Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it's business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

"It seemed like maybe that's not what a lot of people were believing any more because that's not where the money was. The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that," said Johnson.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

ELCIDCE90

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I smell a red herring from the "freeper" crazies......
READ THE ARTICLE

From KBTX:

"Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure."

"I just thought I can't do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that's it," said Jonhson."

"Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions"

"The temporary restraining order contends that Planned Parenthood would be irreparably harmed by the disclosure of certain information"

www.kbtx.com

READ THE ARTICLE

There's one brave woman.

I guess they filed the restraining order to shut her up on the goings on inside the facility.

Amazing they would have an untrasound of an abortion--bet they would tape it if it's possible.

Watching an ultrasound of killing a little one?

That is so unbelievable and incredibly tragic and sad.

No love, no compassion--and you know the little one can feel pain--if it's big enough to watch on an ultrasound.

Trying to get away--but no where to go inside the womb that is supposed to protect it.

Crying and then dies....

#3 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-11-02 04:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Kinda makes you loose all faith in humanity doesn't it Murph? We can give cell phones to the poor, but can't prevent the killing of innocent life.

Why do all you Anit-Choice people want to kill capitalism?

I think most pro-choice people would agree that profiting off abortion is not desirable.

Or I'm sorry, you used Anti-Choice so I change my retort to read:

I think most anti-life people would agree that profiting off abortion is not desirable.


I think most pro-choice people would agree that profiting off abortion is not desirable.

Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-02 06:10 PM | Reply


AMEN

I used to volunteer to fix things at the local planned parenthood. They had an electronic autoclave that occasionally needed service. I would repair it for free if they bought the parts and they had a few other things like a microscope and a centrifuge I would repair too. My friend was a Nurse Aid for them and she introduced me to them. They are a great organization that I hope stays around for a long time.

MMMMM

I love living in an overcrowded world.

The Flat Earther Right

C'mon Jackass, tell the truth, you volunteered there to see if by chance you could pick up a slutty chick. Nothing wrong with tthat, I am not a judgemental person you know.

Planned Parenthood is just another dishonest sleaze factory who profits on ending the lives of babies.


They are ACORN X 1000.

And Obama loves them too. You shall know them by their fruits.

And think about it.....


An organization called Planned Parenthood.

When in reality it has NOTHING at all to do with BEING a parent but EVREYTHING to do with KEEPING you from being a parent.

As usual, when it is a leftist organization like this doing something they know is inherently evil they cannot be honest and up front about it, they hide behind some PC sounding name to get more girls in the doors.

After all, if they had to pratice truth in advertising that would be BAD for biz. Know what I mean?


Planned Baby Kill Profit Center does not have the same roll off the tongue......

Hey, Chapel, have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood facility? If not, shut the fuck up, eh?

They absolutely do talk about options besides abortion, at least in my experience. And think about the phrase "planned parenthood" without your hate-filled ideology glasses on. Parenthood that is planned, rather than accidental. Hm. Let's see. Birth control, adoption, abortion. All possible items for discussion.

And, Murphy, I doubt fetuses can cry in the womb. Or perhaps cry at all.

Too, I can imagine medical reasons for running an ultrasound while performing an abortion. Yes, creepy, but we're not doctors, so what the fuck do we know?

So here's my question: Johnson needed to see the ultrasound even though she knew the focus had shifted to "pushing abortions"? Seems a bit fishy. But okay, maybe--epiphanies come in many shapes and sizes.

Another question: Does her Coalition for Life group offer counseling on birth control and adoption, or do they just push pregnancy?

Still crying about ACORN huh?

You guys are good little sheep. Keep parroting the retards on Fox. I enjoy the laughs it brings me.

"ACORN, ACORN, ACORN.....WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"


What about them?

#15 | Posted by Manypaths at 2009-11-03 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're an idiot MP if you do not see anything wrong with ACORN. Well, I take that back - you're an idiot regardless.

Why should I care about ACORN? Why can't ANYONE who does answer this simple question? I'll care, I really will, just tell me why I should.

Why is it so hard to expain your anger?

And, Murphy, I doubt fetuses can cry in the womb. Or perhaps cry at all.

#14 Prag

From a guy who knows nothing about being pregnant.

Little ones get the hiccups in the womb.

And look video of baby crying in the womb!!!


dsc.discovery.com

And more--

www.medpagetoday.com

And here--Prag--check out the 69,500 hits for

Can a baby fetus cry--

www.google.com

And no doubt--you will think "So what"

ACORN, ACORN, ACORN.....WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"


What about them?

#15 | Posted by Manypaths


reports are that in new jersey there are people have ballots and registrations ready to use if they think corizine is behind...
I guess they could call it getting the 'FRANKEN READY"....
hey ...thats good...Ill see if beck wants to use it.

Murphy, I said "I doubt"--I didn't say, "You're wrong, you moron."

But I have to point out that "baby fetus" makes no sense. Two different things.

And I know nothing about being pregnant? Not on a personal level. I'm male. But then, that's the argument of many pro-choicers--that MEN make these decisions about women's right to choose. (And yeah, I know a little, from the husband/father perspective. My wife was pregnant three times, and gave birth twice. No, she didn't have an abortion.) Oddly enough, for someone who knows nothing about being pregnant, I knew about the hiccups. (I paid attention while my wife was pregnant.)

Anyway, fascinating stuff. Thanks, despite your attitude. I'd like to know how old that fetus is and how old the fetus was in the abortion Johnson viewed. (The other article says "as early as 28 weeks.")

Who caught the registration discrepancies with ACORN in the national election Bush Lover?

Again, you're crying over nothing because some uneducated drug addict told you to.

You fucking follower.......

Hiccups were a trip.


As for men and pro-life--I think there are millions and millions who are pro life and who are men.


There is no doubt that a little one feels pain inside the womb. There are some who report it at 18 weeks.

More whining from the right. Abortion is legal, and it is going to stay that way. Get the fuck over it... if you don't like abortions, don't have them.

I'm pro-life. I don't believe in murder, and I'm generally anti-war.

But I'm in favor of abortion rights. So by the usual anti-abortion-rights lingo, I'm either pro-abortion or in favor of baby killing.

"There is no doubt that a little one feels pain inside the womb. There are some who report it at 18 weeks."

Fetuses report their pain at 18 weeks?

And again, "little one"? Do you really see a fetus that way? At what age? From conception?

And again, "little one"? Do you really see a fetus that way? At what age? From conception?

It's just a rhetorical ploy of the right.

The anti-abortion advocates have discovered that when you demonize your opponent as a "baby-killer" and saturate your whining with emotional triggers like infantile diminutives ("a little one"), the flaws in your argument go unnoticed by the superstitious and the gullible.

The anti-abortion advocates have discovered that when you demonize your opponent as a "baby-killer" and saturate your whining with emotional triggers like infantile diminutives ("a little one"), the flaws in your argument go unnoticed by the superstitious and the gullible.

#26 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-11-03 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

As do the pro deathers on the left by calling the killing of innocent life "reproductive rights" and "fetus". Go back into the ground zombie.

And again, "little one"? Do you really see a fetus that way? At what age? From conception?

#25 | Posted by pragmatist at 2009-11-03 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Two parts- the religious side of me would see it from conception - the human being side of me would see it once a heartbeat is detectible.

As do the pro deathers on the left by calling the killing of innocent life "reproductive rights" and "fetus".

The difference being ACCURACY. The left has it, the people crying MURDER and BABY KILLERS don't.

As do the pro deathers on the left by calling the killing of innocent life "reproductive rights" and "fetus".

The law permits a woman the right to control her reproductive function. It is an entirely accurate description. Of course, the right spins the removal of tissue that has no capacity for consciousness as "killing innocent life". Who cares if it has the potential to become a human being. It isn't a human being when you abort it.

Then again, the right also fought to keep the body of Terry Schiavo alive long after she was brain dead. The only good part of that situation was that her consciousness did not live to see the right transform her into a sideshow for their "moral crusade".

Go back into the ground zombie.

I prefer to irritate bible-thumping morons who want to impose their silly superstitions on the unwilling.

If we can't even agree on the definition of terms no meaningful dialog can take place, all we can do is talk around one another.

Terms, (words) have definitions. There is no need to reach any agreement. There is no deciding what they mean. They have meaning.

"If we can't even agree on the definition of terms no meaningful dialog can take place, all we can do is talk around one another."

This is why the abortion argument will never go further than it has. The adherents on each side offer no middle ground to the other (generally speaking).

Exit stage left. (Oops, now I sound like I'm channeling Spud.)

(Oh, btw, I don't even call my actual children "little ones." The lads, my boys, my little man, etc. Little ones is too too too... too... for me.)

Notice how Chapel never took on any of my salient points regarding Planned Parenthood's practices and my questions regarding Johnson's new gig.

Two parts- the religious side of me would see it from conception - the human being side of me would see it once a heartbeat is detectible.

What's the point unless the brain is developed enough to make it matter?

If you want to advance an argument against abortion, I could see you being quite successful if you selectively opposed abortion in the final 3-4 months of pregnancy. The fetus is viable and more importantly the brain and nervous system are fairly developed. I believe in reproductive rights, but I have issues with late-term abortion precisely because of this issue. Out of prudence, late-term abortions should be restricted to instances where the mother's health is at risk at this point in pregnancy.

You won't see many on the right advance this argument, however, because the opposition to abortion generally has nothing to do with science and everything to do with superstition. The late-term abortion ban discussed in congress was nothing but a springboard to restrict abortion in other situations. Many on the right want the procedure banned in all circumstances, and they will do anything to avoid defending their reasoning. As a result, you end up hearing all manner of incoherent emotional tirades and deflections from the anti-abortion crowd.

Much of this musing is irrelevant because the overwhelming majority of abortions take place during the first trimester when the aforementioned issues are irrelevant. Focusing on late-term abortions is a favorite activity of the right, but it is only for this small group of abortions that they can construct a reasonable argument. There is no rational basis for opposing abortion during the first trimester. There are plenty of insipid religious and emotional arguments, however, and Cid seems to abound in them.

"The money wasn't in family planning, the money wasn't in prevention, the money was in abortion "

Ahhhh....and as we know, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Ms. Johnson, I'm glad you have seen the light and developed a conscience. God Bless you!!

Terms, (words) have definitions. There is no need to reach any agreement.

Ich bin ein Berliner.

the love of money is the root of all evil

The love of money is the foundation of our entire political and economic system, damnit.

"What's the point unless the brain is developed enough to make it matter?"


When someone has no brain activity, they are not pronounced DEAD until the heart stops beating.

To me that means it's not the brain functioning that dictates life or death, it's the heart.

Ich bin ein Berliner.

"I am a jelly donut", right?

When someone is born they are called a person.

To me that means that until you are born, you are not a person.

I like your logic Lisa.

The citizens of Berlin do refer to themselves as Berliner; what they do not refer to as Berliner are jelly doughnuts.

That's not what I'm saying Money.

I have always stated that life begins at conception. As soon as the egg is fertilized, a human being begins to form.

The point of my last comment was to those who believe brain function determines life. When infact, if that were true then anyone without brain function would be considered dead....but one is not pronounced dead until the heart stops beating.

To me that means it's not the brain functioning that dictates life or death, it's the heart.

So do you feel people are temporarily dead during open heart surgery or a heart transplant?

"So do you feel people are temporarily dead during open heart surgery or a heart transplant?"

Yes.

And I'll continue this later as I need to finish some other things up around here before I can spend any length of time on line. I just popped in for a few.

I'm a busy girl today!

The law permits a woman the right to control her reproductive function. "

#30 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Read Roe v Wade.

There is no right to an abortion. The State has rights, too.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, the abortion can be performed, without interference from the State before quickening, if the abortion is performed with a physician's medical judgment.

So, ZH, tell me what percentage of abortions performed meet the definition of medical judgment.


This data is really getting dated, but it probably isn't so far from the truth today:

Reasons for abortions
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[26] Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[27]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions "at 16 or more weeks' gestation"),[28] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other


If Abortion is legal because of Roe v Wade - so is the rest of Roe v Wade's ruling binding on our nation. Let the doctors be brought forth and prove the medical judgment. With these percentages, if the State would call it murder, then a great percentage of doctors should be in jail.

"To me that means it's not the brain functioning that dictates life or death, it's the heart."

To you. I have heard it put forth that in medical circles, brain activity is increasingly being used as the defining point. I'm not sure which circles those are, but it rather changes the argument, no?

+++++

"The citizens of Berlin do refer to themselves as Berliner; what they do not refer to as Berliner are jelly doughnuts."

I am given to understand that the article makes the difference. Berliner is a citizen of Berlin; ein Berliner (mit der article) is the doughnut. I have not checked this with any Germans.

+++++

"without interference from the State before quickening"

I first read this as the religious definition. I had to look it up to see that there's a medical definition. Whoa. Now I'll have to read Roe v. Wade. But time keeps on tickin'--back to work.

"The citizens of Berlin do refer to themselves as Berliner; what they do not refer to as Berliner are jelly doughnuts."

Ich bin Berliner = I am a citizen of Berlin

Ich bin einBerliner = I am a jelly donut.

Articles (the/a/an) are...different...in German than they are in English. They don't have the copular verb (ie, passive "to be").

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway, I'm a tad surprised to see that any righties have a bone to pick with abortion as a business model.

They must not be true capitalists.......communistic fascistic socialists, rather???

Fetal not-really-yet-skulls ought to be trinkets on a belt or necklace - to prove one's a superior claims adjuster...just like how denied claims = more $$$ ... amirite???

After all, *REAL* capitalist vultures are circling in on death-for-profits, as seen here:

gothamist.com

...and, everyone knows that Wall Streeters are THE cutting-edge capitalists...

Placenta 4 Profits!!!

"I think most pro-choice people would agree that profiting off abortion is not desirable."

I do. Problem pregnancies should be terminated without charge. But the fetal rights crowd would find such a sentiment "socialistic" and use it against universal health care. herm

Cidney weighs in, as usual, with nothing to say. But he says it anyway, assails those who may feel otherwise, and anyone who disagrees with him (?) is an idiot, and a baby killer, and had better watch out. herm

Roe v Wade:

"In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."


With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.


This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.


With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. "

"This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State."

Prag, this is my point to Zombie, et al.

Considering the percentages of abortions performed, how many actually meet the definition of 'medical judgment'?

Considering the percentages of abortions performed, how many actually meet the definition of 'medical judgment'?

Legally speaking, all of them. A doctor has decided that the procedure is warranted in each case. The important part here is that the ruling uses the term "medical judgment" and refrains from making distinctions about the degree of the threat to the mother's health. An abortion may judged medically necessary to avoid immunosuppression during pregnancy, the emotional trauma of carrying an unwanted pregnancy, or an inability/unwillingness to care for another child. There are plenty of medical reasons for abortion, and in the eyes of the law all are valid.

You, and any pro-choice healthcare provider may disagree with an abortion doctor's medical judgment, but this difference of opinions is irrelevant in the eyes of the law:

"With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb."
The government sets the bar at the point of viability. Before that, a doctors discretion applies.

#50 | Posted by herm at 2009-11-04 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

More flatulence from HERMENGELE. Fetal rights? Reproductive rights? Problem pregnancy? Once again, HERM wordsmiths to reduce the value of human life to the common denominator of I couldn't keep my legs closed so now what am I supposed to do?

Funny how it works. Millions of possible productive citizens aborted yet HERM is allowed to continue his fight on humanity. Found that painless and dignified way yet HERM?

Thanks for clarifying, Petrous. Viability has changed since 1973, no? Other than that, hm. More analysis than I'm capable of right now.

But I appreciate your taking the time.

El Cidney emerges from the woodwork briefly with "(m)illions of possible productive citizens aborted..." Possibly, Billy. But far more likely that 40 million have been kept off the nation's welfare rolls, and to the likes of these lunatics who insist on mucking about in women's wombs, that really SHOULD be a good thing. herm

Zombie, you are being disingenious. All meet the definition of medical judgment?

That's just BS.

Wants to postpone childbearing? Can't afford it? Doesn't want more children? Disrupting their education or job? Too young? Too old? Partner doesn't one it? Afraid to tell parents? She took time to decide to have one or not? Couldn't find the time?

Legally speaking, malpractice.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable