Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

Reactionary Justices Resurrect Plessy v. Ferguson Attitude

July 28, 2016

On June 27, in the worst ruling since Plessy v. Ferguson five white Supreme Court Justices told the State of Texas it had to ignore the 14th Amendment requirement to provide “equal protection of the laws”.

The ruling was even worse than Plessy. Plessy merely allowed states to enact Jim Crow segregation laws. Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt requires the state of Texas to allow continued operation of Jane Crow health facilities. A Jane Crow facility provides health care to black women but doesn’t have to meet the same high standards as facilities that treat white men.

Abortion surgery involves the removal of a significant sized biomass from deep inside a woman’s body much like cancer surgery does. The Texas law requires facilities performing abortion surgery on women to meet standards for surgical facilities that treat white men. Women occasionally die from carelessly performed abortion surgery including Tanya Reaves who bled to death after an abortion at an unlicensed Jane Crow facility in Chicago or Cree Erwin who recently died in Battle Creek, Michigan, after an abortion at an as yet unidentified facility.

Justice Breyer’s reasoning is consistent with the type of reasoning used by justices in the late 19th Century. He falsely claims that the law places a burden on those seeking abortions. The law doesn’t restrict patients from seeking abortions. The law merely forces those organizations that want to get money from performing abortions to spend enough money to maximize patient safety. The law requires abortion facilities to function like 21st Century medical facilities instead of mid-20th Century abortion mills. The law doesn’t restrict anyone’s “right” to an abortion. The law merely forces organizations performing abortions to spend more money on patient safety even if that reduces the amount of money available for the salaries of doctors and patients.

Breyer’s reasoning is comparable to late 19th Century Court rulings that prevented states from protecting workers from predatory employers. The Court claimed that such laws interfered with workers’ freedom of contract.

The justices who agreed with Breyer are similar to the justices who allowed Jim Crow segregation laws to remain in effect for 60 years. The justices during the Jim Crow era simply ignored the fact that the facilities provided for blacks were inferior. I don’t know whether they intended to be racists, but for all practical purposes they were. I don’t know if the justices who overturned the Texas law which would have eliminated substandard Jane Crow facilities intend to be racists, but they are.

Donald Trump’s Abortion Answer Wasn’t Wrong, the Question Was

April 7, 2016

Donald Trump was correct when he said a woman who had an outlawed abortion would likely be punished. However, the most likely way of ending abortions would be through regulation of those providing medical treatment. Chris Matthews question implied that abortion would become a criminal offense. In that case the woman as a participant in the “crime” would be subject to prosecution probably as an accessory, an accomplice or a “co-conspirator”. The courts might not allow prosecution unless the woman was potentially subject to prosecution. In such a legal environment prosecutors might use the offering of immunity from prosecution to abortion recipients in exchange for testimony against the abortion provider.

In American medicine medical procedures that can pose a treat to health generally have to be approved by government. The most likely way to prohibit abortions would be through prohibiting specific medical procedures. This approach at the federal level wouldn’t necessarily require congressional action because the executive branch has authority to prohibit medical procedures.

The deaths associated with the most popular form of abortion in which the doctor basically pokes around in the woman to pull out the baby, sometimes in pieces, could justify prohibiting the procedures on the grounds that it poses too significant a threat to the woman’s health. The procedure sometimes causes fatal bleeding because the doctor cannot tell if he has caused bleeding. There is an alternative procedure available for late term pregnancies which poses less of a threat. Removing the baby using a cesarean section allows the doctor to easily monitor the situation and catch any source of bleeding. Requiring use of this procedure for premature ending of a pregnancy would have the benefit of the child being removed alive. This approach to ending a late term pregnancy should give both sides what they want. The woman would be allowed to end her pregnancy and the child would be born alive.

Democrats War on Women

October 31, 2012

It isn’t unusual for a political group to accuse a rival group of doing what it is doing. This situation occurs because members of the the first group believe whatever they are doing is “right” and whatever the opposition is doing is “wrong”. The best example of this phenomena is the standard claim by each party that the other party is getting special interest group support.

Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of waging a war on women while ignoring the Democrats own war on women. War involves death and Democrats support policies that increase the death rate of women by failing to regulate abortion providers or adequately test contraceptive products.

Governments have long recognized the need to regulate the health care industry to insure that those providing medical services are actually qualified to do the job and adhere to the highest standards of safety. However, when it comes to regulating those who provide abortion related health care many Democrats act like disciples of Rush Limbaugh.

The only people who seem interested in insuring adequate regulation of abortion providers are the people who oppose the procedure. Many Democrats are so obsessed with the idea that abortions must be available that they don’t care about the safety of the procedure. Some Democrats seem incapable of understanding that women don’t benefit from abortions that kill them.

Although it is preferable for babies to be delivered by trained individuals, people with no medical training including cab drivers and children have been known to help successfully deliver babies.

However, abortion is major surgery. An abortion involves removing something from the interior of a body that is attached to the body. Abortions should only be performed by trained professionals operating in facilities that conform to government standards for surgical facilities. Abortionists should know how to correct the mistakes that sometimes occur during surgery. Government needs to strictly regulate the process to protect women from the type of under qualified individuals who will attempt to perform medical services if the opportunity is available. Government should require individuals and facilities that perform abortions to meet the same licensing standards as other facilities.

Failing to require facilities that treat only women to meet the same standards as facilities that treat men and women is the equivalent of the old southern Jim Crow laws. The lack of government oversight is particularly disturbing when unlicensed or under regulated facilities are allowed to operate in areas with high minority populations. A young black woman named Tonya Reaves died a few months ago from a poorly performed abortion at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago.

As with many medical procedures there are potential adverse side effects to abortion. Democrats believe doctors who should be required to inform patients of adverse side effects for other procedures shouldn’t have to inform women about possible adverse health effects of abortion which some studies indicate include an increased risk of breast cancer (in young women) and suicide.

The primary impact of abortion on breast cancer seems to be on young women with the first pregnancy because their breasts are still developing new cells. The abortion stops this process with some cells not fully developed. If these undeveloped cells start reproducing later as something other than breast cells the result can be a cancerous tumor.

Medical authorities don’t fully understand how a woman’s brain chemistry changes with pregnancy and with the end of pregnancy. They know that women can become severely depressed and possibly suicidal after giving birth. An artificial end to pregnancy is likely to cause the same depression encouraging changes in a woman’s brain chemistry. Women who have unwanted pregnancies may already have a negative attitude about themselves which could lead to depression and suicide.

Women who have abortions should be encouraged to contact mental health professionals after the abortion. Women who have abortions may be more likely to become severely depressed because they have a negative attitude toward the pregnancy and possibly a negative opinion about themselves associated with the decisions that led to the pregnancy.

Medical treatments often have risks of adverse side effects for some people. Patients have a right to know what the suspected adverse side effects are so they can make an informed decision. Medical treatments don’t affect everyone the same way. For example, the penicillan that could save my life from an infection would have killed my mother because she was allergic to it. Some medical treatments, such as use of radiation, can increase the risk of cancer. Other treatments such as organ transplants may increase the risk of suicide.

Surgery carries the risk of infection, permanent injury or even death. Abortion can be major surgery. Complications from an abortion can include a hysterectomy or death as the family of Tonya Reaves discovered after she died from a poorly performed abortion in an unlicensed clinic a few months ago.

Democrats apparently think women are incapable of evaluating possible risks when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Democrats don’t think women considering an abortion can balance the possible adverse consequences of an abortion with what they consider the negative aspects of their pregnancies.

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee “equal protection of the laws.” If the law requires health care providers to warn men of possible adverse side effects of medical procedures, then health care providers must provide the same type of warnings to women including those seeking abortions. State laws that seem to allow those providing medical treatment to avoid warning women are unconstitutional.

If Democrats really cared about women they would do something to prohibit those men who molest young girls from paying abortionists to dispose of the evidence that a molester has gotten an underage girl pregnant. Children who are sexually molested can suffer for years afterwards. Proving child abuse can be difficult because courts may not consider a child’s testimony to be reliable. The remains of an aborted baby provide indisputable evidence that a man has sexually molested a child. Child molesters often molest more than one child. Failing to prosecute a molester allows him to continue to ruin the lives of children. If Democrats really cared about women they would support legislation requiring abortionists to deliver the remains of abortions on underage females to the local medical examiner for possible law enforcement action.

Democrats make a big deal out of contraceptives. They want to make sure women don’t have to pay for them. However, Democrats don’t seem to care as much about the safety of contraceptives. If you notice the ads by ambulance chasing lawyers you’ve seen the ones about a lawsuit involving the once popular contraceptive Yaz.

Yaz has been discovered to have the same problem as some earlier contraceptives. It can cause fatal blood clots. If Democrats really cared about women they would insure that contraceptives are adequately tested for the potential to create blood clots or cause other problems before they can be marketed.

Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but it is the Democrats who see nothing wrong with allowing unregulated or poorly regulated individuals to perform medical procedures on women that can injure or even kill the patient. It is Democrats, rather than Republicans, who favor laws that increase the risk of death for women

Democrats Don’t Care About Women or Minorities

September 29, 2012

Democrats care so little about minority women that they allow unlicensed facilities to kill them. The old civil rights leaders will protest when someone shoots a black man but do nothing when a doctor in an unlicensed health facility kills a black woman. Nothing better demonstrates the hypocrisy of President Barack Obama than the fact that unlicensed medical facilities are allowed to [mis]treat women in his hometown of Chicago.

When a black man dies a violent death black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton descend on the location and ask for an investigation while sometimes alleging that racism might be a factor.

On July 20 a 24-year-old black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death after a botched abortion at an unlicensed Chicago Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. I’ve checked Google and can find no indication that either Jackson or Sharpton have protested Reaves’ death. Is it because she’s a woman? Is it because she died from negligence rather than someone firing a gun? Or is it because they don’t believe abortion providers need to be medically competent?

The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee “equal protection of the laws” regardless of race or sex. Illinois allows facilities run by Planned Parenthood that only treat women to operate without the licensing requirements of facilities that treat men as well as women. Are Jackson and Sharpton ignoring this violation of the Constitution because the denial of equal protection is based on sex rather than race?

Tonya Reaves received a second trimester dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortion at 11 A.M. at Planned Parenthood’s Chicago Loop Health Center. She began bleeding after the procedure, but for unexplained reasons wasn’t treated until she was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital by a fire department ambulance at 4:30 P.M. There is no record that the clinic called 911.

Hospital personnel had to start from scratch to examine her because they received no information about her treatment at Planned Parenthood. According to WBBM’s Steve Miller reporting on documents provided by Northwestern: “at 5:30 p.m., doctors performed an ultrasound, and another dilation and evacuation procedure – basically, another abortion – this time at Northwestern. But after that, there were then more problems, and pain. That warranted a new ultrasound, and a perforation was discovered. At 10:12 p.m., Reaves was taken back to surgery – and ‘an uncontrollable bleed’ was discovered.”

Reaves was pronounced dead an hour later.

Dr. James C. Anderson, M.D., a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor has complained that abortion clinics never informed him about their patients’ conditions. “I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest,” stated Dr. Anderson. “These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”

Operation Rescue President Troy Newman has obtained a copy of the full autopsy results which indicates:

* She was a healthy woman who was approximately 16 weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion, well into the second trimester.
* She suffered from an incomplete abortion. The Medical Examiner discovered pieces of placenta still attached to the inside of her womb even after a second abortion done by the hospital to remove fetal remains left by Planned Parenthood.
* She suffered a 3/16 inch uterine perforation near forcep impression marks. D&E abortions involve dismembering the baby in the womb and removing the pieces with forceps.
* She suffered an “extensive” perforation of her broad uterine ligament with a possible severing of her left uterine artery as a result of her abortion. This accounted for the internal bleeding that was discovered only too late by the hospital trauma team.
* There were 1-1.5 liters of blood and clots inside her abdominal cavity. The human body holds roughly five liters of blood. Reaves bled about 30 percent of her total volume of blood into her abdomen, and that does not account for the amount of blood lost through what was likely substantial vaginal bleeding due to the retained fetal remains.
* In a vain attempt to save her life, the hospital trauma team performed an emergency hysterectomy on Reaves.

In a written statement, Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite said “We were shocked and saddened upon learning of a tragic development at a nearby hospital. Our hearts go out to the loved ones of this patient. While legal abortion services in the United States have a very high safety record, a tragedy such as this is devastating to loved ones and we offer our deepest sympathies. Planned Parenthood of Illinois cares deeply about the health and safety of each and every patient. We do not publicly discuss private patient matters and we follow HIPAA laws that forbid the disclosure of patient information.”
The statement that Planned Parenthood cares about the health and safety of its patients is an obvious lie. If Planned Parenthood really cared about its patients’ welfare it would subject its facilities to the same rigid licensing requirements of other health facilities. Its clinics would be prepared for the known complications of abortions and send patients to a nearby hospital if necessary. Patient privacy rules provide a convenient excuse for not releasing any potentially self incriminating information about how they mistreated Reaves.

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman has obtained a copy

Prominent civil rights leaders may have ignored Reaves death, but the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, brother Rev. A.D. King has spoken out. Dr. Alveda C. King has protested what she calls the “tragic slaughter of Tonya Reaves, a young woman, who was butchered in a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Chicago?”

King goes on to say the people at Planned Parenthood “are going to a lot of trouble to make it seem that murders like Tonya’s are a fluke. Planned Parenthood promised Tonya a solution to her problems, and they killed her. Now, she is dead; a beautiful victim of the nefarious liars at Planned Parenthood. Yes friends, Tonya and her dead baby are victims. For those who want to point the finger at Tonya and say that nobody made her go to Planned Parenthood, think again. Planned Parenthood is a master of false advertising, and Tonya fell into their trap. They seduce vulnerable women into their web by promising that abortion and killer birth control drugs will solve all of life’s problems. They lie!”

She continued, ” I was once a victim of the lies of Planned Parenthood”.

One of the arguments for legalizing abortion is that it supposedly would put unlicensed “back alley abortionists” out of business. That isn’t the case in Illinois where unlicensed abortionists are able to ply their trade in visible locations. They may use sterilized instruments instead of rusty coat hangers, but patients can still die needlessly. Legalized abortion hasn’t put “back alley abortionists” out of business. Legalized abortion merely allows the old back alley abortionists to operate legally.

Competent caring professional health care providers should have recognized that something had gone wrong with Tonya’s operation and either provided her the help she needed or taken her to a facility that could help her.

Reaves death isn’t anything new. Chicago Sun Times reporter Mary Mitchell recalled that when she was a teenager two of her friends had complications from abortions. They went home afterward, went to bed and bled to death.

Removing any material from deep inside the body is major surgery and should not be taken lightly. Competent doctors recognize that mistakes can happen and things can go wrong for no apparent reason, They must be prepared to take immediate corrective action. Women who experience significant bleeding after an abortion should at the very least stay in a hospital for observation. Bleeding after an operation isn’t necessarily the same as the bleeding associated with a woman’s period. Bleeding after an operation can indicate a broken blood vessel that must be fixed.

Unlicensed medical facilities are what we might have expected to find serving black residents in southern cities like Birmingham, Alabama, or Philidelphia, Mississippi, during the Jim Crow era 60 years ago. There is no excuse for women of any color to have to rely on unlicensed medical facilities in major cities in the 21st Century.

Democrats falsely claim that by supporting abortion they are doing something to benefit women. The Democrats willingness to allow unlicensed and thus possibly incompetent personnel to provide abortion services that kill women indicates that Democrats don’t care about women. If Democrats really cared about women they would have required states to provide women the same protection from poorly run health facilities that states provide men many years ago. If President Barack Obama cared about women he would have already closed down the unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion mills in his home state instead of allowing them to kill black women.

Democrats Think We’re Slaves

October 18, 2010

The scariest part of the Democrats “Obamacare” legislation is the fact that Democrats believe we are nothing more than elements of Interstate Commerce. The last time the federal government treated human beings as elements of Interstate Commerce was during slavery.

The federal government has traditionally excluded small businesses with under $500,000 in sales that don’t sell across state lines from Interstate Commerce regulations such as the minimum wage law. So how can individual Americans be considered elements of Interstate Commerce?

Commerce involves the transfer of money or property by entities that exist for that purpose. Democrats seem to feel that if you have a job or buy food you are a business enterprise rather than a human being with the right to make your own decisions about what to do with the portion of the money you earn that the government lets you keep.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Democrats think of us as slaves considering that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery. Before you bring up Barack Obama’s color keep in mind that if his African ancestors had any association with American slavery it was because they captured and/or sold slaves not because they were slaves.

“Socialism” is a word that is often thrown around without anything more than a vague definition. Some people take a simplistic view that if government does something it’s socialism.

The Russian government that called itself a “Socialist Republic” provides an example of what socialism is. What the Soviet Union called socialism is basically the system that existed under the Russian emperor and old European monarchies. The only significant difference was that the government was not headed by an hereditary monarch but by a small group of people one of whom served as leader until he died or was deposed by the others.

Under socialism people are treated as the property of the government (emperor). Under socialism people belong to the government. Under our system the government is supposed to belong to the people.

Under socialism the government controls the people, in some cases even determining their careers. Under our system the people are supposed to control the government.

Under socialism the people serve the government. Under our system government is supposed to serve the people

Under socialism government tells people what they must do. Under our system, government tells people what they cannot do, especially to each other.

Obamacare is socialism under this definition because government attempts to control people’s private lives by forcing them to purchase insurance regardless of their personal needs and desires.

The Democrats are telling young adults they don’t have an option of using money to start a business or purchase a home before starting to buy insurance. Obama is like Mr. Potter in “It’s a Wonderful Life” who wanted people to pay rent to him instead of having an opportunity to using the rent money to pay on a mortgage. Many young adults would like to save the money they would spend on health insurance to use as a down payment on a home.

Medicare and Medicaid are not socialism because the money for them comes from taxes assessed to the general working population. Individuals have the option of other insurance or paying their own bills and coverage is not based on how much has been paid with the exception of the optional Medicare coverage. Medicare recipients are expected to meet a minimum residence requirement and have to have paid the tax before becoming eligible.

A government health insurance program based on general taxes that allowed individuals to have private insurance or pay their own medical costs if they wanted to would not be socialistic. Such a program would be socialistic if it prohibited people from having private insurance or restricted the treatment they could purchase.

Democrats support for Obamacare demonstrates their limited intelligence. They are like children in that they are incapable of seeing unwanted consequences of their actions.

Most Democrats believe that women should be able to make their own decisions about having abortions. The Supreme Court says government has only limited authority to restrict abortion because of the individual right to privacy.

If government can control health care decisions on the grounds that humans are elements of Interstate Commerce than individuals no longer have a right to privacy in health care decisions. Government can prohibit medical procedures, including abortions, as a means of limiting health care costs. Persons have a right to privacy, but elements of commerce do not.

Judge Denies Scott Roeder Trial Rights

February 5, 2010

It is unfortunate that Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert decided to deny Scott Roeder his right to a trial by a jury that was independent of government control.

Roeder had admitted to the crime of Voluntary Manslaughter [the “honest but unreasonable belief” that the use of force was necessary in defense of another] in the killing of Dr. George Tiller, but the prosecution decided it wanted him convicted instead of the much broader crime of 1st Degree Murder.

Instead of giving the jury the choice between the two different crimes, Judge Wilbert sided with the prosecution and told the jury that it could only find Roeder guilty of 1st degree murder or not guilty of any crime. Jurors went into the jury room, did what the judge told them to do and found Roeder guilty of 1st degree murder 37 minutes later.

The framers of the Constitution knew that the British court system had been used in the past to punish those who opposed the crown. They made the judiciary independent to keep the executive from coercing the courts into serving the government’s needs. Juries selected from the citizenry provided a means of dealing with a situation in which judges might become to close to the executive branch.

A jury cannot perform its constitutional function if a judge denies it the opportunity to decide the major controversies in a trial. Juries under U.S. law have broad authority to make their own decisions and in precedents that predate the establishment of the Constitution may choose to ignore laws like judges sometimes do.

The first example of jury nullification occurred in the case of journalist John Peter Zenger who was acquitted by a jury for publishing defamatory comments about New York Governor William Cosby in 1735 because the statements were true. At the time the law allowed prosecution for negative comments about government officials even it the comments were true. Jury nullification provides an added check on the legislative power by allowing citizens to in effect invalidate what citizens believe are unreasonable restrictions on their freedom.

In the Roeder trial the controversy wasn’t whether Roeder committed a crime when he killed Dr. Tiller, but the nature of that crime.

Judge Wilbert decided that he was some type of infallible god instead of a human being who is capable of making mistakes in spite of the fact he had been reprimanded by the state in 2006 in response to a sexual harassment complaint by a court employee.

Wilbert is educated in the law, but so are the defense attorneys who had a different opinion about the meaning of the law defining voluntary manslaughter.

It is not the judge’s role in a jury trial to side either with the opinion of the prosecution or the opinion of the defense about how to interpret the law or the facts of the case. A judge usually knows more about the law than jury members, but then so do the attorneys for the prosecution and the defense.

In modern society, judges may have more power to decide legal cases, but the most knowledgeable attorneys are usually not judges.

As far as I know Roeder’s defense attorneys Mark Rudy and Steve Osburn sincerely believed that Roeder was only guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Also as far as I know Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston sincerely believed that Murder One was the appropriate charge. As far as I know she did not choose the more severe charge to punish Roeder for being an opponent of abortion.

American courts are supposed to be biased in favor of the defendant rather than the government. The defendant doesn’t have to prove his innocence. If a defendant says he didn’t take the action for which he is accused the government must prove him guilty of the action beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scott Roeder admitted in court that he had killed Wichita abortion provider Dr. George Tiller to prevent Tiller from performing any more late term abortions and thus he was guilty of the crime of voluntary manslaughter. Judge Wilbert should have instructed the jury it should find Roeder guilty of voluntary manslaughter unless it felt that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was not voluntary manslaughter, but 1st degree murder. The jury should not have considered a verdict of “not guilty”.

The claim that abortion is legal is a spurious argument in considering whether or not Roeder’s action could be considered voluntary manslaughter. Late term abortions are only legal in Kansas under certain circumstances and Tiller had been accused of performing abortions that didn’t comply with Kansas law.

Shortly before the killing, Tiller had been on trial for illegally performing late term abortions. There was sufficient evidence against him for an Attorney General who supported abortion to charge Tiller with violating the law, but not enough to convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Roeder might easily have been convinced himself that Tiller was getting away with murder and decided to impose the type of vigilante justice shown in old westerns and occasional cop shows. To Scott Roeder, George Tiller was a serial killer who had escaped punishment because he had a more effective attorney than the state had.

Obviously Scott Roeder violated the law when he killed Dr. George Tiller. The question is which law he should have been convicted under. An independent jury should have been allowed to choose which law to convict Roeder under. The right to a jury trial should always allow a jury to choose a lesser charge than that desired by the prosecution regardless of the wishes of judges who want to limit the right to trial by jury by controlling what the jury can do.

Two wrongs do not make a right and neither do three. Even if Dr. Tiller was wrong to perform abortions, Roeder’s murder of him was still wrong because Roeder appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Denying Roeder his jury trial rights cannot be made right by the fact that Roeder did wrong by taking it upon himself to kill Tiller.