Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, June 28, 2014

Aaron Gouveia: When we pulled into the parking lot and got out of our car, the saddest day of our lives got exponentially worse. Two women, 35 feet away, were standing across the street holding signs. When they saw us, they immediately started yelling things like "Don't do it!" and "You're killing your unborn baby!" I couldn't have been more horrified. I couldn't believe how these people would willingly stand outside and harass others at their weakest and most vulnerable. I couldn't mask my anger nor could my wife hold back her tears at being unnecessarily and unfairly vilified.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

You could have heard them at 100 feet too. So what?

Welcome to the United States. The whole country is a First Amendment zone. If you don't like it, you could move to Somalia. That's what libbies always say.

#1 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-06-28 04:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

anti-choice huh? Whatever. File assault charges. They still apply regardless of the reason.

In other, more meaningful news, 9 counties in Mississippi are stone-walling the McDaniels campaign from reviewing public records even after irregularities have been discovered.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

#2 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-06-28 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"You're killing your unborn baby!
Truer words have never been spoken

I don't like, and never use the word "fetus"

It's a baby.. or better yet .... A little person

Pro-Life Sammy in Arizona and RI
(except in cases of rape-incest or injury to the mom)

#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-28 05:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a baby.. or better yet .... A little person
#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI

Except it's not.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-06-28 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

I want to see on camera a woman going to a clinic and when approached she say to them "you are making me feel unsafe please stand back, I feel afraid and threatened what you might do your group has a record of harming people that visit and work in clinics" and when they keep it up she pulls out a gun and stands her ground, and when the continue she shoots exercising her constitutional right to both stand her ground and have an abortion.

#5 | Posted by THomewood at 2014-06-28 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Shouldn't abortion protesters be working harder to protect those who have already been born?

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2014-06-28 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Answer: Abortion protesters or OWS idiots...I just can't decide.

Question: Who most deserves getting hit repeatedly with a baseball bat?

I know which one the libs prefer. But they only support free speech when they agree with the speech.

#7 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-06-28 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5

What ‘stand your ground' laws actually mean

Hint, you ain't even close.

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-28 07:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welcome to the United States. The whole country is a First Amendment zone.

#1 | Posted by WhiteDevil

Unless you're protesting wall street or international trade organizations, then you get evicted or imprisoned.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Answer: Abortion protesters or OWS idiots...I just can't decide.

Question: Who most deserves getting hit repeatedly with a baseball bat?

I know which one the libs prefer. But they only support free speech when they agree with the speech.

#7 | Posted by justanoversight

And that's why you're stupid. Aiming your anger against the only people who are willing to get beaten and jailed to defend YOU against the wall street sociopath's crimes.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 07:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

He doesn't sound angry to me. You, on the other hand . . .

#11 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-06-28 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

He doesn't sound angry to me. You, on the other hand . . .

#11 | Posted by WhiteDevil

Oh he must be advocating violence with a baseball bat WITHOUT anger then?

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

He was making a joke. Using imagery to make a point. Quit being a drama queen.

#13 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2014-06-28 08:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't see why these are mutually exclusive like the headline implies. It's still illegal to harass and intimidate people, but the bar to showing that's what's happening is a little higher than simply exercising speech in public that others don't like. As it should be.

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-06-28 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Estimates of deaths due to sanctions

Estimates of excess deaths during the sanctions vary widely, use different methodologies and cover different time-frames.[31][38][39] Some estimates include (some of them include effects of the Gulf War in the estimate):

Mohamed M. Ali, John Blacker, and Gareth Jones estimate between 400,000 and 500,000 excess under-5 deaths.[40]
UNICEF: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago." (As is customary, this report was based on a survey conducted in cooperation with the Iraqi government and by local authorities in the provinces not controlled by the Iraqi government)[41]
Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[42]
"Probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20 October 2003[43]
350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[44]
Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children" because estimation efforts are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment",[45] and "one potential explanation" for the statistics showing an increase in child mortality was that "they were not real, but rather results of manipulations by the Iraqi government."[45]
"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[46] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[47]
Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., (1995) The Lancet British medical journal: 567,000 children.[48] A co-author (Zaidi) did a follow-up study in 1996, finding "much lower ... mortality rates ... for unknown reasons."[49]
Amatzia Baram, Director of the Center for Iraq Studies at the University of Haifa, reported almost no difference in the rate of Iraq's population growth between 1977 and 1987 (35.8 percent) and between 1987 and 1997 (35.1 percent), suggesting that the sanctions-related death rate is lower than reported, while also stating "Every child who suffers from malnutrition as a result of the embargo is a tragedy".[50]
Reports made in 2004 and 2007 by Iraqi government do not show any increase but a stagnation.

I call bs on the whole pro-life movement.

#15 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-06-28 11:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I call bs on the whole pro-life movement.

#15 | Posted by Shawn

I could understand someone being anti-abortion I suppose, if they really think a blob of cells is a human somehow, but those people are often ALSO anti-contraception. Which means they are really just anti-sex, except for procreation. Or maybe they're just big fans of overpopulation.

Most those idiots think the morning after pill causes an abortion, when in fact it prevents pregnancy from every occurring.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-06-28 11:38 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

It's nice that the Talabaptists on the court, who avoid people who "wish to converse with their fellow citizens about an important subject on the public streets and sidewalks" thanks to a BUFFER ZONE and security paid for by my tax dollars would remove the safety of that buffer zone from poor women who are merely exercising their constitutional rights. Since when does one person's rights trump another's? The quote is from Roberts' opinion.

#17 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2014-06-28 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Two women, 35 feet away, were standing across the street holding signs."

i am personally uncomfortable with abortion (not to mention sex with a woman), but these people to me are the worst of bully trash. That the SCOTUS would support their right to harass clients is BIZARRE BEYOND BELIEF. Let God sort it out, it is not the Christian prerogative to behave in this manner (this statement refers to these people professing a belief in God; it is not an attempt to proselytize atheists.)

OK, they are exercising their constitutionally protected trash.

#18 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 03:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

" I don't like, and never use the word "fetus"
It's a baby.. or better yet .... A little person
Pro-Life Sammy in Arizona and RI
(except in cases of rape------- or injury to the mom)"

(Except it's not.)

i was taking the other tact: if the unborn is a person, rape or ------ (or both) do not make her or him LESS a person. If the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, only a cretin would deny her an abortion; and yes, such cretins are plentiful within religious conservatism.

How about: whether the unborn is another future Hitler or 2nd Coming of Christ, he is occupying space in the woman's body, which is foremost her personal possession, NOT the abortion-opponents'--by any stretch of the imagination.

#19 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 03:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

When one takes the anti-abortionist's logic to its ultimate extreme:

They own & are personally responsible for every Unborn (fetus) on the planet.
They own the womb of every woman on the planet.
Can't be having rampant sex, which results in pregnancy:
they own (have the right to authorize) the sex act.
What must be done to prevent rampant sex in every corner of the globe? Multiple cameras in every room in every home, and behind every bush & tree, monitored by robots that recognize UNAUTHORIZED sex acts.
welcome to hell on earth.

#20 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 04:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"They own the womb of every woman on the planet."
This should've been "They own the womb of every fertile human female on the planet."

#21 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 04:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

i am almost finished re-reading Anne Rice's "Mayfair Witch Trilogy" which has about as much pregnancy & childbirth (from typical aristocratic ------, promiscuous mythological beings, as well as more traditional couplings) as one can care to imagine.

#22 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 04:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

How about: whether the unborn is another future Hitler or 2nd Coming of Christ, he is occupying space in the woman's body, which is foremost her personal possession, NOT the abortion-opponents'--by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by kenx

Hence, Barry Soetoro exists.

#23 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-29 04:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

#19, that's my attitude towards it. However I think it's only a matter of time before fetal transplants and artificial gestation become a reality. That's when the debate will become really interesting.

#24 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-06-29 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

Here we go again. The interesting thing in these 'discussions' is that each side, when it needs a story, finds the most sympathetic 'victim' even though their story is anything but typical. The couple in this story is 180 degrees from the average person who goes to an abortion clinic. I don't think proponents of abortion could argue as effectively if the subject of the article was a single woman who was going to have her third abortion in the last 8 months.

That gets us closer to what the debate is actually about. Folks on both sides are often guilty of harassment. Those who provide abortions are known to withhold information that might lead a woman to choose to carry to term. This may not be as blatant or loud, but it is just as egregious.

There are three issues in my mind in the abortion question. Let's start with the person/not a person debate. Like global warming, the science is settled. Unfortunately, each side will try to convince you that it is settled in their favor. The only thing that is truly settled and can't be disputed is that it is a living organism that will develop into a human being if left to. To me, that gives a benefit of any doubt to that living being. The argument might be that the woman is already a human being and her rights should supersede. The fact that the woman had numerous chances to avoid becoming pregnant negates her position, I believe.

That brings up point two. Proponents of abortion love to attribute all kinds of ideas to those who disagree with them. One of their favorites is that opponents of abortion are 'against contraception'. I know lots of abortion opponents and only a tiny fringe are against the use of contraception. There are more who would not like their preteen children to be instructed on the use of contraception in school, but that is a different issue. It is mostly moot, though, as those women who become pregnant and abort are most certainly not against contraception since they have no problem using its most extreme form. It's a straw man. Just like the idea that abortion opponents 'don't care' about those children who are born. Easy accusation, but blatantly false. The number of individuals, groups and organizations (both religious and secular) who work to make the lives of unwanted/disadvantaged children better is massive if you care to look for them.

Finally, there is the whole 'anti-choice' screed. I honestly don't know anyone who is anti choice. the disconnect is between those who believe that a woman should exercise her right to choose on the way into the bedroom and those who think it's ok to wait till she is on the way out.

Rights and responsibilities... My biggest problem with the supporters of abortion is that they seem to imply that there are no hard questions involved. Is it really ok to not make any effort to avoid pregnancy and then simply abort for no other reason than convenience? We are aborting thousands of (whatever you want to call them) every day in this country. This is after we were assured that if we would just allow legal abortions they would be safe and rare.

From my side, I recognize the hard questions. There are instances of rape, ------ and life threatening situations. There are also situations like the one described in the article. Unfortunately, all of those situations account for, by even the most liberal of estimates, no more than 15% of the abortions now performed in the US. I am willing to compromise and give you those 15% if you stop the other 85% that occur largely due to the irresponsibility of people who just want to pursue their own pleasure and damn the consequences.

#25 | Posted by frugalscott at 2014-06-29 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The SC demands a protective zone in front of the SC, those hypocrites won't grant the same for vulnerable women during a very difficult time in their lives further reduces the tiny amount of respect I still hold for the SC. Every member of the court should be harrassed, shouted at, etc. every time they leave their homes exactly as they have decided it is ok for anti-abortion haters to do to women they don't even know.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Im opposed to the abortion of healthy children. Im also opposed, personally, to protesting these clinics with shouting and bloody photographs. Obnoxious protesting is nothing more than spastic retards causing problems. Spastic retards should be locked up when they cross the line.

So, the answer is, the moment they impinge the movement of or threaten others, press charges and let them pay fines and court costs.

#27 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-06-29 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, there's a slight difference there. The government has a right to protect itself. Do you honestly think a government body is going to forego personal protection?

#28 | Posted by americanPLY at 2014-06-29 12:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Do you honestly think a government body is going to forego personal protection?"

I think I expected that our highest court would have had the decency to extend that protection to women entering healthcare clinics. I guess that was expecting too much from that corrupt body. It simply did not infringe anyone's right to free speech to say that they could say anything they want but just 35 feet away from vulnerable women. Stupid decision.

#29 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Now, how will they justify "free speech zones" when things like the WTO meet? But don't worry, they will. The Justices, for probably different reasons, wanted to subject vulnerable women patients to harrassment that they themselves would never tolerate even though they are public figures making decisions that effect all Americans' lives while those women are private citizens trying to get access to services which should be dealt with in secure privacy. All the members of the court should resign in shame.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

wanted to subject vulnerable women patients to harrassment that they themselves would never tolerate

#30 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 01:04 PMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

And will never have to tolerate. Their families have the financial means to go elsewhere if they want this procedure, someplace where part of the package is no protesters at all.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2014-06-29 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It has even been reported that some of the employees of the clinics have positively recognized some of the same protesters bringing their daughters into the clinics for abortions. The anti-abortion crowd are the same holier than though hypocrites that the gay right movement had to deal with. Some of the most virulent anti-gay haters ended up finally coming out themselves or more often being outed.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

The SC demands a protective zone in front of the SC...

No, 40 U.S. Code Chapter 61 sets some rules and permits the Marshal of the Supreme Court to set other regulations if approved by the Chief Justice. Here are the seven building regulations in effect.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-29 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Except it's not.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

At what point does it become a baby?

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-29 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Shouldn't abortion protesters be working harder to protect those who have already been born?

#6 | Posted by Tor

Shouldn't pro abortion protesters be working harder to execute convicted murders?

#35 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-29 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Welcome to the United States. The whole country is a First Amendment zone.

#1 | Posted by WhiteDevil

Except on college campuses and when dealing with the feds, they you have to go into a roped off area to express your first amendment rights. You really need to keep up with the news ace.

#36 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-29 02:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every member of the court should be harrassed, shouted at, etc. every time they leave their homes exactly as they have decided it is ok for anti-abortion haters to do to women they don't even know.

#26 | Posted by danni

That one cuts both ways ddan.

#37 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-29 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's a baby.. or better yet .... A little person
#3 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI

Except it's not.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 201

on the way in, the fetus had a chance to grow and be born and live a life of untold worth...

after it was aborted, it is and won't EVER be anything other than garbage.

#39 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2014-06-29 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm sure you have proof to back up that ---- extraction."

I could prove that some employees or former employees of clinics have said they recognize some former protesters bringing in their own daughters for abortions. Could I prove they are telling the truth about that no but I think with the numbers of people we are talking about it is almost a certainty that the situation similar to what they describe must have happened.

#40 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think proponents of abortion could argue as effectively if the subject of the article was a single woman who was going to have her third abortion in the last 8 months.

And just how frequently does that happen?

Proponents of abortion love to attribute all kinds of ideas to those who disagree with them. One of their favorites is that opponents of abortion are 'against contraception'. I know lots of abortion opponents and only a tiny fringe are against the use of contraception.

Talk about selective information to make one's point...

The reason the anti-contraception idea gets applied is because those anti-abortion groups/people/organizations who are acting politically, as in trying to enact policy, are more often than not also pro-abstinence only.

Unless the people you're thinking of are actually trying to enact policy, your anecdotal argument is worthless.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-29 05:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

If the unborn has a right to life such that we can force the mother to carry this parasite growing in her body for 9 months, then we can't the same be said for organ transplants?

Person A has a kidney that would perfectly fit Person B genetically/Blood Type. Person B needs said kidney or will die. Under the same idea that applies to anti-abortion ideology, we can force Person A to give up their kidney.

The same can be said for bone marrow, blood, etc.

#42 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-29 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

I still remember the harassment.....

Read that far, ordered the cliff notes version of this story.

"Your rights end where my feelings begin."

#43 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-29 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Read that far, ordered the cliff notes version of this story."

What vulnerable women should have to deal with SC Justices should not have to deal with.

Free Speech Zones anyone?

This SC decision was completely idiotic, hypocritical and I bet about now it's embarrassing to the more reasonable Justices.

#44 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-29 07:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

#25 - MUCH error, distortion, innuendo in this diatribe. Some of it has been addressed well by others (better than i could do), but i think it's ultimately pointless to respond.

And i said (more than) what i had to say # 18-22 LiH

#23 ~ LiH ( Laughing in Head )

#24 ~ interesting, thanks

#45 | Posted by kenx at 2014-06-29 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

How frequently does it happen? About as often as the situation in the article.

Enacting policy? People who oppose abortion have only one policy in mind and that is to limit the number of needless abortions. Some fringe groups are not amenable to contraception but the mainstream of abortion opponents have no problem with contraception. But thanks for proving my point.

#46 | Posted by frugalscott at 2014-06-29 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

but the mainstream of abortion opponents have no problem with contraception.

#46 | POSTED BY FRUGALSCOTT

But heaven forbid you teach kids how to use it or that it exists. Better to lie to them and say its completely ineffective.

#47 | Posted by Sycophant at 2014-06-30 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Better to lie to them and say its completely ineffective."

there are folks who say it's completely ineffective?

Geez....I'm catholic....never heard that.

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2014-06-30 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

What vulnerable women should have to deal with SC Justices should not have to deal with.
Free Speech Zones anyone?
This SC decision was completely idiotic, hypocritical and I bet about now it's embarrassing to the more reasonable Justices.

#44 | POSTED BY DANNI

Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills are businesses.

They don't deserve any more protection than any other business.

You want to stand on the sidewalk and picket Hobby Lobby?

Go right ahead.

Some pro-lifer wants to stand on the sidewalk and picket Planned Parenthood?

Go right ahead.

See how that works?

A consistent standard for all in lieu of carving out winners and losers.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-06-30 09:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

But gay parades, which make many very uncomfortable and nervous, are just ok.

#50 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-30 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

#34
When it can survive outside of the womb on its own.

#49
I'm against any buffer zones. If the protesters are on private property then charge them with criminal trespass. If they are harassing the patients, then charge them with harassment.

#50
Right because you know the "gay" is contagious. I understand, don't agree with but understand, the uncomfortable part but he nervous part of your statement is just stupid.

#51 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2014-06-30 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#50 | Posted by sames1
"But gay parades, which make many very uncomfortable and nervous, are just ok."

Why would someone made uncomfortable and nervous by a gay parade even attend a gay parade in order to be made uncomfortable and nervous to begin with?

#52 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-06-30 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know why but the link brings up a blank page when I try to access it.

Did this guy talk to the protestors at any point?

I'm assuming that after he got his wife settled in, he had some time during the procedure during which he could have had a discussion with the protestors.

If it were me I would have, without breaking any laws, brought them to tears too. Fair is fair.

#53 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 04:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

But gay parades, which make many very uncomfortable and nervous, are just ok.

#50 | Posted by sames1 at 2014-06-30 11:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Wouldn't know. Unlike you, I don't attend them.

#54 | Posted by Sully at 2014-06-30 04:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Planned Parenthood and other abortion mills are businesses. "

You're wrong on your first sentence. Planned Parenthood is a not for profit organization.

#55 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 06:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Some pro-lifer wants to stand on the sidewalk and picket Planned Parenthood?"

If that's all they do fine but we both know that isn't all they do by any means. They commit borderline assaults on vulnerable women seeking healthcare services and PP does offer many other services besides abortion and those protesters really don't know why any of those women are coming there.

#56 | Posted by danni at 2014-06-30 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort