Earlier this month, New York Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey claimed that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment "puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money." Just days later, PolitiFact.com issued an analysis and said her comments were "false."
Planned Parenthood's cover has been blown. Before the vote on Stupak-Pitts, there were no uproars from the abortion lobby about government funding of abortion in the health care bill. There were no send-your-legislator-a-hanger campaigns. Why? Because they were hoping this issue would slip under the radar and that the bill would pass without any specific exclusion of abortion, which would ensure that abortion would certainly be funded by the government.
The bodies of at least six unborn children were found alongside a river in Nepal.
The fetuses were found wrapped in a polythene bag near the banks of the river. Eyewitnesses said that the fetuses could be anywhere from four to five months.
Police suspect private hospitals and clinics involved in illegal abortion to have disposed off the fetuses and said that they have started an investigation into the case.
In yet another case of RU-486 being used by fathers to end the lives of their unborn children, Jared Merril Ahlstrom has been arrested for unlawful termination of a pregnancy.
According to an arrest affidavit, Ahlstrom wanted his girlfriend to have an abortion after he impregnated her. About a year after his ex-girlfriend lost the baby, he admitted to her that he had drugged her twice to kill the baby. Ahlstrom told the woman he had purchased Misoprostol in Mexico and laced her food with the drug before they went hiking.....
In early January 2009, the woman told Ahlstrom she was still pregnant, and he again told her to have an abortion, but she told him she would not, the affidavit said.
Soon after that, the two met up to go hiking again, this time on Grand Mesa, when she began to have pelvic pain and some bleeding, the affidavit said. About 90 minutes later she went to her doctor, who had her deliver the baby. The baby was stillborn at 16 weeks, but her doctor said he didn’t know why the woman miscarried and that it was “very unusual,” the affidavit said. The woman said she wanted an autopsy done to determine why the baby died, but Ahlstrom protested, saying he wanted their baby cremated, but he did not want the ashes, the affidavit said. The woman had the baby cremated.
Posts
Hee hee! The case you describe is NOT an RU-486 case. You clearly state that the suspect use MISOPROSTOL. Misoprostol is different from RU-486 (whose generic name is MIFIPRISTONE).
ReplyDeleteWesley, aren't you supposed to have a PhD? Didn't they teach you to proofread and fact-check before posting???
Oops, you're not Wesley. I get you fake-scientific right-to-lifists mixed up with each other sometimes. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteLearn your first scientific fact and then we'll talk about who's "fake-scientific," OC.
ReplyDeleteWell I guess you got me there! Nice, powerful response, bmmg39.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "learn your first scientific fact", do you mean I should read some science or do you mean I should discover something myself?
Either way it's too late. Been there, done that.
OC,
ReplyDeleteYou're so good. Since misoprostol is the second drug used in RU-486/chemical abortions, I probably should have said, "In yet another case of drugs in the RU-486 abortion cocktail being used by fathers to end the lives of their unborn children...."
Please forgive my grave error.
JJ, this was NOT the "RU-486 abortion cocktail"; this was MISOPROSTOL ONLY.
ReplyDeleteMisoprostol-only abortions are more likely to fail than when the whole cocktail is used, and when they fail, they can damage the fetus severely. This woman is lucky she miscarried rather than giving birth to a monster.
Oh, and these are not "chemical abortions". They are MEDICAL abortions. I know you're not a scientist but even so, you should use the correct language.
But hey, if you don't mind revealing yourself to be an ignoramus, I don't mind your doing that either!
OC,
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware it was misoprostol only. I wasn't trying to say it was both drugs because the article clearly notes it was misoprostol. I believe that different fathers at different times have used both of the drugs used in an RU-486 abortion by themselves to end unborn lives. Which is why I used the plural "drugs."
This woman is lucky she miscarried rather than giving birth to a monster.
A woman was slipped a drug which killed her wanted unborn child and you think she's "lucky." That's demented.
There is nothing inaccurate about using the term "chemical abortion" - chemicals are used to cause an abortion.
OC,
ReplyDeleteDid you used to comment here under a couple of other pseudonyms? I believe one was SoMG, yes?
Didn't I ban you multiple times because of your inability to not personally insult a specific individual?
That would pretty dishonest to come back here under a new pseudonym and never identify yourself as being SoMG wouldn't it?
JJ: New blog new name. Come check out my blog!
ReplyDeleteAnd I did not "insult" a certain person; I offered some good medical advice which might save her life IF she takes it to heart (or more accurately, if she takes it to stomach).
RE: "lucky". I use the word in the sense that if someone falls out a tenth-story window, and survives with a broken leg, that person is LUCKY. As in, it could have been much worse.
RE: "Chemical abortion". The technical term, which DOCTORS use, is "MEDICAL abortion". "Chemical abortion" means causing an abortion by exposing the fetus to harsh chemicals, injecting chemicals into the uterus, as used to be done with concentrated salt-solutions--hence the term "saline abortion". In contrast, "medical abortion" means causing an abortion by giving the patient some medicine.
This distinction is more important than you know, because when you use the term "chemical abortion" you reveal yourself to be a biased ignoramus. Among academic abortion-docs, profs of family-med or Ob/Gyn who teach abortion, when an audience-member asks a question and uses the term "chemical abortion", the profs take that as a sign that the questioner is not serious, just there to waste time, prosletyze, and cause trouble. Using the term "chemical abortion" is a good way to get yourself written off as a no-nothing and a no-wanna-learn-nothing.
Of course, if you LIKE the fact that everyone in the know will laugh at you, then go ahead and keep using your personal vocabulary. Just friendly advice for you. No charge, this time.
"When you say 'learn your first scientific fact', do you mean I should read some science or do you mean I should discover something myself?"
ReplyDeleteIt means that the camp that regularly denies scientific fact by referring to fetal human beings as "potential" humans really oughtn't be hurling the "fake-scientific" label at anyone else.
Bmmg, if you have been following my writings, you know I NEVER refer to fetuses as non-human, nor sub-human, nor "potentially-human". I recognize that fetuses are human persons, but I believe the pregnant woman is entitled to abort them ANYWAY, because they are located inside her body.
ReplyDeleteJust as YOU would be entitled to kill an ALREADY-BORN human who entered your body.
I support equal rights for all, but no SPECIAL rights.
"This woman is lucky she miscarried rather than giving birth to a monster."
ReplyDeleteSo children born with a birth defect are "monsters"? How very tolerant and open-minded of you.
Rachel, how about a baby with no eyes and just enough brain to make a few noises from time to time but no more? Just enough to suffer (unlike Terri Schiavo, to whom fate was more merciful, killed her capacity to feel althogether) but not enough to think nor recognize people?
ReplyDeleteMonsterous enough for you?
OC/SoMG,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you admitting that you are the same person. I wonder why you didn't do that originally. If you really want to comment on this blog so much, I would think you'd come back - identify yourself, show some remorse for your previous trolling and ask if you could comment here.
But since you show no signs of changing how you interact with individuals here, I think I'll temporarily put comments in moderation.
Rachel, how about a baby with no eyes and just enough brain to make a few noises from time to time but no more? Just enough to suffer (unlike Terri Schiavo, to whom fate was more merciful, killed her capacity to feel althogether) but not enough to think nor recognize people?
ReplyDeleteI worked full time in direct care at a residential center with individuals such as these, whom you'd deem as monsters. They are still unique human beings who enjoy and respond to different music and activities, and experience joy and life in their own capacity. Working with these individuals has taught myself and others that even though they have limitations, with supportive services, they can still experience and have a good quality of life. And I would caution you to hold your judgement until you've actually spent time with these individuals.