To rightwing trash? Why make the effort.
What this "doctor" did was monstrous, there is no denying that.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ls-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/
Why should govt exist after it allowed that to happen?
Not only is govt force, but what fuck is the point if the govt is not protecting liberty with it?
Watch this shit get "fixed" by issuance of more govt regulations.
I am sure this story will cause many anti choice nuts to say "Look, see, this is why we need to outlaw abortion", just as you have many on the Newtown shooting who are anti gun going "Look, see, this is why we need to outlaw guns".
I am old enough to remember when women could not have legal abortions. Old enough to remember as a kid women dying in deplorable conditions in their own homes and apartments trying to self abort.
I don't think that abortion should be illegal based on this one incredible, totally sick actions of this so called nut job doctor.
Maybe that state/county that this doctor was doing this needs to take a closer look at better access and education for poor women in those areas. It sounds like he prayed on very uneducated poor women who were very desperate.
Most women don't even know they are pregnant until 8-10 weeks roughly. So making laws to ban abortion at that early a stage is ridiculous.
How is this a massive failure of government? I have no desire to continue reading the story just to find out where the government failure is.http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ls-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/
Why should govt exist after it allowed that to happen?
Not only is govt force, but what fuck is the point if the govt is not protecting liberty with it?
Watch this shit get "fixed" by issuance of more govt regulations.
You mean the coverage you think it deserves. Perhaps you need to not let emotion enter into the discussion. Or I could just link all the other MSM Outlets and all their coverage as well. But that would also not be enough for you.
The bold says it all...
It's all well and good that the story is on CNN's webpage, but if this story fit what CNN wanted to get out, it'd be running wall-to-wall on their cable channel. It's also all you would have seen on the weekend news shows. This creep paints of big black eye on the practice of late term abortion and liberals don't want that image to reach the American Idol crowd.
OK, abortion is the law of the land - fine. But given the .govs desire to regulate everything, they seem to be very hands off when it comes to abortion clinics. It's all about the agenda.
I found an interesting article yesterday while reading into this further and they had a breakdown of the news sites that were whining about the lack of media coverage. They didn't have any actual trial coverage either. One source did have one trial article and then 7 articles bitching about the media coverage.
How is this a massive failure of government? I have no desire to continue reading the story just to find out where the government failure is.
If what this doctor did was monstrous, there is no honest argument in the left's arsenal to support that claim.
To a pro-abortionist, how is this monstrous? The difference between this and a partial-birth abortion is a matter of seconds. How is snipping the neck after birth substantively different from sucking the brains out shortly before?
The vast majority of people that favor partial birth abortion would be fine with a ban if a provision for life of the mother exception.
I am pro choice but would be fine with a partial birth abortion ban if there were exceptions for life of the mother so stuff like http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/10/irish-doctor-abortion-law-inquest never happens.
The vast majority apparently doesn't include the 4 liberal justices on the SCOTUS.
Dissent
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented,[20] joined by justices David Souter, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer, contending that the ruling was an "alarming" one that ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent and "refuse[d] to take Casey and Stenberg seriously." Referring in particular to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Ginsburg sought to ground the Court's abortion jurisprudence based on concepts of personal autonomy and equal citizenship rather than the Court's previous privacy approach: "Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."[2]
Ginsburg also took issue with the lack of a health exception, writing that "the absence of a health exception burdens all women for whom it is relevant—women who, in the judgment of their doctors, require an intact D&E because other procedures would place their health at risk." In general, the dissent criticized the usurpation of medical decision-making by legislators and the minimization of "the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors... as 'preferences' motivated by 'mere convenience'."[5]
Justice Kennedy's opinion in Carhart did not touch upon the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were valid. Dissenting Justice Ginsburg characterized this aspect of the Court's opinion as follows: "Casey's principles, confirming the continuing vitality of ‘the essential holding of Roe,’ are merely ‘assume[d]’ for the moment ... rather than ‘retained’ or ‘reaffirmed.’" Ginsburg concluded by criticizing the majority for abandoning the principle of stare decisis, writing that "a decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power."
Health is quite different from life-threatening.
How is this a massive failure of government? I have no desire to continue reading the story just to find out where the government failure is.
I don't think so. You make it sound like women are deliberately carrying a fetus to term and aborting them.
It makes no sense and I would say 99.99 % of women are not going to be doing this unless the risk to their health is on the order of losing a limb or being a vegatable for the rest of their lives. If those are the choices than I am against any legislation that makes that choice for a woman.
The truly sad part of this story is that there is such a huge need for affordable choices and complete lack of access to proper health options that women were forced to go to that hellhole and that this monster was their only option.
Everything about this story is fucked up. And the thing I can't seem to grasp is why?
The doctor and his staff were both working and living in squalor. They weren't hoarding money and living in luxury and excess. This wasn't someone out there pocketing millions for doing terrible things. The guy put all his profits into keeping the clinic open and running drug treatment centers in the poorest parts of the city. There had to be safer and better options. Right?
First, point to any case in which giving birth might lead to an amputation or brain death.
Second, even if you do, it doesn't justify infanticide.
The health exception has one purpose: it's malleable. It's the gateway to abortion for any reason, at any time. There can only be one justification for abortion: if your life hangs in the balance.
I don't need to because you have already staked your position on the only justification is the life of the mother.
Like I said previously there wasn't even a life of the mother or health provision anywhere in the partial birth abortion bans. So the law as it stands is pretty untenable even by your own admission.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is the first federal law aimed at criminalizing an abortion procedure since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide more than 30 years ago. The law prohibits a physician from "knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion and thereby kill[ing] a human fetus," except when the abortion "is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."
That said you are making it sound like women are getting pregnant and carrying the fetus to term and then setting out to have a partial birth abortion.
This never happens and no one is going to carry a fetus to term and abort it unless there are some truly grave consequences it just makes no sense.
Guttmacher, a division of Planned Parenthood, says there is such an exception.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/4/gr070401.html
No I'm not. I'm saying that unless your life is at stake, you shouldn't be able to get a partial-birth abortion.
Uh, yes it does happen. There are roughly 1000 of them a year.
Despite its finding that "partial-birth abortion ... is ... unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother", the statute includes the following provision:
“ A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Yes, i'm pro-choice, but this really disgusts me, not only the actions of the doctor and staff, but especially the actions of the news media that are doing everything they can to avoid reporting on the story and the trial.
His clinic wasn't inspected since 1992. Multiple violations were reported to health inspectors etc.
The whole thing doesn't make sense. I work in a hospital. Inspectors come around constant and nickpick the fucking dumbest shit. For instance, we, Physicians, aren't allowed to have drinks when we round. We are not allowed to carry cups per JCAHO.
How did this guy run a huge practice with glaring violations?
It is like the inspectors just said, "well, its in the ghetto, fuck it."