One of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers was acquitted Friday of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict was announced the state’s medical board announced it was investigating similar allegations against him.
Prosecutors had alleged that Dr. George Tiller had in 2003 gotten second opinions from a doctor who was essentially an employee of his, not independent as state law requires, but a jury took only about an hour to find him not guilty of all 19 counts.
Tiller, who could have faced a year in jail for even one conviction, stared straight ahead as the verdicts were read, with one of his attorneys patting his shoulder after the decision on the final count was declared. His wife, seated across the courtroom, fought back tears and nodded. The couple declined to speak to reporters afterward.
suck it, rapture bunnies
well…at least he was tried by a jury of his peers–rational, reasonable, educated, and principled people.
compare that to Don Siegelman of Alabama—tried by a Con-servative AG, before a jury of hand-picked Con-servative lackeys and a Con-servative judge….dude never had a chance. He was convicted before he ever entered the courtroom. Situation didn’t change even in first-round Appeal…2 of 3 judges were Con-servative picks, and were decided exactly as they were instructed, so back to jail while round-two gets put together…..
Conservativism is the Con….and suckers for whom thinking hurts get pulled in.
Absolutely Tiller should have been convicted. He clearly broke the law by not getting a second opinion. Moreover, as a disability advocate I am appalled by his idenitification of Down Syndrome as a catastrophic disorder that warrants an abortion up until the ninth month despite the fact that the average life expectancy for such individuals is 60. He is anti-disability, anti-diversity, and a promoter of false compassion in his practices. People need to understand that one need not been a conservative to oppose such practices, as people on both sides of the political spectrum have opposed Tiller’s actions for various reasons.
Congratulations to the pro-abortion crowd. Big win!
*sigh* If only that were anywhere close to accurate, Hedley.
No one I know is “Pro abortion”
Just as no one I know who calls them selves “Pro life” is actually For all life.
There is only pro choice and anti choice on this issue.
So say we all.
I give credit to the pro -life crowd.
they have corned the market on word play.
they cal themselves pro-life when they are clearly not.
They are instead anti abortion but pro-life sounds a hell of a lot better.
And “pro-choice” sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-abortion.
Hedley,
It’s not about how it sounds it is about what IS. No one is out there cheering on abortions. I myself and people I know are for the CHOICE.
It is all in how you present yourself.
Pro-choice does not mean anti-life yet it is framed that way.
I doubt there are more than 100 people in the country who are anti-life.
syco,
Try this try going to a “Pro-Life” meeting and talk about issues of life.
Death penalty.
Affordable health care.
Affordable housing.
Issues of affordable and safe food.
You will see how out right … Darwinian, unchristian like all and all how un-pro-life they are.
“they cal themselves pro-life when they are clearly not>’
Interesting that Hedley did not respond to THAT part of syco’s post.
Most of the people who identify as ‘pro-life’ have not adopted children out of foster care, and wig out with extreme wigginess when they hear about couples like me and my husband adopting such children. Apparently, the concern for life lasts from conception to birth.
And “pro-choice” sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-abortion.
There is no such thing.
“suck it, rapture bunnies” that is the best you can come up with you coward??? You all can debate what “pro-choice” means till the cows come home. The stark reality is …babies are being killed and like it or not, it is murder. Most people care more about their dog’s health the days instead of the unborn. 20 or more weeks and these babies are killed…think about it.
The stark reality is…
…starker in your reality than in mine.
You all can debate what “pro-choice” means till the cows come home.
I’m pretty sure it means this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184097&title=Bristol-Palin%27s-Choice
“Most people care more about their dog’s health the days instead of the unborn.”
How would you know? Did you do a poll of “most people” on their “my dog versus the unborn” attitudes?
How many unwanted babies have you adopted, Catherine?
Do you oppose the death penalty? Do you oppose the Iraq war? Did you from the start? Do you oppose hand guns?
Just curious how far your “Pro-life” position goes.
to be truly pro-life you must be a pacifist.
any thing less is a joke.
PLUS
being pro-choice doesn’t mean you can’t be anti-abortion.
I may not like guns but that doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t have one.
If you want to nip a possible life before it has a chance that’s your damn business not mine.
syco: to be truly pro-life you must be a pacifist.
any thing less is a joke.
I think that’s an oversimplification. Really depends on what you mean by “pro-life”, I suppose.
Pro all life? Difficult if you still want to eat.
Pro all animal life? I’ve known sincere vegans/vegetarians who claim that. But I’ve also seen them swat a fly so if I wanted to hold them to an absolute (the easier to show their hypocrisy, my dear) I could do that.
Pro all human life? Then we’re into the “when does life begin?” debate which will NEVER be completely settled. And even if someone claims they revere and want to protect all human life, I don’t see a real problem with them being for war (i.e., non-pacifist) because a legitimate argument can be made that fewer will die overall if a hundred aggressors are killed and prevented from killing 1000 victims.
I’d be wary of using a “Well, if you’re truly pro-life you must be an pacifist or (HA!) I just called you on your hypocrisy” argument.
sigh. Damn tags again. Should have been
Catherine, would you be willing to personally put the handcuffs on a thirteen-year-old girl who got an illegal abortion because she was raped by her father?
And would you provide her with medical attention before sepsis set in and killed her from a botched procedure?
“Do you oppose the death penalty?”
I’m amused by people who proclaim they’re “pro-life” and support the death penalty. Sort of like a self-proclaimed vegetarian who supports the eating of meat.
Let’s look at some of the arguments with out the vitriol.
Duros62’s remark to Catherine asking how many babies she has adopted: that is a red herring. It doesn’t matter if Catherine has adopted any babies or not, just like it doesn’t matter if Duros62 has actually participated in an abortion decision or not. What matters is if Catherine supports adoption as a loving, caring way to deal with orphans and Duros62 supports the killing of an innocent baby in the womb.
Which brings us to the next red herring, postulated by Duros562, Daniel Rotter, Grumpymann, and others about the death penalty. Generally speaking, a death penalty is exactly that…a penalty. The person has committed a crime against society that is considered to be so heinous (try murder or multiple rapes) that the only just punishment for that crime is his own life. Please explain what crime the baby in the womb has committed to deserve such a punishment. Abortion and the death penalty are two different issues.
As for Daniel Rotter’s question about arresting a 13-year old girl who had an abortion, the answer is no. But the adult who took her for an abortion should be arrested, as well as the father who raped her and the doctor who performed a medical procedure on a minor while she was in duress. But this is yet another red herring: the Guttmacher Institute does studies on why women get abortions and less than 1 percent of the women who had abortions in the US said it was because she was pregnant because of rape and less than one-half of 1 percent of the women who had abortions in the US are because of incest. The reality is, a vast majority of women (over 70 percent) said it was because having would change her life. And before anyone says that the Guttmacher Institute must be pro-life, it ain’t so. They started off as a part of Planned Parenthood, the number one provider of abortions in the US (performing over 20 percent), and they continue to produce studies in support of the abortion industry.
As for the question of when human life begins, check your embryology, medical, or nursing books and you will find most of them to say, that at the moment of fertilization, a unique life is begun. That’s what science that’s not trying to make a point of justifying abortion says.
None of this really matters in the context of this blog. Tiller wasn’t on trial for performing abortions. He was on trial for breaking the law. In Kansas, in order to perform a late-term abortion, the patient was supposed to get an independent second opinion that it was safe for her to get that late-term abortion. As it turns out, most of the second opinions that Tiller’s patients got were from a doctor who is paid by Tiller’s medical practice and only takes patients from Tiller’s referrals. The 19 violations he was cited for all had second opinions from this doctor.
Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, this blatant conflict of interest and flagrant snubbing of the law should concern every one of us. When there is no law, there is only anarchy, and I don’t think any of us really wants that.