The 10" Shaming Wand

What does it say about the current state of woman's reproductive healthcare when Doonesbury isn't so much satire as it is a factual depiction?

Government Official Rep. Larry Pittman Calls For the Assassination of Citizens Engaged in Legal Activities

Remember the good old days when politicians merely drafted legislation to make it legal to assassinate Ob/Gyns, and when even the domestic terrorists at Operation Rescue were trying to distance themselves from people who assassinate Ob/Gyns?

Well, I'm happy to report we've come a long way, baby! We now have government officials calling for the public hanging of Ob/Gyns.

Behold, North Carolina Rep. Larry Pittman and his action plan to hang citizens just because they are engaged in legal activities:

"We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner," Pittman wrote in the email. "If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well."

When asked by a reporter to confirm that he, indeed, called for the public hanging of Ob/Gyns, rapists, and kidnappers, pastor, shipping worker, company chaplain and lawmaker Pittman had this to say:

He said he was tired and accidentally hit "Reply All" on an email that Moore [Rep. Tim Moore, another lawmaker] had sent to the General Assembly about Hembree [a death row inmate].

...

"I felt a need to 'vent' some of these feelings and intended to do so to him [Moore] alone. In the process, I got a bit carried away and overstated my case. I am sure I am not the only one who has ever done that.

...

"What I regret is that something I wrote as a personal note to a fellow member of the House has had the effect of taking the focus off of where it should be....

Accidentally hitting "Reply All" is something to focus on and regret, and worthy of an apology. Calling for the public hanging of citizens engaged in legal activities, not so much.

I was curious to see the media coverage on Rep. Larry Pittman. From what I read so far, no discussion or analysis of the fact that a government official is calling for the assassination of Ob/Gyns.

Mind you, I am well aware that Ob/Gyns aren't really "citizens" citizens, afforded the same legal protections, rights, and ability to do their job as actual citizens like, for example, judges are. Nevertheless, it's jarring to observe how far down the rabbit hole this country has fallen when a call by a government official to assassinate people engaged in legal activities isn't even considered worthy of public discussion, let alone controversial.

Speaking of public discussion, if you are a history buff, I've included the contact information for a few officials/organizations. Get in touch and get their reaction to a government official calling for the murder of people engaged in legal activities on the record. This way, once the government starts hanging citizens at its pleasure, you have a nice piece of memorabilia you can discuss with friends and family during the assassinations. Um, provided, of course, none of you happen to belong to one of the groups the government decides to murder just because it can.


Rep. Thom Tillis (Speaker of the House, the presiding officer of the House of Representatives) - Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net (919-733-3451)

Governor Bev Perdue - governor.office@nc.gov (919-733-5612)

The United States Attorney's Office Middle District of North Carolina - Greensboro (336-333-5351), Winston-Salem (336-631-5268)

ACOG - communications@acog.org (202-484-3321)



(via)

I Had an Abortion, Therefore Totalitarian State Rule!

"I had an abortion, therefore Totalitarian State Rule for the lot of you!" type narratives puzzle me.

Take the latest offering, from Rep. Michele Bachmann. While answering a question on her position on abortion at a town hall meeting she tells the story of a past unplanned pregnancy that ended in a spontaneous abortion:

“It was an unexpected baby, but of course we were delighted to have this child. The child was coming along and we ended up losing our child. And it was devastating to both of us, as you can imagine if any of you have lost a child.”

She told the rapt audience of 400 South Carolina voters that the experience changed her and eventually led her to raise 23 foster children along their five biological children.

“At that moment, we didn’t think of ourselves as overly career-minded or overly materialistic but when we lost that child, it changed us, and it changed us forever,” she said.

Bachmann is clearly able to recognize that a private, personal matter -- how she and her husband felt about an unplanned pregnancy and its outcome -- shaped her view on abortion. And her as you can imagine if any of you have lost a child clearly shows she is aware that other people, just like her, also have personal experiences when it comes to pregnancy matters.

So far, so good. What puzzles me is the next step.

How do you go from "Based on my personal experience I would not choose to have an abortion." to "We must use the State's power to force the choice I made based on my personal experience on perfect strangers."?

I really wish a reporter would bother to ask Rep. Bachmann to explain her thought process.

And just for comic relief, next time Rep. Bachmann says she is 100 percent pro-life from conception until natural death, she should be asked at what point exactly during "conception" does her position kick in (fertilization is a complex sequence of events that takes about 24 hrs after sperm penetrates the oocyte, and results in a bunch of totipotent cells).

Jilted Ex-Boyfriend Puts Up Libelous Billboard, Hides Behind Free Speech

A woman consents to, all on her own pretty self, and undergoes a common, perfectly legal medical procedure. Her ex-boyfriend, vexed that the woman had the procedure against his wishes, puts up a billboard making unsupported claims about her medical history, and falsely accusing her of committing a crime.

The ex-boyfriend's attorney argues this is a First Amendment free speech issue:

ALAMOGORDO, N.M. – A New Mexico man's decision to lash out with a billboard ad saying his ex-girlfriend had an abortion against his wishes has touched off a legal debate over free speech and privacy rights.

The sign on Alamogordo's main thoroughfare shows 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, "This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!"

Fultz's ex-girlfriend has taken him to court for harassment and violation of privacy. A domestic court official has recommended the billboard be removed.

But Fultz's attorney argues the order violates his client's free speech rights.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," Todd Holmes said.

The woman's friends say she had a miscarriage, not an abortion, according to a report in the Albuquerque Journal.

Holmes disputes that, saying his case is based on the accuracy of his client's statement.

"My argument is: What Fultz said is the truth," Holmes said.

The woman's lawyer said she had not discussed the pregnancy with her client. But for Ellen Jessen, whether her client had a miscarriage or an abortion is not the point. The central issue is her client's privacy and the fact that the billboard has caused severe emotional distress, Jessen said.

"Her private life is not a matter of public interest," she told the Alamogordo Daily News.

I am unclear on what making unsupported and false statements about a person's medical care has to do with free speech, but one thing is crystal clear.

Pregnant women should be forced to make their medical records publicly available so that we all can judge their medical decisions and let the world know how we, you know, feel about those decisions.

Russia's Orthodox Church Uses Women's Brains and Uteri as Stepping Stones to Power

Russia's Orthodox Church is seeking a more muscular role in society. What to do, what to do to achieve that goal?

How about support proposed legislation aimed at infantilizing women of reproductive age and denying them proper medical care:

MOSCOW – Russia's Orthodox Church teamed with Conservative parliamentarians Monday to push legislation that would radically restrict abortions in a nation struggling to cope with one of the world's lowest birthrates.

The legislation would ban free abortions at government-run clinics and prohibit the sale of the morning-after pill without a prescription, said Yelena Mizulina, who heads a parliamentary committee on families, women and children.

She added that abortion for a married woman would also require the permission of her spouse, while teenage girls would need their parents' consent. If the legislation is passed, a week's waiting period would also be introduced so women could consider their decision to terminate their pregnancy, Mizulina said.

Ralph W. Lang Wants to Assassinate Ob/Gyns, Feds Charge Him With Terrorism...Not

With the recent arrest of a confessed terrorist we can all breath a sigh of relief, secure in the knowledge that our government takes the threat of terrorism against all its citizens seriously.

Here are the facts of the case:

A man named Bohamed Batta said he had been in New York with a gun last week, but was having “spiritual struggles” and was not “100 percent in sync with God” so he did not shoot anyone.

Bohamed had a history of targeting Times Square buildings where people who disobeyed his religious beliefs could be found. Court documents said he was arrested in 2007 outside a Times Square building, telling officers that everyone in the building deserved to be executed and that police were failing in their jobs by not carrying out the executions. Bohamed received a disorderly conduct citation, according to court records.

He told authorities he bought the .38 caliber gun in the New York area about two years after his arrest “to help end people who disobeyed his religious beliefs.”

A police Sargent looked around Bohamed’s motel room and saw a box that contained several documents, including a map of the U.S. with dots in each state and the handwritten words “some centers were people disobey my religious beliefs.”

Also written on the map was “The Prophet [PBUH] says Hell awaits any person disobeying my religious beliefs.”

In an interview with detectives, Bohamed said he arrived in New York City from New Jersey about 1 p.m. on Wednesday, and after checking in and bathing, drove by Times Square to see if anyone was there.

He said that on Thursday he intended to find out who the people disobeying his religious beliefs were and “do what I feel police officers fail to do.”

Asked what that was he said, “Take a gun, drop the people.”

Fortunately, because an accidental discharge of his gun, Bohamed was caught before he can carry out his plan, and federal prosecutors swooped in to the rescue.

The Feds charged Bohamed with attempted first-degree intentional homicide for allegedly attempting to kill people who disobey his religious beliefs and, obviously, with acts of terrorism.

Oh, wait a minute. That's not at all what happened.

The man's name is not Bohamed Batta, but rather Ralph W. Lang. He is a Christian, not a Muslim, and his assassination targets were people who disobeyed his religious beliefs at Planned Parenthood centers in Madison and Milwaukee, not New York City.

Most important, since the segment of people who disobeyed his religious beliefs marked for assassination by Lang was just medical personnel who assist pregnant patients with a safe, effective, and legal medical procedure, federal prosecutors only charged Lang with...wait for it...a misdemeanor:

[A] criminal complaint filed Thursday by federal prosecutors in U.S. District Court in Madison that charged Lang with a misdemeanor, attempting to injure, intimidate and interfere with people providing reproductive health services.

Clearly, Lang's stated intent to use deadly force and violence against Ob/Gyns to intimidate or coerce a segment of the civilian population in furtherance of his social objectives does not fit the Code of Federal Regulation's definition of, you know, terrorism:

Definitions

There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:

* Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(via)

Abortion Demographics

Despite the drawback that facts don't play a role in abortion legislation, this is a good video from the Guttmacher Institute on abortion demographics:





(via)

Black Uterine Containers Deemed Most Dangerous to Future of Race

NYDailyNews.com

Here's Rev. Stephen Broden, in all his glory:

"We celebrate our history, but our future is in jeopardy as a genocidal plot is carried out through abortion," said the Rev. Stephen Broden, an official with the anti-abortion group Life Always.

...

"Our message is one that's provocative," he said. "It's true and it's accurate and it's real."

Because nothing's more true and accurate than declaring that the melanin content in the cells of certain pregnant women renders them incompetent to make their own decisions, and puts a serious damper on their ability to figure out genocidal plots and walk and chew gum at the same time.

And here I thought just being a uterine container made you the lowest of the low. I stand corrected. Rev. Stephen Broden is here to demonstrate that there are always new and improved ways to degrade you.

UPDATE: The ad has been taken down. No word yet on what happened to Rev. Stephen Broden's belief that black pregnant women are mindless uterine containers.

Update on South Dakota's Bill to Legalize Domestic Terrorism

The language of HB 1171 has been changed. The new version (old version here):

1 FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for
2 the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain
3 crimes.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
5 Section 1. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for homicide as defined in § 22-16-1
6 or assault as defined in § 22-18-1 or 22-18-1.1 that the defendant is a pregnant woman who used
7 force or deadly force against another to protect her unborn child if:
8 (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
9 would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
10 against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
11 threatening her unborn child; and
12 (2) She reasonably believes that her intervention and use of force or deadly force are
13 immediately necessary to protect her unborn child.
14 Section 2. The affirmative defense provided in section 1 of this Act does not apply to:

1 (1) Acts committed by anyone other than the pregnant woman;
2 (2) Acts where the pregnant woman would be obligated to retreat, to surrender the
3 possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self-defense.
4 However, the pregnant woman is not obligated to retreat before using force or deadly
5 force to protect her unborn child, unless she knows that she can thereby secure the
6 complete safety of her unborn child; or
7 (3) The defense of human embryos existing outside of a woman’s body.

The key difference in the updated version is that the affirmative defense only applies to killings committed by the pregnant woman.

Of course, the bill is still a lot of nonsense:

8 (1) Under the circumstances as the pregnant woman reasonably believes them to be, she
9 would be justified under § 22-16-35 in using force or deadly force to protect herself
10 against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be
11 threatening her unborn child;

South Dakota already has justifiable homicide laws for self defense which allow the pregnant woman to use deadly force to protect herself against unlawful force used against *her*.

It's not possible to use unlawful force or unlawful deadly force against a pregnant woman that would only threaten part of her uterine contents and nothing else.

Bottom line: Just because Rep. Phil Jensen and his cohorts were caught in the act of trying to legalize domestic terrorism and, when called on it, made some changes to the bill doesn't mean they are absolved of responsibility.


(via)

Bow Before State Representative Phil Jensen and His Grotesque Lies and Disturbed Fantasies!

A question for the voters of South Dakota: Did you change your state's motto to "Legalizing Domestic Terrorism and Proud of It" while the rest of the country wasn't looking?

And now bask in the glory that is State Representative Phil Jensen and his grotesque lies and disturbed fantasies (really bad form emphasis mine):

I just had a spirited conversation with the bill's chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

"It would if abortion was illegal," he told me. "This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion."

HB 1171:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person , if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being

accomplished.

Not only doesn't [t]his code only deal[] with illegal acts, it specifically enumerates attempts to commit illegal acts (any felony) and attempts likely to result in the death of the [fetus] as distinct categories and makes homicide justifiable in both instances.

Furthermore, the vague "resisting" and "any attempt" in  while resisting any attempt...likely to result in the death of the [fetus] are in there for a reason. It doesn't matter that abortion is legal and that the patient consented to the procedure. If the patient involuntarily kicks you during the procedure while sedated, her master, her mistress, and her servant whom she brought along for support, can all three shoot you in the head right there in the operating room in an act of South Dakota justifiable homicide.

Who's to say a patient's involuntary movement isn't "resisting" and a legal procedure isn't "any attempt"? Oh, wait, my mistake! The person about to blow the Ob/Gyn to smithereens, that's who, according to HB 1171.

As long as the person has a reasonable belief that there's a whiff of intent in the air (reasonable ground to apprehend a design) to commit an illegal act OR to do some great personal injury, the person can assassinate the Ob/Gyn in that most righteous of manners, the one that populates Representative Phil Jensen's disturbed fantasies, causes his nether regions to tingle, and makes a rapist assassinating his victim if she becomes pregnant and attempts to terminate the pregnancy justifiable.

As an aside, what is it with South Dakota legislators and disturbed fantasies? Here's Sen. William Napoli in 2006 describing the circumstances he would deem appropriate to qualify a rape for an exemption from the state's abortion ban:

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

In all fairness to Rep. Phil Jensen, his bill doesn't make being brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it (seriously, who thinks like this?) a prerequisite for justifiable homicide. His bill only requires the pregnant woman to chose to have an abortion at which time she can be justifiably killed by any person in the lawful defense of...the unborn child as long as the killer believes that there is reasonable ground to...do some great personal injury to the fetus.

Moving on:

Jensen insisted that the bill's primary goal is to bring "consistency" to South Dakota criminal code, which already allows people who commit crimes that result in the death of fetuses to be charged with manslaughter. The new measure expands the state's definition of "justifiable homicide" by adding a clause applying it to someone who is "resisting any attempt" to murder of an unborn child or to harm an unborn child in a way likely to result in its death.

When I asked Jensen what the purpose of the law was, if its target isn't abortion providers, he provided the following example:

"Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."

South Dakota already has justifiable homicide laws for self defense:

22-16-34.   Justifiable homicide--Resisting attempted murder--Resisting felony on person or in dwelling house. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
22-16-35.   Justifiable homicide--Defense of person--Defense of other persons in household. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

Granted, under the current laws, the pregnant woman in Rep. Phil Jensen's example would be justified in killing her ex-boyfriend just because he was beating on *her* and *her* abdomen (Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt ... to commit any felony upon him or her....)

Unfortunately, in Rep. Phil Jensen's fetid mind an attempt to commit a felony on just the uterine container doesn't pass muster. For the killing of the ex-boyfriend to count as justifiable homicide, the uterine container must be resisting an effort to murder her unborn child.

One last thing, a request I have for you. According to a news report, Concerned Women for America testified in favor of HB 1171:

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the "unborn child"; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota's justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was "hoghoused"—a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee—in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the go-to group for MSM articles on reproductive health and policy topics dealing with contraception and abortion. Every quote from a legitimate medical source is accompanied by a quote from one of CWA's representatives in a transparent attempt at a "she-said, she-said" game.

I say fine, let's play the MSM's game. So here's my request to you. Every time you see an article quoting CWA contact the reporter and ask him/her why a group that openly supports domestic terrorism directed at pregnant women and Ob/Gyns was included in the article. Then blog about the reporter's justification. At the very least it should be instructive.

So there you have it. I wish I could come up with an insightful summary but, really, what more is there to say? We have reached a stage where it's acceptable to propose a bill that would make it legal to assassinate pregnant women who terminate a pregnancy and the Ob/Gyns, nurses, etc. who care for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the voters of South Dakota and their elected representatives, the domestic terrorists' BFFs 4evah!


Update: The language of the bill has been changed.


ETA: I added the bit about MSM and some snark.

"Blogger gets 33 months for threatening Chicago [Ob/Gyns] on Internet"

A former Internet radio talk show host and blogger was sentenced to 33 months in federal prison on Tuesday for inviting readers of his blog to assassinate three [Ob/Gyns].

...

[The blogger] had faced up to six years in prison. His trial was moved from Chicago to Brooklyn, where the case twice ended in mistrials after jurors deadlocked. In addition to his statements [that the Ob/Gyns deserve to be killed, the blogger] posted photographs, phone numbers, work addresses, and room numbers for the three [Ob/Gyns].

“The [medical] system simply could not function if an individual’s efforts to intimidate a [physician] through threats of violence were protected from prosecution and punishment,” Patrick Fitzgerald, the US attorney in Chicago, said in a statement.

“We live in a system where [physicians] should be able to do their jobs and not have to look over their shoulders,” he added.

It's good to be a judge, no?

It's Good To Be the Prosecutor, the Rev. Philip L. "Flip" Benham Edition

Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano, a former mob boss, is being held under conditions reserved for terrorists after he was accused of scribbling a "hit list" with the names of the judge, a prosecutor and cooperating witnesses five years ago.

Meanwhile, Rev. Philip L. "Flip" Benham, director of the Dallas-based Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, convicted stalker of Ob/Gyns and proud creator and distributor of "Wanted"-style posters of the doctors, which included their names and home addresses, is sentenced to two years probation.

So, to recap:

Judges and prosecutors: The mere accusation of scribbling a "hit list" gets you held under conditions reserved for terrorists.

Ob/Gyns: The actual distribution of a "hit list" and stalking conviction gets you 2 years probation.

Bullets Have No Effect On Pregnant Women

The US military should exclusively use pregnant women on the front-lines since, according to Columbus, Ohio prosecutor Ron O'Brien, bullets have no effect on pregnant women.

Mr. O'Brien charged Dominic Holt-Reid, a man who pointed a handgun at his pregnant girlfriend and forced her to drive to a women's clinic, with one count of attempted murder because he tried at gunpoint to force her to have an abortion against her will.

Which brings up the question, what exactly does one have to do to a pregnant woman in Ohio to merit a charge of attempted murder against her, as opposed to part of one of her internal organs?

Dismayed: Abortion Rights Supporters' Perpetual State

In today's installment of the never-ending "Abortion rights supporters get caught with their pantaloons down after being given ample warning that they'll be pantsed" series:

WASHINGTON – Abortion opponents fought passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul to the bitter end, and now that it's the law, they're using it to limit coverage by private insurers.

An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.

"We don't consider elective abortion to be health care, so we don't think it's a bad thing for fewer private insurance companies to cover it," said Mary Harned, attorney for Americans United for Life, a national organization that wrote a model law for the states.

Abortion rights supporters are dismayed.
...

In Florida, Mississippi and Missouri, lawmakers have passed bans and sent them to their governors. Most of the states allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Insurers still could offer separate policies to specifically cover abortion.

Three other states may act this year — Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma. Overall, there are 29 states where lawmakers or public policy groups expressed serious interest, Harned said.

"You are going to see more actions like this," said Tom McClusky, a lobbyist for the socially conservative Family Research Council. "This is not something we are just going to let fall by the wayside."

Before the overhaul became law, five states had limits on private insurance coverage of abortion — Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Abortion rights supporters are concerned that the list is growing as a result of the new federal law.

Kagan: Ban "Late-Term" Abortion and Human Cloning

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan advised then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on "late-term" abortions and human cloning because...wait for it...of political considerations (emphasis mine):

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton's presidential library are among the first to surface in which Kagan weighs in the thorny issue of abortion.

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion rights groups opposed Daschle's compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican-led Congress override his veto on the stricter bill.

...

The memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.

"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," they wrote.

...

Kagan also recommended that Clinton support legislation banning human cloning in May 1997. At the time, the scientific and religious communities were abuzz about news that scientists had cloned a sheep, Dolly. The news raised questions about the legal and ethical boundaries of such research.

Kagan and White House science adviser Jack Gibbons urged the president to support a congressional ban on human cloning. Clinton followed that advice but the bill died in Congress.

How fitting, no?

Although I never had any illusions about President Obama and his stand on abortion I still manage to be surprised by the reality that, as far as our dear leaders are concerned, patients are irrelevant and political considerations rule.

Tennessee Bans All Abortion Coverage In Its State Health Insurance Exchange

Remember one of the main selling points touted by supporters of the recently enacted health insurance legislation, "Sure it's a bad law but, hey, at least it's a first step, one we can build on and improve in the future?"

Well, I'm happy to report these sage supporters were correct. The future is here and so are the, you know, improvements to the health insurance legislation:

A Tennessee bill (SB 2686) to bar health plans that offer abortion coverage from participating in the state health insurance exchanges to be created under the new federal health reform law (PL 111-148) will become law because Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) declined to take action on the measure, the Chattanooga Times Free Press reports. As a result, Tennessee becomes the second state after Arizona to bar abortion coverage in its state health insurance exchange. Unlike Arizona's law, the text of the Tennessee measure does not specifically mention exceptions for cases of rape, incest or threat to the woman's life. The General Assembly approved the bill two weeks ago (Bregel, Chattanooga Times Free Press, 5/6). In a letter to legislative leaders explaining his decision, Bredesen cited the lack of exceptions and said he hopes the Legislature will reconsider the issue before the exchanges take effect in 2014, the Knoxville News-Sentinel's "Humphrey on the Hill" reports. Bredesen wrote, "Instead of prudently ensuring that existing prohibitions on the use of public funds for abortions are applied to the operation of health care exchanges, this bill will impose a broad new restriction on the private insurance market and damage our ability to serve our citizens, including many who are opposed to abortion and would have no interest in that specific coverage." He added, "Moreover this new restriction on private companies would not provide longstanding reasonable exceptions for cases of rape, incest and protection of the lives of mothers" (Humphrey, "Humphrey on the Hill," Knoxville News-Sentinel, 5/5).

Erlyndon Joseph Lo, the "Undisputed World Champion of the Abortion Debate"

So what do you do if you're Erlyndon Joseph Lo, The Undisputed World Champion of the Abortion Debate and a devout Catholic entitled under your religious beliefs to use deadly force at will, after you 1) graduate from the Southern Methodist University law school, 2) take the New York bar exam, 3) go to the Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center with a receipt, demanding to find out if your [possibly imaginary] wife had an abortion, and 4) sue the U.S. Supreme Court justices, asking the justices to render abortion illegal and for $999 trillion in damages and $1,000/hour for attorney’s fees?

You file a Temporary Restraining Order against the law enforcement officers who will be responding when you go to the Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center and start offing its patients and employees, of course.

I took the time to read Mr. Lo's site (oh the things I do for you people!) and my impression is that what we have here is an unfortunate (not to mention conducive to mass murder sprees) mix of propaganda from Focus on the Family and a mentally unstable person:

Something that is bad is when I heard on the radio on Focus on the Family with Dr. James Dobson a girl who survived an attempted abortion. I'm not a doctor. I can only imagine what kinds of acids doctors use to dissolve babies in, like dropping an Alka-Seltzer in a clear cup of water watching the thin white circular tablet fizz and clearly dissolve into the water, to kill the baby. I think the acid is or acids are yellow. For now, for lack of a better term, I'm going to say sulfuric acid. Well, whatever the toxic substance, there was this one girl who survived that attempted murder. She was dropped into that poisonous, toxic, ultra-hazardous liquid. Fortunately, she survived. Now, when you listen to her talk, you can hear her gargling so to speak, talking as if she survived being dropped into yellow, burning, sulfuric acid. It's nasty. I feel bad for her.

I'm inclined to think that Mr. Lo is a lawyer only in his imagination but who knows? One thing we do know for sure, from the FBI press release, is that the maximum penalty for the crimes Mr. Lo is charged with is only six years in prison. Assuming he's found guilty, and in the absence of a proper mental health evaluation and treatment, it's disturbing to contemplate the possibility that Mr. Lo will be able to resume planning and carrying out his religious murder fantasies in a few years.

(via)

The Vatican: For Child-Raping Priests, Follow Medical Advice; For Nine-Year-Old Raped Girls, Excommunicate the Ob/Gyn

Photo by Sergey Gabdurakhmanov

Interesting. When it comes to priests raping minors the Vatican relies on, and follows, the professional recommendation of medical personnel:

"Only upon receipt of full assurance from qualified psychological counselors was the priest in question re-introduced into limited service, under supervision and with extensive limitations on his access to parishioners, after which he did not re-offend," Lena [the attorney for Levada, the top Vatican official who oversees the office that handles cases of alleged abuse by priests] said in an e-mail.

Even Pope Benedict is aware of this practice, so much so that he tries to use it as an excuse, one of the many excuses frenziedly flung to the wall as of late by church representatives and their enablers, in a mad dash to evade responsibility.

On the other hand, when it comes to nine-year-old girls who've been impregnated by their stepfather the Vatican just excommunicates the Ob/Gyn who performs the therapeutic abortion, medical advice be damned forever and ever to the fiery pits of hell.

I guess having a monopoly on the One.True.Morality (TM), you know, the very one the Catholic Church insists should be shoved down the throats of countless patients and their physicians and be made part of their medical care, isn't all that's cracked up to be after all.

Dr. Tiller's Assassin Sentenced

Dr. Tiller's assassin is sentenced to life in prison:

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert had the choice to make Roeder eligible for parole after 25 or 50 years, but said he gave him the harsher sentence because evidence showed Roeder stalked Tiller before killing him. As he was being led away in handcuffs, Roeder shouted, "Blood of babies on your hands."

Wilbert also sentenced Roeder to serve an additional year in prison on each of two counts of aggravated assault for threatening two church ushers in the melee. Allowing for possible time off those sentences for good behavior, Roeder won't be eligible for parole for 51 years and eight months.

One domestic terrorist activist removed from society, countless others still left to hunt down and assassinate Ob/Gyns and terrorize their patients.

With "Activists" Like These Who Needs Terrorists

The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The AP refers to Dr. Killer's assassin as an "activist."

So I emailed the AP and asked them what criteria do they use to define terrorism. I'll let you know if I get a response.