antiabortion - Jezebel

posts about #antiabortion more →
Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
Pro-Choice Dems Vow To Kill Stupak Amendment
The Disturbing Dilemma Of Pro-Life Kids
Dirty Diana
Planned Parenthood Client Speaks Amid Questions Over Director's "Change Of Heart"
Scott Roeder Can't Even "Commission" Original Artwork
Organizer Angry At EBay For Removing Auction
"I Feel So Pure In Heart:" Planned Parenthood Director Becomes Anti-Abortion Activist
Despite Efforts, Tiller Murderer's Drawings Added To eBay

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Agumen
11/24/09

In reply to Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I just don't see why abortion should be covered in health insurance. Isn't it designed to cover illness and injury? Pregnancy is neither. Obviously private health care insurers will cover whatever you want so that they can make more money, but why should the public option cover abortion? I honestly don't get why women who want to abort shouldn't have to pay for it themselves. Pregnancy is in the large majority of cases voluntary (even if not wanted), and abortion is voluntary. Someone else suggested that a different body be set up to deal with this, and I agree.
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment Agumen was starred Agumen was unstarred

bluebears
11/24/09

@Agumen: Are you serious? Pregnancy isn't an issue that health insurance was "designed to cover???" whut? Health care covers more than illness and injury, don't you see a GP every year for a physical? Honestly this is so many kinds of crazy I can't even begin to respond to it.
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 11/24/09 11:49 AM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

jfwlucy
11/24/09

@Agumen: Pregnancy is voluntary, even if not wanted?

I think what you mean is that sex is voluntary and therefore you should have to take the consequences if you do something irresponsible by having sex.

Using your logic, we would never cover any voluntary risky activity:

-- using kitchen knives (might cut)
-- driving a car (might crash)
-- going bowling (might squish toes)
-- owning a pet (teeth and germs)
-- taking a shower (might slip)

Sex is a normal, healthy, daily :-) or frequent activity for many, many people, and it carries inherent risks, like most anything does. Why should those risks not be covered by health insurance?

Also:

a) sex is not always voluntary.

b) birth control doesn't always work

c) people make mistakes with birth control sometimes (just like cyclists sometimes don't wear helmets, or people smash their thumbs with hammers) but they are still covered.

d) sometimes abortion is not voluntary but is indicated medically because there are severe birth defects and/or serious risks to the mother's physical or mental health.
Reply

jfwlucy was starred jfwlucy was unstarred

Agumen
11/24/09

@jfwlucy: Also, I really agree with everything you said there, I just didn't think it was something insurance had to deal with unless the mother's life was at risk.
Reply

Agumen was starred Agumen was unstarred

Le Kangourou de Kataroo
11/24/09

In reply to Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
GET THE FUCKING BISHOPS OUT OF THIS GODDAMN DEBATE!

I did not elect them. I am not Catholic. I am not represented by them. If the media just STOPS paying attention to them, maybe they'll go away.
Reply

Agumen
11/24/09

@Le Kangourou de Kataroo: There are many religious people who they do represent. People have a right to religion and a right to representation.

You may not like it, but taking away their right to debate and argue would be wrong. They aren't the ones making law, they're just putting the religious argument across. More tolerance is needed.
Reply

Le Kangourou de Kataroo promoted this comment Agumen was starred Agumen was unstarred

virginiawoolf
11/24/09

@Agumen: Maybe it's just me but if they want to hold on to their tax-exempt status, they should refrain from spouting off their opinion regarding political issues, period.

Otherwise, I'm sure this economy would benefit quite well from taxing those mother fuckers like every other business.
Reply

Le Kangourou de Kataroo promoted this comment virginiawoolf was starred virginiawoolf was unstarred

Le Kangourou de Kataroo
11/24/09

@Agumen: They are NOT just putting the religious argument across. They are essentially telling congresspeople that they either vote THEIR way or they will pull all support. They're not speaking in a political vacuum.
Reply

SarahMC
11/24/09

@Agumen: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in America. The Stupak amendment was practically written by Catholic Bishops.
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

bitingfairy
11/24/09

In reply to Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
I want my right to pick and choose what my tax dollars fund! I'm gonna start sticking notes to my returns saying that I'm totally cool with this funding abortions, but no wars please.
Reply

bitingfairy was starred bitingfairy was unstarred

lilbobbytables
11/24/09

@bitingfairy: I want all my tax dollars going to healthcare and schools. That's it! Please refund the rest in a check payable to Cash!
Reply

lilbobbytables was starred lilbobbytables was unstarred

Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd)
11/24/09

@lilbobbytables: I want all my taxes going to NEA grant recipients who use feces and religious imagery in their art, and that's IT. Got it, IRS?
Reply

limber
11/24/09

@Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd): I want mine going to that secret UFO research I totally know exists! and ONLY them!

And then when they accept my tax filing, thus proving there IS a secret programme? Sweet confirmation, baby. And they won't even realize they did it.
Reply

Edited by limber at 11/24/09 10:30 AM limber was starred limber was unstarred

HannahBethD
11/24/09

@limber: i just read your comment in Jack Hodgins from BONES voice and it made me chortle. Thanks.
Reply

HannahBethD was starred HannahBethD was unstarred

suzannelb
11/24/09

@bitingfairy: Agreed! Put me down for Head Start and the part of Rahm Emanuel's salary that keeps him in charcoal grey suits.
Reply

bitingfairy promoted this comment suzannelb was starred suzannelb was unstarred

bitingfairy
11/24/09

@suzannelb: Rahm gets none of my money! I want him so destitute that he has to walk around Washington in nothing but a tiny towel.
Reply

bitingfairy was starred bitingfairy was unstarred

kkatt
11/24/09

In reply to Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
Maybe it would make sense to take the abortion discussion out of the bill entirely. If Planned Parenthood would step up and say "We will fund abortions for anyone who cannot afford one" we could maybe move forward with getting health care to those who need it. I don't know if this is a good fix but if Planned Parenthood could afford it I think it would be a good idea.
Reply

bluebears promoted this comment kkatt was starred kkatt was unstarred

bluebears
11/24/09

@kkatt: how could Planned Parenthood afford that? Particularly without a federal subsidy which would land us right back here. I mean PP is not exactly swimming in riches.
Reply

Edited by bluebears at 11/24/09 9:50 AM bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

lilbobbytables
11/24/09

@kkatt: That's a problem to me. I am against being shamed into dumping a medical service that is legal from the bill because other people do not like it. I am not ok being told that my rights are less than other rights, or that my concerns are less valid that other concerns. I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree.
Reply

lilbobbytables was starred lilbobbytables was unstarred

Benevolent_Dictatrix (patently absurd)
11/24/09

@kkatt: Yeah, and if a magical fairy provided free healthcare for everyone, the whole issue would be moot! Problem solved!
Reply

HannahBethD
11/24/09

@kkatt: Also, and I beat this drum often, There is no Planned Parenthood in my state.
Reply

HannahBethD was starred HannahBethD was unstarred

spamanda
11/24/09

@kkatt: The closest Planned Parenthood to me is over 2.5 hours away. We do have a lo-cost women's clinic, but they don't do abortions (though you can get them at the clinics in town or drive 2.5 hours to the PP) and there's no way they'd ever have the funding that Planned Parenthood has. Unfortunately, not an option for everyone.
Reply

spamanda was starred spamanda was unstarred

SarahMC
11/24/09

@kkatt:
Reply

SarahMC was starred SarahMC was unstarred

SlayBelle
11/24/09

@kkatt: PP already funds abortions for women who have no health insurance or cannot afford the full cost themselves. However, as several others have noted, PP is not the readiest option for many women in the US.

Nor, frankly, should a private organization have to step up to provide coverage when the whole point of this health care reform act is to provide coverage and insurance to its citizens.

Women are citizens too, wether or not you (generic you) agree with what they wish to do with their uterouses.
Reply

lilbobbytables promoted this comment SlayBelle was starred SlayBelle was unstarred

kkatt
11/24/09

@lilbobbytables: I'm not talking about shame that wasn't my intent @SarahMC: what? @SlayBelle: OK - Maybe that didn't come out the way I intended

#tips
Reply

kkatt was starred kkatt was unstarred

TheGuvnah
11/24/09

@SarahMC: LOVE
Reply

TheGuvnah was starred TheGuvnah was unstarred

TheGuvnah
11/24/09

@kkatt: others have adequately conveyed why your idea is impractical at best, but let me also add that today's The Nation article clarifies that we (prochoice groups) tried to play fair and got screwed. WE are not the ones who tried to turn the health reform process into a debate about abortion. WE are not the ones sidelining health reform over a single issue. WE were perfectly content to not even mention the A word, as no one wanted health reform to turn into a debate over every individual issue. no one wanted congress determining what procedures would and would not be covered. This is not our fault. The antis are to blame for this fiasco.

[www.thenation.com]
Reply

TheGuvnah was starred TheGuvnah was unstarred

kkatt
11/24/09

@TheGuvnah: I absolutely agree with you. It just sucks that people can't figure this out. It seems so simple, cover those that need health care - if you have it you don't have to change the way you get it. I'm all for my taxes going toward it. I think my idealism gets in the way. Sigh :(

#tips
Reply

kkatt was starred kkatt was unstarred

kkatt
11/24/09

@HannahBethD: which sucks - I forget living in NYC the access is not there for the rest of the county
Reply

kkatt was starred kkatt was unstarred

bluebears
11/24/09

@SarahMC: LOL
Reply

bluebears was starred bluebears was unstarred

HannahBethD
11/24/09

@kkatt: I think a lot of people from more liberal states forget that those of us in Red States still have a high mountain to climb.
Reply

HannahBethD was starred HannahBethD was unstarred

ericaplummer
11/24/09

@HannahBethD: whoa, you're right. living on the east coast, i often forget. but reading this thread really brought that point into my mind. I'm sitting here like "wtf? no pp in the WHOLE state? 2.5 hours? seriously?!?"

there are still many battles to be fought...
Reply

HannahBethD approved this comment ericaplummer was starred ericaplummer was unstarred

bluetrain84
11/24/09

In reply to Stupak Amendment Energizes Both Sides Of Abortion Debate
Ha, it's funny that the guy from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wants "everybody covered and nobody deliberately killed." That statement encompasses both ends of the political spectrum all at once (liberals who want universal coverage, conservatives who are anti-choice), good luck achieving both of those goals simultaneously. Also, I assume by "everybody" he actually means US citizens, I strongly doubt that he wants undocumented workers covered.
Reply

bluetrain84 was starred bluetrain84 was unstarred

fauxfruit
11/24/09

@bluetrain84: Or women, really, when their lives are at risk due to pregnancy complications and they cannot depend on insurance to cover the procedure that will save their lives.
Reply

BabyJane promoted this comment fauxfruit was starred fauxfruit was unstarred

spamanda
11/24/09

@bluetrain84: I'm really pro-choice, but honestly that sentiment is how I think TRUE christians should feel. Everyone should be taken care of and no one deliberately be killed. I can see why anti-choice people would feel this way.
Of course, I also believe this extends to wars and to the death penalty....
Reply

spamanda was starred spamanda was unstarred

Lymed
11/24/09

@bluetrain84: The Catholic Church actually supports the rights of immigrants, including undocumented workers. The Church supports immigration reform and some Catholic churches that have opened themselves up as safe havens to undocumented immigrants.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

jemandtheholograms
11/24/09

@Lymed: That's awesome and I totally support that. But being as we live in a country that theoretically separates Church and State, I don't want the Catholic Church being part of the discussion on healthcare.
Reply

jemandtheholograms was starred

Lymed
11/24/09

@jemandtheholograms: I don't want the Catholic church involved in the discussion on healthcare either. However, they are actually a huge health care provider in this country. There are very large Catholic health systems that run hospitals and I think that is one reason they are getting so much attention talking about reform.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

jemandtheholograms
11/24/09

@Lymed: Fair point. They do have a lot of hospitals. I just wish that there was a way to separate the fact that they are providing health care as a religious institution and the religion (which I guess is sort of opposite of the point, but wishful thinking).

#tips
Reply

jemandtheholograms was starred

bluetrain84
11/24/09

@Lymed: Oh, I didn't know that they had an official stand like that, thank you for pointing it out! I was just commenting that those two ideals are generally on opposite sides of the political spectrum rather than being considered together.

#tips
Reply

bluetrain84 was starred bluetrain84 was unstarred

Habibiti
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
I don't believe in the death penalty, but I would still not be okay with the argument, "I killed an executioner so that he would not lethally inject the people on death row."

This defense will not be accepted, but I'm appalled that his lawyer can even consider it as an option. #scottroeder
Reply

GoldenRatioφ (aka -girl11) promoted this comment Habibiti was starred Habibiti was unstarred

whynotshesaid
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
The AP is reporting that he is not using the necessity defense and that there is no such thing in Kansas. #scottroeder
Reply

whynotshesaid was starred whynotshesaid was unstarred

envirodesigner
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
It just seems that you can use the "Necessity Defense" to have an abortion. As in "this baby is going to kill me I have to have an abortion" or why not even apply it to the anti-choicers "They are trying to kill me because I want to have an abortion so I killed them to protect myself."

In the end Roeder has to be held accountable for his actions. This isn't a war at all between the life of an unborn child and choice. The decision has already been made by a court and rather than respect the Supreme Court's decision he goes off and murder a doctor when he would have used a non-violent approach.
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment Edited by envirodesigner at 11/10/09 5:19 PM envirodesigner was starred envirodesigner was unstarred

Valkyrie607
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
The fact that the Forced-Birth Brigade focuses the bulk of their ire on the doctors who perform abortions, rather than the women who request them, further demonstrates their contempt for women.

If they were really consistent, they'd be out there shooting women too.

Instead, they view women as agency-less vessels for their morality plays. A woman seeking an abortion must be saved--from herself!--by murdering the doctor who is willing to assist her.

Ah well, if they were logical, they wouldn't be evangelical Christians, now would they? #scottroeder
Reply

morninggloria promoted this comment Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred

supremecourtjester
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
The defense is only used where all would agree that the action taken was necessary and the harm it occasioned is slight. In law school I taught that of you are wandering in the woods starving to death and you come upon a cabin you can break in and eat some food you find inside without being convicted of burglary. You can momentarily speed to avoid an accident, etc.
The tough one is: could you kill a terrorist about to set of a nuclear bomb in a city subway?
This is a perversion of the idea--you can't call it a necessity because you disagree with the Supreme Court's rulings. You can't kidnap a minor and have sex with her because you feel it necessary and the laws against sex with minors to be wrong. #scottroeder
Reply

yvanehtnioj promoted this comment supremecourtjester was starred

Peebers says what?
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
"So there's no denying by rational people the humanity of an unborn child, and the only difference in the unborn child and you and me is size, age and location."
Wait wait wait! Is he seriously referring to a womb as a location? That’s not a location sir; it’s an organic incubator inside another human being and the fetus is entirely dependant on it. I dunno about you Michael Hirsh but I personally feel that’s a pretty big difference. #scottroeder
Reply

Peebers says what? was starred

Valkyrie607
11/10/09

@Peebers says what?: Yeah, that one always gets me. Like when abortion opponents liken themselves to abolitionists because, well, slavery was once legal.

Excuse me, but black people don't live inside other people's bodies. In case you hadn't noticed. #scottroeder
Reply

boxspelunker promoted this comment Valkyrie607 was starred Valkyrie607 was unstarred

KikiCanuck
11/10/09

@Peebers says what?: I would have said that intellect, personhood and autonomy also separate most people from an unborn child, but I grant that this might not apply for Mr. Hirsch. #scottroeder
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment KikiCanuck was starred KikiCanuck was unstarred

Old Jean Gallagher
11/10/09

@Valkyrie607: Well... fetuses of black women live inside other people's bodies. But that's irrelevant, because God only cares about saving the precious white babies. DUH. #scottroeder
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment Old Jean Gallagher was starred

lizdexia
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
Hey lawyer jezzies-

How much does Roeder's frame of mind matter in this sort of thing? Yes, abortion is a legal medical procedure, but Roeder sincerely believes it is the murder of a child. In his mind, he really was acting in defense of countless others.
Now obviously I'm not saying this makes him a good guy, or anything other than nuts. But from a theoretical-legal perspective, is there any room to consider his viewpoint and beliefs? Does it mitigate his culpability, or sanity? I don't really think it should, I just don't know much about how the law regards deeply held batshit crazy beliefs. #scottroeder
Reply

Anna N. promoted this comment lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred

Anna N.
11/10/09

@lizdexia: To me it looks like the legal precedent (esp in the 1993 Kansas case) says that you're only eligible for the necessity defense if you committed a crime to prevent an ILLEGAL act. Moral concerns don't enter into it. Which is not to say that his lawyers, if he manages to get new ones, couldn't try to change that -- but they might not get very far. #scottroeder
Reply

Anna N. was starred Anna N. was unstarred

yvanehtnioj
11/10/09

@lizdexia: Frame of mind matters if you're pleading insanity, but not if you're pleading a necessity defense. Even if you legitimately think what you're doing is necessary, and you're wrong, you can't use this defense. To borrow an example from elsewhere in this thread, if I shove a person out of the way to stop someone who's about to throw a child off a building, and it turns out that the "child" is a doll, I can't argue necessity as a defense against the assault charge.

Roeder might honestly believe he was stopping murder, but the law tells us he wasn't, so he can't argue it. (And all that's even beside the fact that even if you think abortion is murder, he didn't prevent an imminent abortion, he murdered a man at church. This defense will never stand for roughly a billion reasons.)
Reply

Edited by yvanehtnioj at 11/10/09 4:13 PM yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred

Anna N.
11/10/09

@lizdexia: Although downthread there are some examples of situations where preventing, say, an accidental death by hurting someone else might warrant a necessity defense. [jezebel.com] #scottroeder
Reply

Anna N. was starred Anna N. was unstarred

lizdexia
11/10/09

@all: Thank you for clarifying. This restores some of my faith in the criminal justice system. #scottroeder
Reply

lizdexia was starred lizdexia was unstarred

yvanehtnioj
11/10/09

@Anna N.: The holding is not that you can't plead necessity unless the action you're trying to stop is illegal; it's that you can't say that murder was necessary to prevent a legal action. It seems convoluted but it makes perfect sense. #scottroeder
Reply

yvanehtnioj was starred yvanehtnioj was unstarred

Lymed
11/10/09

@lizdexia: His frame of mind only matters if he is claiming an insanity defense and whether he thinks abortion is murder means absolutely nothing legally. Even if Tiller was killing people, he couldn't kill him to prevent a murder unless it was imminent. You can't kill somebody because you know they are planning to murder somebody. #scottroeder
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Armed with Vitriol
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
I saw a really awesome t-shirt that said something along the lines of Religious Republicans: Saving Cells, Bombing Nations. I really wanted to buy it but then decided it wasn't fair to those Religious Republicans who are pro choice (although I don't know any).

The t-shirt has a point though. Many are so concerned with the "murder" of fetuses but seemingly unconcerned with all the people already on this planet who suffer and die in horrible ways every day. #scottroeder
Reply

Armed with Vitriol was starred

Copper
11/10/09

@Armed with Vitriol: I don't know any either. Granted, I am in Texas.

If you find that shirt, let me know. I want to buy one. #scottroeder
Reply

Copper was starred Copper was unstarred

Jorie Slodki
11/10/09

@Copper: I want a shirt that says "Former Fetus for Choice" #scottroeder
Reply

yvanehtnioj promoted this comment Jorie Slodki was starred Jorie Slodki was unstarred

Copper
11/10/09

@Jorie Slodki: Ooh, that's a good one, too. I want that. #scottroeder
Reply

Copper was starred Copper was unstarred

FrannyR
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
If he gets to kill ppl to stop them from doing something that is perfectly legal, I should be allowed to steal ppl's money to prevent them from using it. Otherwise it would be unfair. #scottroeder
Reply

FrannyR was starred FrannyR was unstarred

Erda
11/10/09

@FrannyR: Can I take the money that the selfish, "libertarian" boys I went to high school with get from their parents and blow on video game systems and pot, and redistribute it to poor people who actually need it? Does the "necessity defense" cover that? #scottroeder
Reply

Erda was starred Erda was unstarred

FrannyR
11/10/09

@Erda: Seeing how he couldn't care less about who has an abortion or why, I don't think you need to worry about who you chose to steal from #scottroeder
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment FrannyR was starred FrannyR was unstarred

vgnvxn
11/10/09

In reply to Can Scott Roeder Really Use The "Necessity Defense?"
"there is a mountain of scientific evidence that shows the humanity of an unborn child" Oh really? "Science" that proves "humanity?" I bet.

Also, I wish every one of these articles in the MSM that talk about late-term abortion would include a story about the type of women that seek this "choice" - generally they have no other medical option, and these fetuses are very much wanted. It's fucking heartbreaking to imply these families are murderers. fuck. #scottroeder
Reply

I_can_still_pitch promoted this comment vgnvxn was starred vgnvxn was unstarred

theringer
11/10/09

@vgnvxn: I could not agree with you more. People argue against these late term abortions as though women find themselves 7 months along in a healthy pregnancy and then say "no baby for me." These are tragic cases where the baby and/or mother would not likely survive birth. These families have enough to deal with without being called murderers.
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment Edited by theringer at 11/10/09 4:16 PM theringer was starred theringer was unstarred

EkaterinaBallerina
11/10/09

@vgnvxn: Exactly. These families and women have no other choice. Do most of them want to make that choice? Heck no. It's the most painful choice they'll ever have to make, I wish these people would stop trying to make it any worse by implying it's criminal. What's worse, to claim that it's God's will if the mother dies and that medical intervention shouldn't be used to save her life if need be is an argument against any form of medical intervention. I don't want to go as far to correlate a tumor and a fetus but in a way, if a person had a brain tumor that was killing them and could be removed and they could live, why wouldn't you do it? I understand that in this case we're talking a possible human life here, but given the choice between saving a life or losing two, I think I'd pick the former. #scottroeder
Reply

EkaterinaBallerina was starred

KikiCanuck
11/10/09

@theringer, @vgnvxn: Exactly... Esquire published an excellent article this summer called "The Last Abortion Doctor" ([www.esquire.com]) about Dr. Warren Hern, who since George Tiller was killed is the last doctor in the U.S. who specializes in late-term abortions. It should be required reading for anyone who could possibly support this proposed defense, or indeed anyone who identifies as "anti-abortion."

From the flyer explaining the services offered at Dr. Hern's clinic:
"Specializing in late abortion for fetal disorders. Outpatient abortion over twenty-six menstrual weeks for selected patients with documented fetal anomaly, fetal demise, or medical indications."

So, not a capricious change of mind about the baby you're carrying, but rather a heartbreaking decision to end a wanted pregnancy and go home without the baby you have dreamed of, carried, and loved in your arms. Murder is gunning someone down in a church. #scottroeder
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment KikiCanuck was starred KikiCanuck was unstarred

Luckwouldhaveit
11/10/09

@EkaterinaBallerina: I suppose the saving grace here is that, if Roeder is allowed to bring evidence of the necessity defense at trial, to wit "Dr. Tiller is an evil murderer of babies at the whim of frivolous women who change their minds" then the prosecutor can bring in (willing) patients of Dr. Tiller as witnesses to testify regarding their choosing late-term abortion, ie deformed fetuses who will die at birth and risk the patients' lives in the meantime. Who do you think the jury is going to side with there? #scottroeder
Reply

wtfox?! promoted this comment Luckwouldhaveit was starred Luckwouldhaveit was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment