about, that castigates any infants who are browner, redder, or whiter than they “ought” to be? Or is this just the Far Right taking a page from the Far Left’s playbook and creating a law to solve a problem where none exists that erodes a little bit of women’s freedom, because to enact such a law there would have to be a new rule that says abortions are only performed based on a strict set of reasons, thus limiting a woman’s freedom to do with her own body whatever she choose? A “camel’s nose under the tent” kind of situation?

And I think that the opportunity for willful misunderstanding is rife. A new law that mentions race and abortion? You know what the reactions will be and from whom. And that’s without even reading the law.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Tuesday signed into law a controversial bill that makes the state the first in the nation to outlaw abortions performed on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus.

The move comes as anti-abortion groups across the nation try to seize on gains made by political conservatives during the November elections, seeking enactment of new state laws to further restrict abortions.

Under the new Arizona statute, doctors and other medical professionals would face felony charges if they could be shown to have performed abortions for the purposes of helping parents select their offspring on the basis of gender or race.

The women having such abortions would not be penalized.

State legislators have said no such law exists anywhere else in the nation.

Backers of the measure said the ban is needed to put an end to sex- and race-related discrimination that exists in Arizona and throughout the nation. They insist the issue is about bias rather than any broader stance on abortion.

“Governor Brewer believes society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable—the unborn—and this legislation is consistent with her strong pro-life track record,” a spokesman said.

But opponents have maintained that while such abortions may be happening in other countries like China, no clear evidence can found of it occurring in Arizona.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America also said the measure may erode a woman’s rights, fearing that doctors for the first time would feel compelled to ask their patients the reasons for seeking an abortion.

Or was the original intent actually the other way around; the law is an effort to limit D&C happy doctors like that Kermit Gosnell in Philly back in January? (looks like he’s up for the death penalty). That’s pretty murky: women went to Dr. Gosnell specifically to get late term abortions by any means. That the vast majority of them happened to be minorities had nothing to do with what went on in his office of horrors; they came to him by their own free will.

And if you have a situation going on in AZ where women voluntarily choose to terminate a pregnancy based on gender, which happens to be the unintended consequence in China with their One Child Only law and a culture that demands couples have at least one son, how is that aspect of the decision any of the state’s or the doctor’s business? And there certainly isn’t any One Child policy going on in the USA.

So yeah, I’m confused on this one. And whatever else it is, it’s another reminder that Conservatives simply can not get past the abortion issue. 38 years on, and they’re still trying to stick in limits. No, I don’t personally believe in it except for actual life threatening medical situations, rape, or incest. But you know what? I’m not a woman. So my opinion is that it’s none of my damn business. But with a significant part of society using directly and indirectly government funded abortion as a means of birth control, Conservatives are NEVER going to get that 13-25% of the population under their tent no matter what else they do if they keep harping on this issue. It’s over, we lost, it’s never going away even if you call a constitutional convention, draw up an amendment and put it to a vote. You will lose the vote. Period. So shut up, and move on. This law looks like another iteration of foot in mouth disease for the Right.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 03/30/2011 at 10:24 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (2) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - January 22, 2011

37 years ago today

Today is the 37th anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion across the USA. Prior to that abortion had been legal in some states, some areas, but not in others. As far as I know it was the first ruling ever that cited all the implied rights that we have. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that abortion is a fundamental right because it falls under the “penumbra” of the right to privacy. Which itself is one of those penumbra rights that is not specifically stated, although it can be inferred from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. So Roe was a ruling based on a penumbra of a penumbra. I’m all for penumbra rights, even if a dark one like this turns up every few generations. We are Americans, not Germans. Everything is legal that isn’t specifically prohibited, and we have a right to everything that isn’t specifically designated as a power given to the states or to the federal government. Everything else belongs to the people.

Agree with it or not, Roe is the law of the land and is not going anywhere ever, because that would entail a new Amendment, which would itself entail a constitutional convention which would be a huge can of worms, and even with such an amendment getting out there, the likelihood of enough states ratifying it in time is slim ... and even if enough of them did, then each state would have to put the abortion question up for regular public referendum. No citizen would stand for this issue being resolved at the state legislative level, and nobody would ever get it on a ballot as a For Once And Always kind of question. It would come up every few years, forever. And I can guarantee you that it would pass in every single state almost every single time. It is because of this that I feel that the GOP should drop it as a plank in their platform. Or at least focus their point to the belief that the act is a moral wrong, and leave it at that. It is the darkest right, or the darkest wrong if you will, but it isn’t going away.

Anyway, one of the main arguments in favor of legalized abortion was to bring it out of the back alley, wire coat hanger, dark ages. And for the most part it did. Clinics and their staff were held to the same level of cleanliness and medical training as any other surgical center. But a case came up this week in Pennsylvania that shows that the left’s Political Correctness can slaughter even this Goose and it’s Golden Egg wet dream that is their one true victory. Former PA Governor Tom Ridge, Republican (the same guy who went on to lead DHS), buckled to political stone throwing and called a halt to state health department inspections of abortion clinics in his state in 1993. Fear was most likely the cause: the far left and the MSM would be all over him if his state people shut down an abortion clinic for any reason. The state doing things “for your own good” only gets a pass when Progressives do it. When Conservatives do it, it’s called oppression.

And guess what can happen when abortion clinics go uninspected for nearly two decades (and the rules that call for inspections when complaints are filed are ignored)? You could get another Joseph Mengele. And that looks to be exactly what happened in the Philadelphia area. A creature straight from Hell arose and prospered. The Law of Unintended Consequences can never be broken or bypassed.

This is a gruesome story.

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Accused of Killing Babies With Scissors, Charged With 8 Murders
Clinic Dubbed ‘House of Horrors’ After Investigators Found Body Parts in Jars

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, and nine employees from his West Philadelphia Women’s Medical Society were arrested Wednesday. He and his staff also are charged with killing a woman who was given a lethal dose of Demerol.

Gosnell catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women, and made millions of dollars over 30 years performing illegal and late-term abortions in squalid and barbaric conditions, prosecutors said.

“There were bags, and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building,” said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams. “There were jars lining shelves with severed feet that he kept for no medical purpose.”

Police officers went to investigate complaints about illegal prescription selling at the clinic last year and stumbled upon what the prosecutor called a “house of horrors.”

Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” Williams said.

The clinic was shut down and Gosnell’s medical license was suspended after the raid.

Some of his employees also were charged with murder, including a high-school student who performed anesthesia with potentially lethal narcotics. The grand jury report asserted the people who ran this medical practice did not include any nurses and or other doctors besides Gosnell himself.

Gosnell’s clinic was a prescription mill by day, Williams said, and by night was an abortion mill.

Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” Williams said.

Prosecutors described the clinic as a “house of horrors” where Gosnell kept baby body parts on the shelves, allowed a 15-year-old high school student to perform intravenous anesthesia on patients and had his licensed cosmetologist wife do late-term abortions. A family practice physician, Gosnell has no certification in gynecology or obstetrics.
Gosnell also had a taste for macabre jokes, once muttering that a nearly six-pound baby born alive to a 17-year-old who was seven-and-a-half months pregnant could “walk me to the bus stop,” the report said.
In addition to the two women who died, scores more were injured from perforated bowels, cervixes and uteruses, authorities said. Some were left sterile at the clinic, which had no trained nurses or medical staff other than Gosnell, they said.
“People knew near and far that if you needed a late-term abortion you could go see Dr. Gosnell,” Williams said.

The Grand Jury report is 300 pages long. Every sicko thing you can imagine went on in this place. It was the worst of the back alley world mixed with a horrifying dose of Sweeney Todd. The only things missing were organ harvesting and cannibalism ... but I haven’t read the full report yet.

But according to [District Attorney] Williams, state regulators ignored numerous complaints about Gosnell’s clinic and his office hadn’t been inspected since 1993. One doctor advised the department that numerous patients he had referred for abortions came back from Gosnell with the same venereal disease, Williams added.

Even after the death of Karnamaya Mongar, 41, on Nov. 20, 2009 of an alleged overdose of anesthetics prescribed by Gosnell, Williams said, the Department of Health did not act.

In fact, he said, Gosnell was caught by accident.

And today the story about those lack of inspections comes out. It makes a gruesome reminder to everyone everywhere to never buckle to political correctness. Do what is right, follow and enforce the laws you can’t or won’t change, and stand your ground against the jackals and the baying hounds.

While this week’s indictment involving a grisly abortion mill in Philadelphia has shocked many, the grand jury’s nearly 300-page report also contains a surprising and little-noted revelation: In the mid-1990s, the administration of Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, ended regular inspections of abortion clinics—a policy that continued until just last year.

According to the grand jury report released this week by Philadelphia prosecutors, Pennsylvania health officials deliberately chose not to enforce laws to ensure that abortion clinics provide the same level of care as other medical service providers.

The grand jury report said that one look at the place would have detected the problems, but the Pennsylvania Department of Health hadn’t inspected the place since 1993. Here’s the grand jury report, in surprisingly strong language:

The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.

“Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety,” the report states. “Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer.”

Sick. Nazi level sick, in the true concentration camp meaning of the word.

In a typical late-term abortion, the fetus is dismembered in the uterus and then removed in pieces. That is more common than the procedure opponents call “partial-birth abortion,” in which the fetus is partially extracted before being destroyed.

And when a living baby is fully delivered and then put to death it’s called murder. Unfortunately the numbers of deaths Gosnell caused this way are uncountable, since he destroyed the records and the women were under anesthesia at the time. But I bet it’s thousands. The word was out that he was the late-term guy, and women up and down the whole east coast came to see him. Want to bet those were cash transactions? You know they were.

Now ... sit back and watch him get away with it. “I wasn’t trained as an abortionist or as a maternity doctor”, he’ll cry. “I was helping out minorities and poor people!” “I misunderstood the stages of fetal development: I thought all these pregnancies were at the 23 week level!” “I thought I was following proper late-term abortion practices. Murder was never my intent!!” And after months and months of legal wrangling, he will never go to trial and all he’ll get is his license revoked - now that he’s old enough to retire and no longer needs it - and be fined for poor record keeping, which I bet is a penny ante misdemeanor. Because, after all, he was working on ghetto rats and illegal immigrants, and nobody gives a crispy fried shit about them. They and their babies are those “unwanted elements” that caused SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to so famously support Roe v. Wade because she didn’t want too many of them. Pity they just couldn’t be sterilized in the first place, or put into camps, eh Ruthie?


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 01/22/2011 at 11:11 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (3) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Saturday - October 25, 2008

Wasted Effort

Something other than McCain / Obama Politics

Vote would determine first ‘abortion-free state’

On Tuesday, November 4, the citizens of South Dakota will vote on the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Dr. Allen Unruh of says the opponents have launched a major battle against the pro-life measure. “Planned Parenthood is bringing in Barbara Streisand,” he explains. “They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive ads that are lies, and we’re going to attack for false and misleading advertising.”

The opponents of the abortion ban have raised almost double the amount of money for their campaign as the pro-life side has. So far, the pro-life campaign has not been able to buy advertising to combat it. “We haven’t had the funds to get on the air war,” Dr. Unruh adds. “This whole war on our side has been on the ground up until now, but it’s critical that we overcome their lies and deception.”
pregnancy illustration
Opponents in South Dakota have received a majority of their campaign’s funding from other states because, according to, this ban could become a national concern. Leslee Unruh, executive director of, is thrilled at the idea that South Dakota would be the first “abortion-free state.”

“We are asking Christians all across America to stand up and be counted to say, ‘You know what, I want to make a difference. This is one place where I can make a difference,’” Dr. Unruh adds.

Read the rest over at One New Snow

This bill is known as Measure 11 on the South Dakota ballot. It is what is called an Initiated constitutional amendment.

The ballot entry for Measure 11 will state

An Initiative to prohibit abortions except in cases where the mother’s life or health is at a substantial and irreversible risk, and in cases of reported rape and incest. 

Attorney General Explanation: 
Currently a woman may obtain an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.  Beyond 24 weeks, abortions may be performed only if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. 

Measure 11 would prohibit all abortions performed by medical procedures or substances administered to terminate a pregnancy, except for: abortions medically necessary to prevent death or the serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ or system of the woman, and abortions to terminate a pregnancy of less than 20 weeks resulting from rape or incest reported to law enforcement. 

When an abortion is performed as a result of reported rape or incest, the woman must consent to biological sampling from herself and the embryo or fetus for DNA testing by law enforcement. 

Measure 11 would allow the provision of contraception substances prior to the time pregnancy can be determined by conventional medical testing, or assistance in obtaining abortions in states where the procedure is legal. 

If approved, Measure 11 will likely be challenged in court and may be declared to be in violation of the United States Constitution.  The State may be required to pay attorneys fees and costs. 

YES- A vote “Yes” will adopt the proposed law.

NO- A vote “No” will reject the proposed law.

For the actual text of the measure click here

This is not the first time such a measure has come up in South Dakota. It was voted down 3 years ago. Even if this measure should pass, how will it be able to stand up against Roe v. Wade? I don’t think it can. Federal law trumps state law. Period.

Running over to CNN for a bit of background ...

Public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable over the years. A CNN/Opinion Research survey in October found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother’s life, and 22 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years.

Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy said they would allow restrictions on abortion, but only if the restrictions had a rational basis. More important, the three conservative justices said a compelling government interest need not be required to justify restrictions on abortion. That was a blow for anti-abortion forces.

Then came the Planned Parenthood ruling, in which the justices clearly outlined their views on Roe. The decision (also 5-4) reaffirmed the heart of Roe while giving states the power to regulate procedures so long as they did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion. The standard: Undue burden exists if “the purpose and effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” The ruling left supporters on both sides of the issue dissatisfied, feeling it was ambiguous.

Sounds to me like making a general abortion a Class 4 Felony is an Undue Burden and then some. Sorry South Dakota, your Measure is doomed to failure.

At least two other states have issues pertaining to abortion on their ballots this fall.

So this perennial Conservative Issue is still in play. Yet another issue that somehow didn’t make an appearance in any of the big deal Presidential Debates.


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 10/25/2008 at 09:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (1) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Thursday - April 17, 2008

This is freakin sicko




Just the categories I’ve got marked should be enough to turn you away. But if you’ve got a strong stomach - there are NO PICTURES thank God - read on


UPDATE - Macker points out that this is a hoax.

Ok, Macker may be right. It may be a hoax. I went and read his link. I have some problems with the author’s arguments. I think he has an emotional barrier, because of his wife’s miscarriage, that causes him to cling to “proofs” that may not be totally valid:

However, the author makes an update, and links to an article in the NY Sun that says Yale says that this is all a scam.

Yeah, well, that’s what you’d expect them to say isn’t it? Ivy League School plays Cover Your Ass at hypervelocity. Certainly Yale would never have a student this mentally twisted. Wanna bet? What kind of over-the-horizon ideas do Yale students come up with from time to time? The Sun article tells us about a molecular biology professor there:

A science student of Mr. Silver’s once proposed impregnating herself with chimpanzee sperm. Mr. Silver convinced her it was a “horrible thing for her to do,” but his fictionalized account of the event became a book and a play.

So what’s the takeaway here? It is possible that this woman did what she did. It is possible that it’s a made up story. The only thing for sure is that articles in the Yale newspaper now have to be taken with a larger grain of salt.

LATEST UPDATE: “Artist" stands by her story? Or is she playing coy just for publicity?

Shvarts stood by her project, calling the University’s statement “ultimately inaccurate.”… Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding, she said. She said she does not know whether or not she was ever pregnant.

“No one can say with 100-percent certainty that anything in the piece did or did not happen,” Shvarts said, “because the nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties.”

Oh brother. This is one screwed up young woman. Anything for attention?

This afternoon, Shvarts showed the News footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit. The tapes depict Shvarts — sometimes naked, sometimes clothed — alone in a shower stall bleeding into a cup.

Oy, such ART.
And the really Big Lie?

She said her endeavor was not conceived with any “shock value” in mind ... it’s not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone.

I suggest that the entire concept of “performance art” be tossed in the trash. Dance, Theater, and maybe a few episodes of “Punk’d” should cover things. I’m starting to think that “performance art” to “start a discussion” relates to real art about the same way that puns relate to good literature. It’s just spoiled little children pitching a fit to get attention.

See More Below The Fold


Posted by Drew458   United States  on 04/17/2008 at 02:04 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionArt-PhotographyColleges-ProfessorsInsanityOutrageousStoopid-People •  
Comments (5) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - May 02, 2007

Senator Snubbed

Meanwhile, out here in the Gateway City of the Midwest our new Senator is having problems with the church. It seems her liberal views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research do not please all of us out here. To heck with her liberal views. I just can’t stand to look at the woman. She makes Nancy Pelosi look like a centerfold. Where do Democrats find these hags?

I know, I know. That was tacky but I can’t help it. I worked hard to get Republican Jim Talent re-elected and was sorely disappointed when he lost the 2004 election by a whisker ... a whisker no doubt helped along with some rather devious activities by the liberal Democrats who control the city of St. Louis.

Here in Missouri we had ballot initiatives on stem cell research in the last election and the topic has not gone away. Midwesterners seem to be about evenly spilt, according to the polls. Abortion is also a hot button issue out here. McCaskill’s supporters are pretty much all in the liberal havens of downtown St. Louis and the University of Missouri at Columbia. The rest of our state is pretty much a red state.

McCaskill puzzles me the same way other Catholic liberals (John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi) puzzle me. The Catholic church has made a clear stand against abortion and embryonic stem cell research yet these Left wing-nuts openly defy their church with their positions. McCaskill even sends her daughter to a Catholic girls school and now her daughter is being placed in the embarrassing position of having to explain to her classmates why mommy won’t be showing up to inspire them with a graduation speech.

It seems to me that when it comes down to a choice between following their beliefs or following their base, there is really no decision to make. Getting elected trumps getting saved every time. How do you separate the politician from the religion? Should you? Too many questions - not enough answers ....

Senator Asked Not to Speak at Graduation
ST. LOUIS (AP) - May 2, 2007, 12:28 PM EDT

imageimageAn invitation to Sen. Claire McCaskill to speak at her daughter’s graduation from a Roman Catholic high school was withdrawn because of her positions on abortion and stem cell research.

Students at all-girls St. Joseph’s Academy in the St. Louis suburb of Frontenac wanted to have McCaskill speak at their commencement this month, McCaskill spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh said Tuesday.

But the offer was rescinded last week. The president of St. Joseph’s, Sister Michaela Zahner, said she reluctantly made the decision after receiving a call from the St. Louis Archdiocese.

McCaskill narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Sen. Jim Talent last November in a race in which embryonic stem cell research was a key issue. A McCaskill ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox—swaying noticeably from the effects of Parkinson’s disease—drew nationwide attention.

Marsh said the senator, a Catholic, understands that her positions supporting abortion rights and stem cell research are different from those held by the church. The senator was told by the school that the decision came from Archbishop Raymond Burke, Marsh said.

“I’m disappointed that the archbishop has made this decision,” McCaskill said in a statement. “It does not diminish my respect and admiration for St. Joseph’s Academy, their faculty, and students.”

A spokeswoman for the archdiocese, Anne Steffens, said the decision was not made by the archbishop. But Zahner said an archdiocese policy forbidding a public forum for speakers who diverge from church teaching clearly reflects Burke’s position.

While St. Joseph’s is a private, rather than an archdiocesan school, it receives its right to be identified as a Catholic institution through the archdiocese, Zahner said, adding that rescinding the invitation “was a very hard decision.”


Posted by The Skipper   United States  on 05/02/2007 at 11:02 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionDemocrats-Liberals-Moonbat LeftistsScience-Technology •  
Comments (9) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Sunday - April 22, 2007

SCOTUS Abortion Decision: Two Views


Brian Fairrington -
Cagle Cartoons


RJ Matsen -
The St. Louis Post Dispatch


Posted by The Skipper   United States  on 04/22/2007 at 06:05 AM   
Filed Under: • AbortionJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (19) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Wednesday - April 18, 2007

SCOTUS Upholds Abortion Law

The Supreme Court has just handed down a 5-4 decision upholding the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which says it is NOT OK to force labor in the second or third trimester and when the baby starts to come out stick a fork in its head, stir its brains up and suck them out for disposal along with the rest of the dead baby. Does this mean we can go back to behaving like civilized human beings again ... ?

Court Backs Ban on Abortion Procedure
WASHINGTON (AP) - Apr 18, 10:30 AM (ET)

imageimageThe Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The opponents of the act “have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision pitted the court’s conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush’s two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority. It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion.

Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.

The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions. More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday’s ruling.

Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed. “Today’s decision is alarming,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling “refuses to take ... seriously” previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.” She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

- More ...


Posted by The Skipper   United States  on 04/18/2007 at 11:42 AM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
Comments (36) Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

calendar   Monday - January 22, 2007

On This Day In History

Roe v. Wade: High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months
(NEW YORK TIMES) - January 22, 1973

imageimageThe Supreme Court overruled today all state laws that prohibit or restrict a woman’s right to obtain an abortion during her first three months of pregnancy. The vote was 7 to 2.

In a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue, the Court drafted a new set of national guidelines that will result in broadly liberalized anti-abortion laws in 46 states but will not abolish restrictions altogether.

Establishing an unusually detailed timetable for the relative legal rights of pregnant women and the states that would control their acts, the majority specified the following:

For the first three months of pregnancy the decision to have an abortion lies with the woman and her doctor; and the state’s interest in her welfare is not “compelling” enough to warrant any interference.

For the next six months of pregnancy a state may “regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health,” such as licensing and regulating the persons and facilities involved.

For the last 10 weeks of pregnancy, the period during which the fetus is judged to be capable of surviving if born, any state may prohibit abortions if it wishes, except where they may be necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Today’s action will not affect existing laws in New York, Alaska, Hawaii and Washington, where abortions are now legally available in the early months of pregnancy. But it will require rewriting of statutes in every other state.

The basic Texas case decided by the Court today will invalidate strict anti-abortion laws in 31 states; a second decision involving Georgia will require considerable rewriting of more liberal statutes in 15 others.

Justice Harry A. Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in which Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, Thurgood Marshall and Lewis F. Powell Jr. joined. Dissenting were Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist.

Justice White, calling the decision “an exercise of raw judicial power,” wrote that “the court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life which she carries.”

The Court’s decision was at odds with the expressed views of President Nixon. Last May, in a letter to Cardinal Cooke, he opposed “liberalized abortion policies” and spoke out for “the right to life of literally hundreds of thousands of unborn children.”

But three of the four Justices Mr. Nixon has appointed to the Supreme Court voted with the majority, with only Mr. Rehnquist dissenting. The majority rejected the idea that a fetus becomes a “person” upon conception and is thus entitled to the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. This view was pressed by opponents of liberalized abortion, including the Roman Catholic Church.

Justice Blackmun concluded that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn,” although states may acquire, “at some point in time” of pregnancy, an interest in the “potential human life” that the fetus represents, to permit regulation.

It is that interest, the Court said, that permits states to prohibit abortion during the last 10 weeks of pregnancy, after the fetus has developed the capacity to survive.

In both cases decided today, the plaintiffs had based their protest on an assertion that state laws limiting the availability of abortion had circumscribed rights and freedoms guaranteed them by the Constitution: due process of law, equal protection of the laws, freedom of action and a particular privacy involving a personal and family matter.

In its decision on the challenge to the Georgia abortion law, the high court majority struck down several requirements that a woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy in that state would have to meet.

Both of today’s cases wound up with anonymous parties wining victories over state officials. In the Texas case, “Jane Roe,” an unmarried pregnant woman who was allowed to bring the case without further identity, was the only plaintiff after the Supreme Court disqualified a doctor and a childless couple who said that the wife’s health would be endangered by pregnancy.

In the Georgia case, the surviving plaintiff was “Mary Doe,” who, when she brought the action, was a 22-year-old married woman 11 weeks pregnant with her fourth child.

Today: The following graph is from: “Roe v. Wade: The divided states of America” (USA TODAY) - April 17, 2006


It should be noted that pro-abortion activists (who call themselves “Pro-Choice") have continued to push the limits of the original court ruling again and again to the point where a procedure known as “Intact dilation and extraction” (also known as “Partial Birth Abortion") was developed in 1983 and came into use during the 1990’s in several states. Here is the medical description of the procedure (from Wikipedia):

Preliminary procedures are performed over a period of 2–3 days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus’ leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull and a suction catheter is inserted into the cut. The brain tissue is removed, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a suction curette.

The procedure was recently banned in 2003 when the House and Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Public Law 108-105, HR 760, S 3) and was signed into law by President Bush.

In 2005, Norma McCorvey, who was the “Jane Roe” who challenged the Texas anti-abortion law in the famous case, appeared on “Hannity & Colmes” and described how she had become a born-again Christian and was working to pressure the Supreme Court to reverse its 1973 decision. In recent years, she has become a outspoken opponent of abortion, arguing that the procedure may harm women and goes against Christian teachings.


Posted by The Skipper   United States  on 01/22/2007 at 08:11 AM   
Filed Under: • AbortionHistory •  
Comments (4) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

calendar   Monday - June 05, 2006

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

UNBELIEVABLE! Simply unbelievable. Woman goes to abortion clinic to get an abortion. The clinic screws up the abortion and a child is born with a hole in its heart and messed up lungs. So the mother sues the abortion clinic for damaging her child? You gotta be kidding me. Having an abortion is stupid enough but to sue the clinic when they mess it up?

It’s things like this that make me more and more convinced that abortion is wrong, very wrong. I’ve been on the fence on the abortion issue for decades. Personally, I do not consider it a choice for any child fathered by me but I’ve been willing to let others make the choice for themselves. Now I’m starting to change my mind. It’s time to repeal Roe v. Wade. This lunacy has gone far enough.

Court OKs Child’s Abortion Suit
June 5, 2006

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER) - A state appeals court has ruled that a Birmingham abortion clinic can be sued over an unsuccessful abortion that a woman blames for damaging her child’s health. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked a lawsuit filed by a woman on behalf of herself and her child. In a decision released May 26, the appeals court said the woman, identified only by her initials L.K.D.H., can sue Planned Parenthood of Alabama on behalf of her child.

Eric Johnston, a Birmingham attorney who has helped write many of the anti-abortion bills considered by the Legislature, said the decision is significant because it holds that a health care provider can be held responsible for injuries caused to a child in the womb. “The fact it was during an abortion doesn’t change that,” Johnston said. Larry Rodick, state director of Planned Parenthood, declined comment. Planned Parenthood attorney Eric Hoaglund said the decision is still under review and no decision has been made about the next step. He declined further comment.

The case involved a woman who went to Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinic in Birmingham. The abortion procedure was unsuccessful in ending her pregnancy, and she blamed the unsuccessful abortion for resulting in her daughter being born with injuries that included a hole in her heart and an inverted tube leading from her lungs to her heart, “causing her body not to be able to receive enough oxygen.”

Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. issued summary judgment in favor of the abortion clinic. The appeals court agreed with him that the mother couldn’t sue on her own behalf, but the five judges said she can sue on behalf of her child. “Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Alabama has ever ruled that a medical provider, or for that matter a mother, can engage, with some blanket of constitutional protection, in negligent or reckless conduct that deforms or injures a child so long as the deformity or injury is inflicted on the child before it leaves the womb,” Judge Glenn Murdock wrote.

To embrace that position would allow abortion clinics to operate “as carelessly or recklessly as they wish without bearing any responsibility. ... It would be hard to imagine a more troubling development in our law,” the judge wrote. Johnston said the ruling opens a narrow window because other Alabama court cases have held a woman can’t sue over a successful abortion and a child born healthy after an unsuccessful abortion can’t sue over “wrongful birth.”

The woman’s case was originally appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, but the court transferred it to the Court of Civil Appeals. At least one member of the Court of Civil Appeals questioned the transfer in a concurring opinion. Judge Craig Pittman wrote that the state law providing for the transfer of cases says the Supreme Court should not transfer a case that presents a “novel legal question” that has “significant statewide impact.” Murdock, who wrote the main decision, is running in the Republican primary for the Alabama Supreme Court.


Posted by The Skipper   United States  on 06/05/2006 at 03:29 PM   
Filed Under: • AbortionJudges-Courts-Lawyers •  
Comments (12) Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

Once Again, The One And Only Post
(4 total trackbacks)
Tracked at
The advantage to having a guide with you is thɑt an expert will haѵe very first hand experience dealing and navigating the river with гegional wildlife. Tһomas, there are great…
On: 07/28/23 10:37

The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We've Been Waiting For
(3 total trackbacks)
Tracked at head to the Momarms site
The Brownshirts: Partie Deux; These aare the Muscle We’ve Been Waiting For
On: 03/14/23 11:20

Vietnam Homecoming
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at 广告专题配音 专业从事中文配音跟外文配音制造,北京名传天下配音公司
  专业从事中文配音和外文配音制作,北京名传天下配音公司   北京名传天下专业配音公司成破于2006年12月,是专业从事中 中文配音 文配音跟外文配音的音频制造公司,幻想飞腾配音网领 配音制作 有海内外优良专业配音职员已达500多位,可供给一流的外语配音,长年服务于国内中心级各大媒体、各省市电台电视台,能满意不同客户的各种需要。电话:010-83265555   北京名传天下专业配音公司…
On: 03/20/21 07:00

meaningless marching orders for a thousand travellers ... strife ahead ..
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Casual Blog
On: 07/17/17 04:28

a small explanation
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at yerba mate gourd
Find here top quality how to prepare yerba mate without a gourd that's available in addition at the best price. Get it now!
On: 07/09/17 03:07



Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
  1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
  2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
  3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
  4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.


Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner

GNU Terry Pratchett

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
free counters