If there was a national proposal to outlaw all forced abortions in the USA would you support it?
Last Night I debated this topic with some folks and they flip flopped on me. It is the second time that has happened to me on this topic.
There is a little twist to the topic. I am not talking about any sort of "special circumstance" abortion. I am refering to the normal everyday run of the mill abortion. (read into all that what you will).
The question I am asking today is---Would you support a nation wide ban on forced abortions in the USA?
Maybe this topic will help with the "political burn-out".
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
Mike what I am talking about is a person having thier baby aborted against thier wishs.
It happens day after day here in the USA and in most parts of the rest of the world.
A person shouldn't be forced to allow the baby to be aborted.
Thanks
Mr-Pirk
__________________
A proud owner of a Flying Vee. Bestowed by the fine Gentleman VC1111 himself.
A person shouldn't be forced to allow the baby to be aborted.
Where all over the US, everyday does this happen? And how can anyone be "forced to allow" anything? Maybe forced to submitting??? I think I know where you're going with this, but I'd like the details before I comment.
Responding to a recent ruling allowing forced abortions, a former judge is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to acknowledge a woman's "right to say no."
An appeals court ruled earlier this year an expectant mother can be aborted by force if the physician argues it is necessary to "protect the health of the mother."
But pro-life attorney Chris Sapp is prepared to challenge the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Jan. 23 in Roe II v. Aware Women Center for Choice, Inc., says the Virginia-based Population Research Institute. PRI is "dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of 'family planning,' and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of 'overpopulation.'"
Sapp is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiori acknowledging a woman's right to say "no" to an abortion at any point in time.
His argument is based on the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE Act, which makes violation of a woman's right to receive reproductive health care a federal crime.
If a woman had a right to enter a clinic to get an abortion, Sapp contended, she also has a right to leave a clinic in order to protect herself and her baby.
'My God, you're hurting me'
The Roe II case began March 29, 1997, when a young, pregnant mother entered the Aware Women Center for Choice clinic in Florida to get an abortion.
According to RPI, William P. Egherman, who has performed more than 10,000 abortions and been addicted to alcohol and opiates, began the procedure by attempting to dilate the woman's cervix.
But the woman had a change of heart.
"My God, you're hurting me" the woman began to scream. "You're killing me, I'll never be able to have babies. ... Stop!"
But Egherman ignored the pleas and screams and called for assistance from clinic workers who held the woman down as he continued to dilate her cervix.
Then he entered the victim with a pair of forceps -- "the bear" Ehgerman called them -- and began probing and pulling. He mistakenly pulled out part of the woman's intestines.
Sapp, who represented the woman, said she described it as like being drawn and quartered.
When he realized what he had done, Egherman heavily sedated the woman then he called for an ambulance.
But he instructed the ambulance to come slowly, without lights or sirens, to give him "time to pack the woman with gauze."
Egherman said he also was worried his regular flow of business would be interrupted by "all the hoopla."
"Saturday's our big day," he explained, "and I didn't want to generate "¦ any more confusion, any more panic than was already present at the time. She was loud, and as I said, she was shrill, and there were a lot of patients who were hearing what was going on, and the normal rhythm of the day was interrupted. The other patients must have been terrified, and I didn't want the ambulance showing up with all the lights and sirens. "¦"
The woman underwent an operation at the hospital and the damage to her internal organs was repaired. But her baby was dead.
The matter would have ended at that point if not for Sapp's federal suit, arguing Egherman had violated the FACE Act.
Sapp argued forcing the abortion procedure and preventing the woman from going immediately to a hospital where her pregnancy could have been saved violated her reproductive rights.
Egherman's defense attorneys maintained "if he had to go back in" in order to protect the woman's health, then this would not constitute a violation of the FACE Act.
On a summary judgment, the appeals court agreed, but Sapp asserts the evidence shows the abortion had just begun when the woman called for Egherman to stop and that he went "back in" to perform the abortion against her will.
"This ruling does establish a precedent for forced abortion," Sapp said.
For example, he said, an expectant mother receiving a routine gynecological exam could be held down and forcibly aborted. The physician would simply have to argue the abortion was necessary to protect the mother's health or life, which would not violate the FACE Act.
Boyfriend 'already paid for it'
PRI said it has learned of another case of forced abortion. A 25-year-old Maryland woman, four months pregnant, changed her mind after being taken to the procedure room.
She ran back to the clinic entrance where her boyfriend stopped her. The boyfriend said she must get an abortion, "I've already paid for it."
Three clinic workers and the abortion performers surrounded the women, sedated her by injection, then took her back into the procedure room. After the forced abortion, she awoke in a closet.
In a CNN interview on April 16, 2001, [Pat] Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, was asked how he reconciles his support for close ties with China with Beijing's ruthless one-child policy, which has forced unwanted abortions on tens of millions of women.
"I don't agree with it," Robertson said. "But ... they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable.... They're doing what they have to do."
It would be hard to overstate the moral bankruptcy of those words. China's population-control laws are a horror. Couples are forced to sign "one-child" agreements, and may not have that child until they are issued a government quota. Couples who evade the rule are heavily fined, publicly humiliated, and often sterilized. Women found to be pregnant without a permit are forced to undergo abortion. Often they are in their eighth or ninth month.
At times, the government does not even scruple at infanticide: In a widely reported case last year, officials seized a baby who was born alive despite an attempted abortion and drowned it before its parents' eyes.
When pro-lifers expressed shock that Robertson could excuse such things, he issued a "clarification:" He repeated that he personally opposes abortion, but was unwilling to fault Beijing [!]: The Chinese, he said, "will face a tragic dilemma of massive proportions if they permit their population to explode."
There is a reason Robertson is so mealymouthed: He has invested millions of dollars in Chinese cable and internet operations. His partner in one broadcasting deal is the communist government itself. To protect his financial interests, He depends the regime's goodwill, and to win it, he is apparently willing to say anything -- even to defend China's savage destruction of reproductive freedom.
It is a myth that China is too crowded; its population density is one-fifth that of Taiwan, one-200th that of Manhattan. China suffers not from too many people but from too little liberty. If Robertson doesn't understand that, his ignorance is shocking. If he does, he is a contemptible hypocrite. Either way, he is a disgrace, and conservatives should be the ones to say so
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
The question I am asking today is---Would you support a nation wide ban on forced abortions in the USA?
I remember a few months back we discussed a specific case that occured in 1997. The article posted about the "forced abortion" was obviously written by a pro-life activist or group. A malpractice lawsuit against the doctor followed.
Without knowing (or commenting) on specifics, in general I would oppose so-called forced abortions, if they really do happen at all. The choice to have or not to have an abortion sits with the pregnant woman. The only case that I could imagine in which I would support a "forced abortion" would be at the orders of a legal guardian of a child or mentally incompetent adult.
9. Plaintiff here realleges all previous allegations.
10. Defendant, Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., owns a reproductive health service facility located at 1564 Dixie Way, Melbourne, Florida, which was so located at the times specified herein, same being a facility according to 18 U.S.C. §248 (e) (1). Much of its business consists of the performance of abortions.
11. On March 29, 1997, Jane Roe, II voluntarily entered the facility, seeking reproductive health services, in other words, an abortion.
12. Jane Roe, II had previously undergone two abortions at Defendants' facility and therefore knew what normally to expect about the routine procedure there at Aware Woman.
13. Jane Roe, II checked in, was provided a brief nominal counseling session with a member of the staff and then was given a hospital gown to wear and led to the waiting area where a large number of pregnant women were waiting for their abortions. This staff counselor did not advise Jane Roe, II of all risks she was taking nor of the injuries the defendants would soon inflict on her.
14. Jane Roe, II soon realized that the pregnant women were being called out of the waiting room for their abortions very rapidly, far more quickly than was usual. She began to worry. Abortions should not be going so fast.
15. All too soon, Jane Roe, II heard her own name called and she was led to the termination room. There she was put on an operating table and an ultra sound device was attached to her so that the abortionist, William P. Egherman, could observe what he was doing inside her.
16. When the abortionist had barely started, Jane Roe, II felt extreme, excessive pain in her abdomen unlike any pain she had ever felt before. When Jane Roe, II told the abortionist's helpers about the pain in her stomach, defendants' staff looked at one another with horrified looks on their faces, saying nothing.
17. Immediately Jane Roe, II knew that the abortion was going terribly wrong. "Mom", " Mom", she started calling in a loud desperate voice. She then demanded that an ambulance be called to take her to the emergency room at the local hospital.
18. Instead of calling an ambulance, defendants' staff forcibly held Jane Roe, II on the table causing multiple bruises on her arms in the process. Jane Roe, II was now afraid for her life.
19. Defendant William P. Egherman continued the abortion as four other of defendants' employees held Jane Roe, II on the table against her will, preventing her escape from the facility.
20. Jane Roe, II continued her desperate struggling and very loud vocal demands that an ambulance be called. She begged the abortionist to stop, saying that she felt severe pain. Even though the abortionist had been told to stop several times, William P. Egherman again inserted an instrument into the plaintiff's vagina to continue the abortion. Jane Roe, II demanded that he stop. At this time she felt pain in her back. Members of the staff were attempting to insert an IV but were unable to locate a vein. The abortionist stopped what he was doing inside her and attempted to insert the IV needle. Jane Roe, II continued begging for an ambulance. Defendants' employees finally did call an ambulance, but much serious damage had already been done to their patient.
21. Jane Roe, II, suffered a perforated uterus and colon laceration together with other physical as well as ongoing emotional problems. She was in the hospital for several days and out of work for many weeks.
22. All of the Defendants violated the Federal Civil Rights Act, known as F.A.C.E., 18 U.S.C. §248, by preventing the egress of Plaintiff from the facility on March 29, 1997 when Defendants, and/or their employees, did unlawfully, "interfere with"[as defined by 18 U.S.C. §248(e)(2)], "intimidate"[as defined by 18 U.S.C. §248(e)(3)], and use "physical obstruction"[as defined by 18 U.S.C. §248(e)(4)] to restrain Plaintiff and render impassable her desired egress from said facility.
23. In so doing, Defendants intentionally violated the civil rights of Plaintiff under 18 U.S.C. §248 and willfully caused her physical and emotional suffering, financial loss, and the need to incur attorneys' fees and the various costs in bringing this action.
and
DEFENDANT'S, WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D., MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant, WILLIAM P. EGHERMAN, M.D., by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby applies to the Court for an order dismissing the Complaint against him and in support thereof, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff's complaint attempts to state a cause of action against the defendant physician for a statutory violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances statute, 18 U.S.C. 248 ("FACE"). Plaintiff's reliance upon the statute to set forth such a cause of action is completely misplaced, in error and merits a dismissal of the cause of action.
2. In particular, Plaintiff' s complaint sets forth various factual allegations indicating that on or about March 29, 1997, the Plaintiff voluntarily went to the Aware Woman's Center for Choice to undergo an elective abortion. Plaintiff alleges that this was her third abortion at the facility. Plaintiff contends that during the surgical procedure, certain medical complications occurred which resulted in a perforated uterus and colon. The Plaintiff alleges that she attempted to leave the abortion center yet was supposedly held clown by the Defendant and others against her will and that such conduct caused her bruises.
3. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff contends that she is entitled compensatory and punitive damages as well as attorney's fees under the provisions of FACE, 18 U.S.C. 248. A review of the statute and the associated case law interpreting the statute clearly reveals that Plaintiff has misapplied the provisions of the stature and that her cause of action fails as a matter of law.
4. In particular, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was enacted in 1994 in art effort to chill abortion demonstrations, The purpose of the statute was to prevent acts that were designed to interfere with the right to obtain or provide reproductive health services. The statute allows for criminal or civil actions against those who seek to prevent or interfere with the ability of a woman to obtain such services.
5. To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that this statute is to act as a sword for her and provide her damages for alleged physical injuries incurred when she was voluntarily a patient of the facility and supposedly received injuries at the hands of the individuals working in the Center. Both the clear application of the statute and existing case law indicates that such a cause of action cannot be maintained under the provisions of the FACE statute.
6. In addition, Plaintiff makes vague and conclusory allegations, without any factual or even legal support, that she is entitled to maintain a civil rights cause of action as well.
Again, Plaintiff has not maintained or alleged any factual allegations that would indicate that she is entitled to bring a civil rights cause of action against this private physician. Plaintiff does not allege that this physician in some way discriminated against her based on her sex, race, disability status or religion, nor that he violated any constitutional right of hers.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court to issue an order granting this motion to dismiss
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Would You support this?
