Hell Meet Handbasket

[Strike For The South]

Lady decides to have abortion at 23 weeks then sues doctor for murdering baby

Some people should be beaten with something heavy and blunt

[Lemur]

Who the hell gets an abortion when they're almost six months into it? And what kind of doctor consents?

Meanwhile, in keeping with the theme of the OP, the guy who directed Sen. John McCain's campaign in southern Colorado has another hobby: molesting underage boys.

Under investigation is Jeffrey Claude Bartleson, 52, who was arrested Jan. 29 and then re-arrested Wednesday after a campaign worker in the McCain office told police she believed Bartleson molested one of her sons. [...]

According to the woman, she and a co-worker were planning in October to attend a Sarah Palin rally in Colorado Springs but wanted to travel to the Springs the night before.

She told police that she mentioned the planned trip to Bartleson. He offered to keep her 5-year-old son overnight in Pueblo and then drive up to Colorado Springs the next day and meet them there.

She accepted Bartleson's offer.

The woman said that her son told her that while at Bartleson's home, Bartleson insisted on giving him a bath, during which he was sexually molested. Later, said the child, Bartleson forced him into Bartleson's bed, where he once again was molested.

In interviews this week with investigators, the child said that when he tried to get away from Bartleson, he kept pulling him back into the bed. He was finally able to leave when Bartleson fell asleep.

The child described Bartleson as "a bad man," according to the police affidavit. Asked why, the child responded, "because he does things to kids."

[The Black Ship]

Lemur how does your story relate to this thread? Spirit of OP?

Second, she didn't even have an abortion! The baby was born...then deliberately murdered.

[Don Corleone]

Right, and in keeping with the spirit of post #2.... Mary Jo Kopechne.... still dead , a victim of negligent homicide by the senior senator of Massachussets, Ted Kennedy.

What has that got to do with an abortion doctor having surviving fetuses thrown in the trash to die of exposure, or a woman having a 23rd week elective abortion? Ask poster #2.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well never mind my religious viewpoint that's murder in anyone's book I would think. How could someone just bin a baby?

Lemur's reply was, em, unexpected.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I believe Lemur was trying to provide an additional example of someone who should be "beaten with something heavy and blunt." Otherwise, it would make no sense.

[Don Corleone]

On the matter of the story, according to the coroner's report, the cause of death was technically the baby's premature state at delivery, not being sealed in a plastic bag.

Reading that story made my head hurt, and honestly, my sense of logic is more offended than my sense of morality (though that too).

Which of the following statements seems the most difficult to swallow?

-That a lawsuit brought by a woman seeking an abortion over the actual death of the baby she was seeking to abort has nothing to do with money?

-That the woman didn't know that she was 23 weeks pregnant until she suffered a fall and the pregancy was determined during the course of medical treatment given for the fall.

-That the doctor knowingly and willingly advised his clinic staff to feed the patient a prescribed drug that he believed would cause her to spontaneously abort, even though there were no certified medical staff licensed to administer such a cocktail.

-That he then took over an hour to arrive (after the brouhaha of tossing the baby into a biohazard bag), and then administered a sedative and sent her on her way...

-As mentioned above, that the coroner's office found that the cause of death was not being placed in a sealed plastic bag (yeah, cause that would never hurt a newborn, it had to be the prematurity at birth).

-That the police had to search the office 3 times to find the decomposing corpse in a closet.

It's a trick question... all are absolutely unbelievable.

[seireikhaan]

What a mind-boggling story. Makes not an ounce of sense to me in any way.

[Lemur]

Lemur how does your story relate to this thread? Spirit of OP?

Well, it was either post it in here or re-open the Toe-Tapping Republicans thread. I thought the rightwing Orgahs would appreciate it if I didn't resurrect that epic work ...

And yes, I meant that this is an example of another person who should meet with blunt force trauma sometime soon.

Carry on.

[InsaneApache]

I read this earlier today and although I side with the pro-choice agenda I found this both shocking and disturbing. There are several miles between aborting a foetus and murdering a viable baby. I'm sure that the anti-abortion lobby will have a field day over this. However at the end of the day a baby died.

[BigTex]

I read this earlier today and although I side with the pro-choice agenda I found this both shocking and disturbing. There are several miles between aborting a foetus and murdering a viable baby. I'm sure that the anti-abortion lobby will have a field day over this. However at the end of the day a baby died.

At the end of the day the baby was going to die either way. I think the importance is in how the baby died. Instead of a much more humane, yes I loathe to use that in reference to a baby, method the doctor cuased the woman to give birth to the child and then they suffocated it to death in a ziploc. Kitten's are killed in animal pounds in much kinder ways then this. Partial birth abortion should truly be banned, if you can't make your mind up by 6 months then give the child away for adoption, don't kill it.

As for the case, it's bundlef*****, right from the start.

[InsaneApache]

At the end of the day the baby was going to die either way.

Not if the clinic didn't have the equivalent of Dr. Mengele on it's staff. No.

[Sigurd]

You guys over the pond should get a real abortion law.
It's time to lay down the battleaxe on both sides of the pro-anti fence and compromise.

23 weeks? I am glad this guy got sued and lost his licence.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This, of course, is much too restrictive for Obama's tastes, which is why he wants to pass the 'Freedom of Choice Act' that, IIRC, removes almost all laws against abortion.

CR

[Lemur]

Quote right, Crazed Rabbit. Why, I hear that Obama plans to kill fetuses personally in the White House just to prove his point.

Have a gander at Snopes, and see if it matches what you heard on talk radio. So far as I've heard, the only action our current Prez has taken was to reverse some Bush restrictions on funding groups that dare to provide information about abortion (as well as groups that actually provide abortions, a more understandable ban).

It would be so much easier to reach a compromise on this issue if the extremists on both sides would just calm down a little. Yes, Roe needs to be overturned. But we need to have an alternative structure ready before that's going to be palatable to a majority of Americans.

Anwyay.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The text.

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

Barack Himself;

"The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."

Oh, he was a co-sponser too.

So, the current situation on abortion in this country is viewed as being too restrictive by Obama, who wants to pass a law granting more legal protections to abortion.

CR

[Lemur]

Friend, you didn't originally say "more legal protections to abortion." You said "removes almost all laws against abortion," which I think you will agree is debatable.

Answer me this: Given political reality in this country, how would you approach minimizing abortion? Would anything short of a total ban appease you?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Friend, you didn't originally say "more legal protections to abortion." You said "removes almost all laws against abortion," which I think you will agree is debatable.

Not really;

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Answer me this: Given political reality in this country, how would you approach minimizing abortion? Would anything short of a total ban appease you?

Spread the word about the possibility of adoption, outlaw abortion after 4 months (or so), except when the life (NOT health) of a woman is directly in danger.

CR

[Don Corleone]

F.O.C.A. will require all hosptials, public and private, to perform abortions. It will also include abortion under medicaid. It will end all 3rd trimester elective restrictions, it will end pre-procedural counseling and it will end any parental notification laws. You can't have a baby aspirin at age 17 without your parents' signature, but you can get a 3rd trimester abortion at age 11? Does that seem reasonable to you?

I am hardly the poster child of the pro-Life movement. I do not believe that outlawing abortion is the best way to end the practice, and I would prefer to seek alternate methods to end the practice, those which address the demand side of the equation (a demand which continues to grow, year after year despite promises it would ebb).

But this piece of legislation is an abomination. It will serve to increase the divisiveness on the issue, and while it may temporarily strengthen the abortionists position, it will infuse new blood and energy into a whole new generation of a pro-life movement, its ranks swelled by people who ask themselves why it had to come to this and there could be no compromise.

[Don Corleone]

I just posted a pretty strong stance without links to back it up. So, let's see what that right-wing think tank, Slate.com has to say. And here, Senator Boxer, one of the Senatorial Sponsors, boasts on her website the very list of woes I list in my previous post.

You know, trusting my own faculties, I've always sort of waffled on this issue, abortion on demand. I've had something of a nuanced position, that allows it as an elective procedure, somewhere around viability. Seemed reasonable to me....

But on the one side, my Catholic faith tells me that I'm wrong in this position, that life in fact begins at conception (for the record, it is 'life' that is the fundamental qualifier for me, I see no reason for rape/incest provisions, once 'life' has begun).

On the other side, advocates declare me to be anti-choice. They say the fact that I don't support a woman's so-called right to choose in the 37th week as proof of my misogyny and dedication to a patriarchal system (not necessarily in the Backroom, but it happens).

So, I'm left with a choice, and my choice of in-between is clearly a false one. There is no middle ground on this issue. It will always be an all or none affair. Either you're pro-life, or you have to oppose parental notification laws, you oppose partial-birth-abortion bans, you must seek to end 'conscience clauses' and basically go all the way with the rabid pro-choice side.

Given the choice of one extreme or the other, in light of the strong urging of my church, I'm going to have to mold my position and go all the way pro-life. It is consistent with my opposition to the death penalty, it is consistent with my belief in the Just War theory, and most of all, it is, I believe, consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. I have tried to convince myself that i could justify a partial pro-choice position to Jesus on the basis of my efforts to end abortion have been more practically, less legally focused. I don't know that that would fly.

I do know that when I've chosen hubris, and declared I know more than the summa theologica of the Catholic Church in the past, I have regretted it. I therefore now completely submit myself to the teachings of the church and adopt their position as stated: only when the life or extreme physical health of the mother is in jeoprady. I am, from this moment forward, completely pro-life in my position, as articulated by the American Council of Bishops.

[Lemur]

There is no middle ground on this issue.

Europe seems to have found a more tenable place than we have.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yes, but Europe doesn't have a bunch of people (and a President) who believe that our very lax abortion laws are way too restrictive and need immediate loosening.

CR

[Lemur]

Europe lacks the general fury and red-faced anger that we have on both sides of the abortion divide.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Europe seems to have found a more tenable place than we have.

From Wiki:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ionLawsMap.png

[rasoforos]

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Sex ed people...so we dont have to end up with such incidents.

[Lemur]

Interesting thoughts about the pro-life movement:

In addition to these internal contradictions and turf battles, pro-lifers are stymied by a complicated, perhaps abusive, relationship with Republicans. The putatively pro-life party hasn’t delivered the goods. Shaun Kenney, the executive director of American Life League, complains, “We had a Republican White House and Republican Congress and the government is still funding Planned Parenthood? After Bush picked Harriet Miers, his popularity never got above 40 percent because he promised pro-life judges.” He insists that pro-lifers are committed to only one goal: “The sole issue is this: we want abortion ended. That’s it. All other issues boil down to practical insignificance.” [...]

At 36 years old, the pro-life movement is still energetic and indignant—and trapped. Every year of Republican rule has increased the suspicion that pro-lifers are the GOP’s useful idiots. Planned Parenthood still received federal dollars, and Congress never stripped courts of their ability to overturn parental notification and conscience laws. A human life amendment was ditched for Social Security reform. And just one year of unified Democratic rule in the federal government may undo a generation of small victories for the movement’s incrementalists at all levels.

[Don Corleone]

So, I guess your point Lemur is that the pro-Life side shouldn't necessarily adhere to the Republican party?

True enough. This may surprise you, due to the hostility they receive in their respective caucuses and the gags they suffer as the price of admitance, but the Democratic party has a fairly large pro-life minority:

Democrats for Life

In fact, I would argue that when you remove Continuity for Life issues (euthanasia, abortion) and defense of traditional marriage, the Roman Catholic church, especially in America, is actually rather progressive on social and economic issues, as evidenced during the immigration debates in 2005 & 2006. In fact, one of the most ardent opponents of capital punishment, in the United States and around the world, has been the Roman Catholic Church.

But that's a lot like saying other than the engine and the transmission, an automobile could be classified as a high-performance model. The issue of abortion and the defense especially supercedes all other contemporary social justice issues for the Church. The right to life is paramount, then you address the right to dignity and quality of life.

In order for Democrats to make a solid appeal to anybody of a pro-life bend, or even more moderate pro-choice folks for that matter, they have to do more than pay lip service to making abortion less common, and they absolutely must drop their more vitriolic demands, such as elective abortions allowable until the 39th week, as with FOCA.

But I see them going the other way on this issue. Following the cue of the Republicans in 2000, the party is being dominated by its extremes. One of the problems with big political wins is that they breed arrogance, and a belief that mandates exist for the most extreme platform positions. In other words, the moderates get shafted and migrate to the minority party, who are only too happy to promise that "this time it will be different, and once they get back into power, they'll follow a broad platform of inclusion". Later, rinse, and repeat every eight to twelve years.

[Don Corleone]

According to the suit, Williams, then 18, discovered while being treated for a fall that she was 23 weeks pregnant.

Sex ed people...so we dont have to end up with such incidents.

You don't really believe she didn't know, do you? I've got a Nigerian friend who needs help transferring some of his family's wealth out of the country...can you give him a ring?

[InsaneApache]

The problem with making it illegal, as in all prohibition, is that you can't make laws that do no take into account human nature. All that will happen is that the women will be forced to go to some seedy backstreet abortionist and expose herself to infection or even death.

This is one of, if not the main reason that it was legalised in the UK back in 1967.

I can't for the life of me understand the mindset that thinks that just making things illegal will make it go away. It's an imperfect world we live in and always was.

[Don Corleone]

If all you do is make it illegal, IA, you're absolutely correct. I think Prohibition showed us once and for all just how well that works. You have to address both sides of the equation, the demand side and supply side. In other words, setting aside the legality for a second, wouldn't eliminating the need for abortions unless they actually are physically necessary, be a good thing in and of itself? Is society somehow better served by elective abortion in ways that no alternative can adequately address?

That's why I say that anybody who is truly pro-Life cannot have been opposed to The Pregnant Woman Support Act.