Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 8:46:37 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577019

Why Kermit Gosnell hasn’t been on Page One by Melinda Henneberger on April 15, 2013 washingtonpost.com Dr. Kermit Gosnell in 2010. (Yong Kim/AP) News outlets have been struggling to explain why until now there’s been so little coverage of the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of delivering live, screaming children and then beheading them. The Post and other mainstream news outfits are on the story now, belatedly, so maybe critics like me shouldn’t act like the mother who, when you do call her, spends half the conversation asking why you haven’t called. But, why wasn’t more written sooner? One colleague viewed Gosnell’s alleged atrocities as a local crime story, though I can’t think of another mass murder, with hundreds of victims, that we ever saw that way. Another said it was just too lurid, though that didn’t keep us from covering Jeffrey Dahmer, or that aspiring cannibal at the NYPD. Yet another said it’s because the rest of the country doesn’t care about Philadelphia — that one was especially creative, I thought. And a friend argued that any “blackout” boiled down to the usual lack of media interest in the low-income community Gosnell “served.” (While he routinely turned poor, black patients over to assistants who lacked even a high school education, according to court testimony, the white patients he seated separately, and treated himself.) I say we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage. Now, I assign plenty of “rights under threat” stories myself, for She the People, and see them as perfectly valid. But we in the news business do cover the extremism of some who oppose abortion rights — attempts to run after pregnant women with transvaginal probes, for example — far more than we do the extremism of some who favor abortion rights, as per the Planned Parenthood’s Alisa LaPolt Snow, who said recently that when a baby somehow survives an abortion, it’s up to the woman, her family and her doctor to decide that child’s fate. Two years ago, I wrote about the good doctor Gosnell’s “pro-choice enablers,” for Politics Daily: “The ultimate non-partisan body – a criminal grand jury – has supplied us with the graphic, 261-page horror story of Kermit Gosnell, M.D., who stands accused of butchering seven babies – yes, after they were born alive — and fatally doping a refugee from Nepal with Demerol in a clinic that smelled of cat urine, where the furniture was stained with blood and the doctor kept a collection of severed baby feet. As often as possible, the report says, Gosnell induced labor for women so pregnant that, as he joked on one occasion, the baby was so big he could “walk me to the bus stop.” Then, hundreds of times over the years, he slit their little necks, according to the grand jury report: [He] regularly and illegally delivered live, viable, babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors. The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths. Over the years, many people came to know that something was going on here. But no one put a stop to it. And the kicker? This nightmare facility had not been inspected in 17 years – other than by someone from the National Abortion Federation, whom he actually invited there. For whatever reason, Gosnell applied for NAF membership two days after the death of the 41-year-old Nepalese woman, Karnamaya Mongar. Even on a day when the place had been scrubbed and spiffed up for the visit, the NAF investigator found it disgusting and rejected Gosnell’s application for membership. But despite noting many outright illegalities, including a padlocked emergency exit in a part of the clinic where women were left alone overnight, the grand jury report notes that the NAF inspector did not report any of these violations to authorities.” My point, then and now, is that I am a big fan of regulation; wasn’t it the loosening of regs in the financial world that led to the meltdown of ’08 and in the oil industry to the BP spill of ’10? Those who normally agree with me about the need for oversight, though, make an exception when it comes to the abortion industry, which they feel should be self-regulating even when what that gets us is the likes of Kermit Gosnell. The counter-argument, then and now, is that it’s the restriction of abortion rights that creates such shady operators, though there are other clinics in Philadelphia — and if his practice was restricted in any way over the years, I can’t see how. Which “side” was Dr. Frankenstein to Dr. Gosnell? Well, there’s no mystery about where Gosnell could have gotten the idea that his youngest victims weren’t human, or entitled to any protection under the law. There aren’t just two sides, though, but a whole continuum of points of view, from those who see several cells as a legal person to those who insist that even a baby who could walk Kermit Gosnell to the bus stop is only a person if his mom says so. Gosnell himself seemed confused, when he was charged with so many counts of murder, as to how that could be. Because even at that point, he didn’t appear to see the children he’s accused of beheading as people. Planned Parenthood’s Snow was similarly obtuse, either willfully or out of habit, in testifying against a Florida bill that would have required medical care for babies who survive abortions. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion,” she was asked, “what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Her answer was a familiar one: “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician.” Though it pains me to say so, that’s the same stand Barack Obama effectively took when he voted against a similar Illinois bill — even after the addition of a “neutrality clause” spelling out that the bill would have no bearing on the legal status of the (you say fetus, I say unborn child) at any point prior to delivery, and thus could not be used to outlaw abortion. Recently, MSNBC host Melissa Harris mocked those who see a fertilized egg as a fully human person: “I get,” she said, “that that’s a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.” But I wish she and those who agree with her also got this: To insist that a baby born at 30 weeks, as one of Gosnell’s victims was, only qualifies as a person if his mom decides to keep him is also “a particular kind of faith claim that’s not associated with science.”

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 8:51:03 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577019

Did pro-lifers drive women to Kermit Gosnell? ...................................................................................................................... by Cassy Fiano April 16, 2013 liveactionnews.org Pro-aborts have finally acknowledged that the trial of Kermit Gosnell exists, and since doing so, they’ve realized that they need to go on the defensive. The trial had by and large been ignored, most likely to protect abortion, until there was a huge outcry calling for an end to the media blackout. So pro-aborts started talking about it. But their condemnation for Gosnell was rather lacking, considering that overwhelmingly, the condemnation lasted for only a sentence or two before moving on to their real point: pro-lifers are completely and totally to blame for all of the destruction and death Gosnell wreaked! This is in addition to claiming that it was actually conservatives and pro-lifers who have been ignoring the story until now (um, not true). According to Jezebel, this is all because of abortion restrictions: Women were hurt by Gosnell because he broke the laws and they had nowhere else to go. This is what happens when states restrict access to abortion: women seek out illegal and dangerous options. In Pennsylvania, there are zero abortion clinics in the hundreds of miles between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. History proves that women will always find a way to access abortion when in need. Is this the type of experience we want them to have? Planned Parenthood condemned Gosnell in a twenty-word tweet…where they then linked to a story arguing for fewer restrictions on abortion. The news of the alleged practices at Gosnell’s clinic prompted calls for stronger regulations of abortion services. The fact is abortion is already a highly restricted procedure, especially in Pennsylvania, where regulations include mandatory waiting periods and traveling two or three times to separate appointments. These restrictions have caused some women to delay abortion procedures, often into the second trimester, where it becomes both a higher medical risk and more expensive. No new regulations can stop a physician who has decided to disregard the law. Restrictions that would further hinder access to safe abortion is not the answer, and will only increase the number of poor women who are forced by circumstances to turn to unsafe options for care. Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL, blames it on right-wing, anti-abortion extremists. Evidence suggests that a number of factors influenced a woman’s decision to seek care at Gosnell’s clinic: Medicaid’s refusal to provide insurance coverage for most abortions; the scarcity of abortion providers in Pennsylvania (and across the nation); the fear of violence perpetrated by protestors at clinics, and the right-wing culture that has so stigmatized abortion that many think it is still illegal 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Perhaps most laughable is Amanda Marcotte, also claiming that taxpayer-funded abortion would have prevented Gosnell’s atrocities – yet also trying to cover abortion advocates by claiming that the National Abortion Federation rejected Gosnell’s disgusting clinic. As advocates of quality health care for women, we have tried, sadly in vain much of the time, to remind people who simple fixes, such as offering Medicaid coverage of abortion, could take the issue of cost off the table and make it easier for women not to resort to illegal operators who use unsanitary and sadistic methods, like Gosnell. … Pro-choicers want women to receive safe, clean, ethical abortion care. We fully and completely support government regulations of all medical facilities aimed at making sure patients get this kind of care. We are so supportive of safe, clean abortion care that we have our own organization called the National Abortion Federation to certify quality clinics. (NAF unsurprisingly refused to certify Gosnell, even though he cleaned his clinic up and pretended to have medically trained staff in an effort to trick them.) The key here is that we believe that abortion clinics should be subject to the regulations like other medical facilities, and that those regulations should be aimed at making sure women get quality care. Of course, the reality is that pro-aborts fight at every turn against abortion clinics being regulated like other medical facilities. And while, yes, the National Abortion Federation did refuse to certify Gosnell’s clinic, they also saw firsthand the disgusting conditions he was practicing in – and did nothing. They turned a blind eye and didn’t report him. It was called the worst clinic the inspectors had ever seen, yet they did not report him. So maybe Marcotte shouldn’t brag about that one too much. But let’s examine the question at hand. Is it because of pro-lifers, and anti-abortion legislation, that women were forced to go to Kermit Gosnell? Well, there are multiple abortion clinics in Philadelphia, including multiple Planned Parenthood clinics across the state. At least one of the clinics, just from looking at their website, offers fee reductions. One of the abortionists, Dr. Charles Benjamin, performs abortions up to 21 weeks. As to cost, Gosnell was certainly not performing abortions for pennies. The man made himself a millionaire, allegedly charging women thousands of dollars to kill their babies. So this idea of women being driven to Gosnell because they had no other options and he was cheap? Not quite. So why did women go there? The pro-aborts mentioned the reasons themselves. Other clinics had protesters out front, which scared them. Some women had referrals from friends. But they went to Gosnell not because he was inexpensive or their only choice. Pro-aborts are simply seeking to, once again, protect the idea of abortion. They want to reassure people – this isn’t normal, we don’t stand for this, we want abortion to be safe, and it’s all because of pro-lifers that this happened. But on what planet does it make any sense that a lack of regulations would prevent the Kermit Gosnells of the world from practicing? For all their whining about too-strict regulations and restrictions in Pennsylvania, the reality is that Gosnell was able to go almost two decades without undergoing a single inspection. Two patients died, other patients were injured or contracted sexually transmitted diseases. Various state and city departments knew about these things but looked the other way. So clearly, there aren’t overly burdensome regulations on abortion clinics in Pennsylvania. It was only after Gosnell’s house of horrors was finally discovered that changes started to be made – and yet, pro-aborts are decrying these stricter regulations and blaming the whole thing on pro-lifers. It’s a little hard to take their outrage and condemnation seriously when they’re more focused on speaking out against preventing future Kermit Gosnells than they are the actual horrors that took place.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 8:52:59 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1577019

Photos of Aborted Baby Remains Dominate Kermit Gosnell Murder Trial by Cheryl Sullenger \| Philadelphia, PA \| LifeNews.com \| 4/16/13 10:37 AM lifenews.com The fifth week of Kermit Gosnell’s capital murder trial resumed Monday with graphic testimony from Dr. Sam Gulino, Chief Medical Examiner for the City of Philadelphia, who discussed his examination of the remains of 47 fetuses seized by law enforcement authorities from his “House of Horrors” abortion clinic. Dr. Gulino testified that this case was unprecedented and he could not find a colleague who had ever dealt with a case involving frozen fetal remains of this nature. For the first time, photos of Karnamaya Mongar’s dead baby were shown to the jury. Mongar died from an overdose of Demerol during a second trimester abortion done by Gosnell. Mongar’s baby was estimated to be 16-19 weeks gestation. The baby’s skin was bright red, (a condition later described as the early stages of decomposition), and sported a head of dark brown hair. The Medical Examiner found no fetal anomalies when he examined the baby’s body. A photo of the back of the child showed a deep gash approximately an inch long in the back of the baby’s neck. Mongar’s abortion took place in 2007, meaning that those remains had been stored in a freezer at the clinic for three years. Jury Sees More Dead Baby Photos The bodies of a baby boy and a baby girl with similar neck gashes were also shown in grisly color on a large screen opposite the jury box. The remains on one baby, which was not shown to the jury, was described as missing both feet severed above the ankle and a right hand severed above the wrist. Dr. Gulino testified that he received three batches of remains from Gosnell’s clinic, the largest of which contained the remains of 42 babies. The remains were frozen and stored in a variety of containers, including milk jugs, cat food cans, and even a cherry lime-ade container. The containers were each in bags and those bags were found in three large red bio-hazard bags. Several containers contained the “fragmented” remains of several babies. Ages were estimated from 12 weeks or less up to 22 weeks. He found that two of the babies were “possibly viable.” It took Dr. Gulino five days just to catalog the contents before examinations could even be done. Mystery of the Fetal Feet He also later received five jars containing fetal feet and first trimester abortion remains that had been preserved in formaldehyde. The jars were labeled with the patient’s name and date of the abortions, which ranged from December 5-9, 2009. Two of the jars were from the same patient and contained a right and left foot of the same baby. Using the measurement of the feet, Dr. Gulino estimated the fetal ages to be 14-19 weeks gestation. Gosnell’s defense attorney implied that the extremities were preserved in the event that DNA evidence was needed and as proof of fetal age, however, the severing of both feet and a hand would be unnecessary even if this were the case, Gulino testified. The prosecution believes that the feet and hands were taken as trophies by Gosnell, just as serial killers often engage in the practice of taking mementos from victims they kill. Frozen Remains Present Challenges Because the aborted baby remains had been frozen and thawed for examination, a tricky process, according to the medical examiner, the tissue samples were damaged to some extent, making testing to determine whether a baby breathed air inconclusive. Because of this, there was no way he could say for sure that any of the babies were actually born alive. However, he testified that it is possible that they were alive at birth or had been birthed into water such as into a toilet. Several former employees testified that they saw babies born into toilets at Gosnell’s clinic. There would be no reason to sever the baby’s spinal cords if they were dead prior to birth, as the defense claims. The subject of viability was a touchy one on which McMahon aggressively questioned Dr. Gulino. Shockingly, McMahon marched to the jury box and dramatically asked Dr. Gulino, “If the baby is dead, it can’t be viable, can it?” McMahon suggested that any movements by a baby after birth were simply a condition known as cadaveric spasm, which was described as movement of muscle groups as the result of the rapid onset of rigor mortis. The medical examiner indicated that was unlikely due to the under-developed nature of muscles at the gestational ages being discussed. CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE! Testimony ended when a shouting match broke out between McMahon and prosecutor Edward Cameron over whether the babies were born alive. Cameron was conducting questioning on re-direct when McMahon angrily blurted out a question out of turn. The two men began shouting at each other, and both were shouted down by Judge Jeffery Minehart, who rebuked McMahon and told him to “act lake a lawyer.” The argument ended questioning for the day. Planned Parenthood Abortionist Testifies Earlier in the morning, testimony was heard from Charles David Benjamin, an abortionist who works for Planned Parenthood in Philadelphia. Benjamin was presented as an abortion expert over the objections of Gosnell’s attorney Jack McMahon. Benjamin, a stocky, balding middle-aged man, stated that he is a Doctor of Osteopathy who trains residents as part of his staff duties at Albert Einstein hospital in Philadelphia. He admitted to having done 40,000 abortions over his 30 years in practice. Benjamin testified concerning Gosnell’s grossly outdated sonogram machine, his use of drugs in abortion procedures, and the dispensing of pain and sedation drugs by Gosnell’s unqualified workers in his absence. Benjamin Admits to Missing Drugs Benjamin told the court that his clinic’s crash cart is inspected monthly and admitted that he has had emergency drugs tampered with or missing, which was discovered during inspections. The only crash cart Gosnell apparently owned was not stored at his clinic, but found by police under his bed at his residence. As for Gosnell’s use of digoxin to kill the pre-born baby prior to a late-term abortion, Benjamin testified that amounts recorded on Gosnell’s charts represented more than 500 times the normal dosage. Testimony given earlier in the trial indicated that there was no physical evidence that digoxin was ever used on the babies he is charged with murdering. The trial will resume tomorrow morning with the family of Karnamaya expected to testify. Operation Rescue will be reporting from the trial all week.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 8:56:24 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1577019

What I saw at the Gosnell trial today ............................................ by Fr. Frank Pavone Tue Apr 16, 2013 I spent the day today in Philadelphia at the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. The prosecution in the Gosnell murder trial seems to be nearing the conclusion of its work. A small courtroom, able to hold about 70 people, but mostly empty throughout the day, was the site today of this ongoing trial that looks and sounds like something out of Nuremburg. Gosnell sat there – just a few yards away from me — with a great deal of composure during the whole thing, sometimes smiling, sometimes whispering to his attorney, sometimes taking notes. Just in front of the witness stand were various silent witnesses, namely, various instruments from Gosnell’s clinic. I saw the suction machine, and the plastic cannulae (which were a stained orange color). Likewise an ancient looking ultrasound machine was there, again with stains on it – one of those things that looks like a dinosaur computer that might be in an old closet in your garage. The morning was taken up with the tearful testimony (spoken through a translator) of the daughter of Karnamaya Mongar, one of Gosnell’s murder victims. She described how her mom was given medication by the staff, began to experience pain and drowsiness, and was eventually taken away by ambulance. Interestingly, she got to Gosnell’s mill via three other facilities – two in Virginia and one in DC – all of whom said they could not do the abortion on her. In the afternoon, one of the witnesses was a man employed by Gosnell and who had various cleaning responsibilities in the facility, including taking care of clogged pipes and toilets. He testified that at one point, when using a plunger to unclog the drain, body parts – particularly little arms – came up out of the waste. Later, an employee of the state testified about how, in making an official visit to Gosnell’s facility, the employee found vaccinations that had expired. As I said, the courtroom was mostly empty. I was there with a couple of other pro-life leaders, and various reporters. At one point during the morning, a high school class from a local girls’ school came in to watch the proceedings. One of the girls later was asking why it would take so much time and effort to convict this man…. Wasn’t the wrong that he did obvious? We shall see. lifesitenews.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 8:59:25 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577019

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell and Obama’s Silence .............................................................................................................. theblacksphere.net One month. That’s how long before President Obama inserted himself into the Trayvon Martin case, further drumming up the racist allegations that painted suspect George Zimmerman as a murderer. Four Hours. That’s the window of time separating the insidious murder of school children in Newtown Connecticut and the President’s first statement about the tragedy. Twenty-seven months and counting…the same president who has routinely injected himself into national judicial cases, has remained conspicuously quiet regarding the heinous charges brought against Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. Abortionist Gosnell is charged with eight counts of first-degree murder, as well as multiple counts of conspiracy, criminal solicitation and violation of a state law that forbids abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy. As the case unfolds before the Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, the grotesque details of Gosnell’s practice have shaken even the most abortion-ambivalent Americans to the core. “Raining fetuses” …blood-stained sheets and towels…underage medical assistants…babies screaming “like aliens”…severing spinal cords and beheadings. These are just a meandering of the testimonies disclosed during the jury hearing. And yet, President Obama has remained uncharacteristically quiet. The same president who was quick to exacerbate the charges of racism in the Trayvon Martin case, even when none had been proven, has declined to address the African American children murdered at the hand of Gosnell, and the hundreds of minority women who were exploited by the abortion industry. The blackout from the media is shameful but not surprising …but the silence from the president is deafening. Obama’s awkward racial comment regarding the Trayvon Martin case, “If I had a son he would be like Trayvon,” must not apply to the thousands of African American babies slaughtered at the hands of Abortionist Gosnell. So why is President Obama silent on the issue? One only need look carefully into President Obama’s legislative history to find the answer. Three times during Obama’s tenure as an Illinois state senator, a package of Born Alive bills was introduced on the senate floor. Each time, then state senator Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, siding against protecting babies who survived an abortion. The same senator who voted “present” countless times to avoid taking a stand on contentious issues, was more than eager to cast a vote denying care to victims of botched abortions. While Americans cringe at Abortionist Gosnell’s treatment of viable babies who survive an abortion – snipping their spinal cords with a pair of unsterile medical scissors – we only need to look at the President’s past voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to understand his position. These same seven babies who survived Gosnell’s late-term abortion procedure would just further “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform the abortion,” according to President Obama’s argument against the Born Alive Protection Act of 2002. In other words, if a baby survives an abortion, the death plan marked out for this child should be carried out regardless of the child’s viability. If Obama wasn’t moved by the testimonies of nurses revealing how the born-alive infants were often discarded in a soiled utility room where they were left to die, why would we expect him to react differently to Gosnell’s post-abortion infanticide? After all, one could certainly make the case that Gosnell’s brutal yet quick killing technique is far less ruthless than leaving a frail newborn to die a slow anguished death – which is precisely what Obama voted for as state senator. And that’s why we have yet to hear from President Obama regarding Gosnell’s victims. His years in the Illinois state legislature were invested in arguing against the protection of babies who survive botched abortions, labeling them as a “burden” to both mother and attending abortionist. Were he to speak out on behalf of the babies murdered in Gosnell’s clinic, Obama would be contradicting his repeated votes against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and betraying his unholy alliance with pro-abortion extremists who advocate for abortion on demand at all stages. Any statement from Obama would only expose the hidden truth that as state senator he in essence voted for the death of Gosnell’s victims… different instruments and different means…but the same result. The Gosnell “House of Horrors” is nothing more than Obama’s senate votes in action.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 9:02:58 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577019

Before the Gosnell Blackout, There Was Tiller's ..................................................................................................... By Jack Cashill April 15, 2013 americanthinker.com If there was any real difference between what the late abortionist George Tiller did in Wichita over the course of his long career and what Kermit Gosnell did in Philadelphia, it was hygiene. Tiller had a largely white, middle-class clientele. They came to him from all over the world. Before his murder in 2009, he had boasted on his website of having "more experience in late abortion services with fetuses over 24 weeks than anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere, more than 60,000 since 1973." Like Gosnell, Tiller routinely took the lives of healthy, viable babies eager to be born, in flagrant violation of state law. But given the expectations of his clients, Tiller kept a neater shop and, to ease the conscience of his supporters, almost always performed his mayhem out of sight, within the womb. Had Gosnell been in Wichita, he likely would have done the same. As clinic worker Tina Baldwin testified to the grand jury, Gosnell kept one room in the facility clean for the odd "white girl from the suburbs." He would personally escort those patients to that room and even turn the TV on for them. More importantly, he, not his uncredentialed assistants, would administer the anesthesia. "That's the way of the world," he told Baldwin. I cannot add much to the discussion as to how or why the media have chosen to ignore Gosnell's macabre practice, but I can speak with some authority on the Tiller case. Working out of Kansas City, I tried repeatedly to break the story out into the mainstream media, local and national, and never quite succeeded. Those who argue that the media turned their back on Gosnell's patients because of their color miss the larger point. The media turn their back on these cases because of their nearly monolithic support of the abortion industry. In a red state like Kansas, with patients like Tiller's, the media had to work much harder to suppress the truth. That they did, and that they continue to do. I started tracking the Tiller story in earnest with the election in 2002 of Republican Phill Kline as Kansas attorney general. Kline was a friend. I knew him well. I knew he meant business when he set out to make Tiller honor the law. As a state representative, Kline had helped write that law. The law allowed for a late-term abortion on a viable baby only "to preserve the life of the pregnant women" or to prevent her from suffering "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." What Kline knew -- what anyone paying attention knew -- was that Tiller was making a mockery of the law. It has since come out that Tiller routinely translated an adolescent's unease about missing a prom, a rock concert, or a chance to participate in a rodeo as "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." Basically, Tiller would abort a healthy late-term baby for just about anyone who wanted an abortion. He was also refusing to report to state authorities, as required by law, the many young girls who had come his way as a result of a rape, statutory or otherwise. Kline suspected this as well and later proved it. That same year that Kansans elected Kline, they also elected Democrat Kathleen Sebelius, now head of the Department Health and Human Services, as governor. For the next six years, she did everything in her power to bedevil Kline and protect Tiller. What made her task easy was that she had the media in her pocket. When Kline attempted to secure the records that would prove the obvious, Sebelius's bureaucrats and her pals in the media turned on him viciously. They labeled him "Snoop Dog Kline." They called him a "panty sniffer," a "zealot," a "theocrat." In 2006, Sebelius persuaded Paul Morrison, the popular Republican district attorney of the state's most affluent county, to switch parties and run against Kline. The Kansas City Star's support for "reproductive justice" in the battle against the "anti-choice extremist" Kline was so passionate, in fact, that Planned Parenthood honored the Star with the "Maggie," its top national prize for editorial writing. With the full-throated backing of the media and Tiller's massive financial support behind him, Morrison ousted Kline. Before leaving office, however, Kline had filed 30 counts against Tiller for performing illegal late-term abortions. In other words, Tiller stood accused of taking the lives of 15 fully viable unborn babies whose mothers were equally healthy, in utter disregard of Kansas law. While Morrison was reviewing these charges, Sebelius honored Tiller and his staff at an elegant but extremely discreet soiree at Cedar Crest, the governor's mansion. Among the more revealing of the photos taken at the event is one of Sebelius holding a t-shirt presented to her by Tiller, which reads, "Trifecta 2006: Sebelius, Parkinson, Morrison." In the photo, Sebelius points at Tiller as if to acknowledge his contribution to that victory. Not surprisingly, Sebelius and her minions would see to it that the prosecution of Tiller went nowhere. During this period, I served as executive editor of the region's business magazine and appeared frequently on a local PBS panel show called "Kansas City Week in Review." My publisher at the magazine was sympathetic but understandably squeamish. The Star had so poisoned the atmosphere against Kline that to run a piece in support of him risked losing the magazine's advertising base. The Star reporters with whom I appeared on the panel show were wary. They knew I had the inside track on the Tiller story, but they would all but hold their hands over their ears when I raised the issue. They did not want to know any more than they knew and would find excuses to justify their incuriosity. The show's host was a good guy, but the brass upstairs discouraged him from giving the issue air. In time, they simply stopped inviting me on the show. Fortunately for Sebelius and the media, Tiller was gunned down at his Lutheran church in Wichita on May 31, 2009. Now, finally, the media could address Tiller's life and work. ABC, on both World News Sunday and Good Morning America, showed a 1991 interview in which Tiller insisted, "I have a right to go to work. What I am doing is legal. What I'm doing is moral. What I'm doing is ethical. And you're not going to run me out of town." NBC's Nightly News showed a clip of Tiller stating, "You simply cannot retreat when you're committed." Feminist honcho Eleanor Smeal told an NBC reporter, "People don't understand the need for this service, that women's lives are saved, but he did. And he was brave enough to keep going." The rest of the networks were just as effusive, if not worse. If someone had interviewed me, I would have said, "You want to blame someone? Blame Sebelius. Blame yourself. By protecting Tiller from the judicial system, you exposed him to the extra-judicial." Needless to say, no one asked. They are still not asking.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 9:06:48 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1577019

Unreal: Carney says Obama ‘does not and cannot’ take position on Gosnell .......................................................................... twitchy.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (709886)	4/17/2013 9:08:40 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1577019

College Professor Arrested Amid Profanity-Laced Rant Against Pro-Life Students’ Display ........................................................................................................... MediaIte ^ \| 04/17/2013 \| Noah Rothman A University of Buffalo professor was apparently so incensed by a campus display erected by a group of pro-life students that she engaged in a profanity-laden rant which attracted the attention of the authorities. Being lectured by the police to tone down her tirade apparently incensed the professor even more and she proceeded to rage against the pro-life students’ display with even more vitriol. The event, captured on a student’s cell phone, ends when the authorities detain the professor. (Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...