E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLawyers for a Utah abortion doctor charged with murder for the death of a fetus in Maryland asked a judge Friday to throw out the charges, arguing she is immune from prosecution and that the state is trying to infringe upon a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.
Dr. Nicola Riley and her former colleague, Dr. Steven Brigham of New Jersey, were indicted last month under a law that allows murder charges to be brought in the death of a viable fetus. The 2005 law had only been used previously for cases in which defendants were accused of assaulting or killing pregnant women, and prosecutors have acknowledged they are in uncharted territory by using it to charge doctors who perform abortionds. Thirty-seven other states have similar statutes.
At Riley's bail review hearing Friday in Cecil County Circuit Court in Elkton, Md., attorney Stuart O. Simms argued that prosecutors were attempting to criminalize constitutionally protected medical treatment.
"Based on their interpretation of the statute, they are now threatening to charge any medical professional in Cecil County with a state crime," Simms told The Associated Press after the hearing.
Court: No forced abortion for Mass. woman
In Maryland, licensed physicians can perform abortions before the fetus is deemed capable of surviving outside the womb, and abortions of viable fetuses are permitted to protect the life or health of the mother or if the fetus has serious genetic abnormalities.
The state's fetal homicide law was approved in 2005 in the wake of the highly publicized slaying of Laci Peterson in Modesto, Calif. Peterson was seven months pregnant, and her husband, Scott Peterson, was convicted of killing both her and their unborn son.
The law specifically exempts licensed physicians performing abortions. Before the bill was passed, its sponsor, Delegate Charles Boutin, wrote in a letter to a committee chairman that it is "clearly and solely a victim's rights bill. It takes care of the 'Laci Peterson' issue in Maryland, while protecting a woman's right to choose."
Judge Keith Baynes set bail for Riley at $300,000, the amount requested by Deputy State's Attorney Kerwin Miller, who argued that the evidence against the 46-year-old Salt Lake City resident is strong and characterized her as a flight risk. She was arrested Dec. 28 on a fugitive warrant and was extradited to Maryland on Thursday.
She is charged with one count each of first- and second-degree murder stemming from an abortion in Elkton, Md., 16 months ago involving a teenager who was 21 weeks pregnant, according to the Baltimore Sun.
"It gets no bigger than this," Miller said in reference to Riley's first-degree murder charge, the Cecil Whig of Elkton reported.
Miller also told the Cecil Whig that the "evidence is overwhelming" in the case, because Riley admitted to performing the procedure to Union Hospital officials, according to a Maryland Board of Physicians report.
Riley posted bail shortly after the hearing and was released from custody. As a condition of her release, she was ordered not to perform abortions.
The charges against Riley stem from a botched abortion in August 2010 at Brigham's Elkton clinic. The 18-year-old patient suffered serious injuries, and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital rather than call 911, according to medical regulators. The fetus was 21 weeks old. Doctors generally consider fetuses to be viable outside the womb starting around 23 weeks.
Brigham, of Voorhees, N.J., has been charged with murder in the death of that fetus and four others. He was released from custody Jan. 6 after posting a $500,000 bond. His attorney has also argued that Brigham has not violated the fetal homicide law.
Anti-abortion activists have hailed the arrests of Brigham and Riley, saying the charges shed light on the troubling practices of certain abortion doctors. A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed a freezer containing 35 late-term fetuses, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks, according to documents released by medical regulators.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
- Miracle baby born from single frozen sperm
- Incoming! Solar blast is headed our way
- Parents nix 'cougar' as school team's name
- Firefighters cut through home's wall to rescue obese man
- Poker players sue to get to the bottom of online cheating scheme
- Goat on the lam since Christmas Eve found safe
Leave a Comment:
"abortions of viable fetuses are permitted to protect the life or health of the mother."
Okay, if the baby is viable why not deliver it alive to protect the health or life of the mother?
Because the mother apparently didn't want to.
Hell, the mother clearly has no rights here.
It's none of the State's business, PERIOD!
@Pedestrian:
By your argument, if I need a kidney transplant, I'll just take yours, OK? You've got no rights to your body if someone else needs it (or parts of it).
The pregnant woman (she's only a mother if she already has children or after a live fetus has been delivered) has total rights of her body and can choose to evict or continue to care for the fetus that's using her resources and putting her health and life at risk. It's none of your or any legislature's business.
Actually, MDH - I'm 100% on your side. I completely agree - my comment was poorly worded but I meant to imply that the mother has no rights as far as this case goes. Her wishes would have been ignored, but they didn't stop her in time.
Peace.
This should be a slam dunk murder charge ''...... A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed a freezer containing 35 late-term fetuses, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks,......Aborting a developing human is MURDER the death of this 36 weeker needs to be thoroughly investigated.
liberty&freedom LuVr
Hmmm, your name implies you are for liberty and freedom ..... except where you say otherwise. Isn't that precious? We have an almighty judge here with us today.
How about if some legislature decides people of your descent, whatever that is, should not bear children and so they make a law that allows them to cut off your balls, assuming your are a man or tie your tubes if female. I mean, they do belong to the state, same as any woman's reproductive organs ... right?
Without personal soverignty, there is no freedom or liberty, period.
Sorry Pippo Schillaci but this needs to be thoroughly hashed out and investigated....'' including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks,....yes a DEVELOPING HUMAN is entitled to liberty&freedom!! Murdering a 36 weeker is not respecting
What about the rights of the baby? A baby that she got pregnant with because she was careless (not talking about those who got pregnant because of rape or abuse of any kind). Women who go out having unprotected sex, knowing full well the potential consequences, shouldn't have the right to murder the unborn child she is responsible for creating. If you don't want to take the pill then make sure the man uses a condom. Be responsible people, that way this whole discussion isn't even necessary!
A baby is a baby from the time of conception, it's life, human life. We were all there at one point, every single one of us was an embryo, a fetus, an unborn child. I don't understand how anyone can CHOOSE to kill a helpless defenseless child.
Danielle-563889 yes you are correct and murdering a 36 week developing human is beyond horrific,thanks for your very good post.
Our own constitution states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Why does one person- an irresponsible woman who got pregnant because she wasn't careful- get to do something unconstitutional by taking the life of another person, her own unborn child, and the government says it's okay because its her body. That baby has a body too! That baby should also have the right to life and not be murdered because it's inconvenient for the woman. Why is it that a woman can- in some states- have an abortion at 30+ weeks and it's okay but if she gave birth to that same child and that child takes a breath then she kills it it's called murder and she gets in trouble? This whole concept is insane!
If you don't want children, don't have unprotected sex!
Danielle: you're awfully holy and righteous about those women who are irresponsible. I hate to tell you but many women do get pregnant no matter how responsible they have been with regard to birth control. My third son was conceived in spite of 3 different birth control methods being used simultaneously. Pregnancy isn't necessarily about unprotected sex and you don't necessarily speak for all of us women out there. A child is a child when it leaves the mother's body and takes its first breath in order to join the human race. Until then its nobody's business but the mother and her doctor.
Perhaps the mother will die if the baby is carried to full term, Danielle.
BTW...you don't know what happened when someone gets pregnant...you have no idea how or why...so please don't assume everyone who gets pregnant is irresponsible.
Oh...and just because someone goes through all the motions and gets married...plans their pregnancy down to every detail...and all the other "proper" things that people like you think they should, doesn't mean they will be good parents.
Don't be so self-righteous...for all we know, you could be all talk, yet the worst one to ever be around a child.
Danielle: The others have already dealt with your erroneous assumptions about those who seek abortions, so let me straighten you out on the law.
For starters, you quoted the Declaration of Independence rather than the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was a political document dealing with our Founders' desire to break from England and it is not a controlling legal document. I leave it to you to discover what the Supreme Court has said about the Constitution and abortion.
And even if your argument had been based on the Constitution, you argue incorrectly that an individual can act unconstitutionally. The Constitution and its amendments prescribe the structure and functions of the federal government as well as the bounds on that government. With the exception of perhaps the 11th Amendment (ability to sue a state government), the Constitution does not set out the rules for how individual citizens conduct themselves.
Your unfamiliarity with basic civic concepts makes you wholly unqualified to opine on this issue.
You're mixing two issues and trying to confuse Danielle's point by using specious b.s. = smoke and mirrors. Why not address the real issue?
Hardly anyone would demand that a woman carry a baby when pregnancy or delivery would significantly endanger her life. No one is arguing that, so drop it if you are sincere in the discussion.
Most people will not demand a woman maintain a pregnancy that is the result of incest or rape. That issue too can be dropped.
The question is this: Should a woman have the right to kill a baby (and no, not a FETUS, but a BABY), at will for her own convenience? Call a spade a spade and don't try to hide behind sanitizing language. It's a baby and the procedure kills it. If you don't have the nerve to face the reality, you've already answered the question, even if you don't like the answer.
My question is this: IF you would be outraged at a woman who murdered her baby after birth, why not before birth? Why can't women murder any of their children at any age before, say, puberty? You've probably seen the picture of the 21 week old fetus grasping the finger of the doctor who was performing surgery on it.
My second question is: Why should women have the right to decide life and death? Yes, it's their body, but it was their body when they had sex and they weren't so very concerned about its well-being then -- at least not concerned enough to use contraception. And after all, pregnancy only lasts for 9 months, not forever. Any woman can put the baby up for adoption. So what it really comes down to is she didn't want to be bothered to use contraception, so she got pregnant. Now she doesn't want to be bothered with pregnancy, so she gets to kill the baby.
I think a woman who wants an abortion should have it only in the first trimester and ONLY if she accepts non-reversible sterilization at the same time. If she is willing to murder a baby at any stage in her life, a baby should never be at her mercy.
There is nothing so special about women that they should be given the right to kill others. The baby is not part of her body. It's a separate human being.
And as for you, WellActually:
You don't have the right to silence anyone.
how about the woman that elected to have the abortion be charfed with first degree murder as well. she planned it, she acted out on it.
jerri-1 - you are right. No one should be silenced and all have a right to speak. It helps us see your Christian Taliban attitudes more clearly. Why mercy, if we stopped you from pontificating, we would have been denied the window into your "kind" heart.
She had every right and opportunity in the world to stop the butchering of this baby. Very clearly, she was there for a reason and it wasn't a well baby pre-natal visit.
It's funny how the people that are pro abortion are anti death penalty. I personally feel that the little people that haven't done anything wrong should be protected from murder. I'm all for retroactive abortions of worthless adults.
jim from middle GA-1770468,
How about the man that got her pregnant be charged?? Why wasn't he practicing some form of birth control? OHHHHH that's right, it's just the woman's fault..
Here we go again with the ANTI movement. The judge in the case should be tarred and feathered. He is obviously unfit to be on the bench because of religious bias.
softdude do you believe this should be investigated?. A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed a freezer containing 35 late-term fetuses, including one believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks,......The death of a 36 week gestation developing human if aborted is murder.
SOFT dude... just because someone does not agree with your views doesn't make them WRONG. It's called due process. The DRs have only been charged not convicted. I would rather have the DR money in state hands than have the state pay to house them while this winds through the every so slow justice process. How does their religious bias impact the situation so far?
But we are not just talking about normal abortions here. The article also says:
> A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed one... aborted at 36 weeks
At 36 weeks, this is a child. I don't see how the protection of children is a religious issue at all? We are not talking about a normal abortion at all. This is WAY beyond the rights that Abortion Laws were meant to protect. Even if you believe in a woman's right to choose, this is a 19 inch long baby that weighs 6 pounds. This is murder.
The article said nothing about whether or not that 36 week old fetus was actually viable. It only mentioned the gestational age of the fetus and, of course, you are all making broad and unreasonable assumptions just based on this tidbit of information. More than likely that 36 week old fetus was aborted either because of some gross defect or in order to save the life of it's mother. Or perhaps it was even still born and has been preserved for further study. Please don't assume you know the whole truth just because a media outlet threw out a shred of inflammatory content without any context or background.
It certainly is murder. Preemies go home at a much lower birth rate than that. What is wrong with people?
They made no mention of how long that 36 week fetus had been dead. I had a child die inside me when I was 33 weeks pregnant and it happens later in the pregnancy as well. People always assume a case is cut and dried just by the presence of a fetus that old. Late term babies who die spontaneously for whatever reason need help being delivered in a medical setting and don't miscarry like an early fetus.
If she broke the law, lock her up. If she didn't set her free and refund the bail.
Based on what I'm seeing in the article, the fetus in question did not qualify as viable per the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade (which sets viability at about the 3rd trimester), so the prosecution case has the strength of a bowl of jello.
The last thing we need is another abortion provider witch hunt.
And if that law is found to be unconstitutional?
Richard I agree with you but just wait for Ohio to pass the heartbeat law.
The article also says:
> A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed one... aborted at 36 weeks
This is WAY beyond the rights that Abortion Laws were meant to protect. Even if you believe in a woman's right to choose, this is a 19 inch long baby that weighs 6 pounds. This is murder.
Again, ToddC, you know nothing about the viability of that 36 week old fetus so please quit trying to use it as an argument. For all you know it was a still birth being preserved for study. The article says nothing about its condition or the situation under which it was aborted. Either way, the only ones with rights being violated, here are the doctors and the women of America.
Correct - we all know nothing about the actual facts. I should have said 'if the 36 week fetus was aborted', then it's murder. My point is not to be anti-abortion, but rather to point out that not every pregnancy termination is automatically a legally protected abortion.
It would appear (although none of us know the actual facts) that these doctors acted improperly, and that these were not legal abortions as defined by the law. The article throws out the 21 week date and throws out another 36 week date on another fetus, but I would imagine (although none of us know) that there are many dozens of cases that the police looked at.
Many of the abortions performed by the two doctors were undoubtedly perfectly normal and legal abortions, but obviously since there are two murder charges against one of the doctors, and 5 murder charges against the other doctor - I would assume (but none of us know for sure) that in those cases, they were not normal, legally protected abortions.
My spouse is a chaplain at the hospital where we live. One of her responsibilities is the NICU. She visited with a child born at 25 weeks. The child is "viable" and will live. The family of the child is praying for the best. A child aborted at 36 weeks...WOW! Wisdom, Lord, gives us wisdom!
Then she didn't break the law.
Some states are definitely making it harder and harder for distressed women to exercise their legally protected right to obtain an abortion. It's a shame. It will be up to the people of Ohio to figure out how many roadblocks they want to put in the way.
Normally, I would agree with you, but not every circumstance is the same and the details are lacking. The law allows late-term abortions in certain cases. I stand by my earlier post. If this woman broke the law, then she should go to jail.
If she did not break the law, then she should be be allowed to practice in peace.
Why can't you fanatics leave people alone? Nobody in interested in your interpretation of the bible. Are you ready to adopt/support all unwanted fetuses? I ask these questions as an adoptee.
This has nothing to do with religion for me, nor do I believe in the Bible, but I hope you do realize that when a woman spreads the word she has a healthy baby up for adoption, many people will always line up to adopt that baby. This is true for all races, as long as the baby is healthy. I read the case of a girl who had already chosen the adoptive couple, so she didn't even spread the word--it spread for her, and she had 16 additional people wanting to adopt her baby. Abortion in developed nations like the U.S. isn't about lack of adoptive families for babies, believe me.
Here we go again. Republican Fundamentalists preaching small government when running for election, but they are for BIG INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT on issues of the rights of women. What's next? Burkas?
This is not a normal abortion at all. The article also says:
> A search of Brigham's Elkton clinic revealed one... aborted at 36 weeks
At 36 weeks, this isn't an embryo or a fetus, it's a child. I agree with you that Republican's and Democrats will probably stand as far right and left as they can on this issue, but this really has nothing to do with politics or religion or anything else. This doctor went WAY beyond what Abortion Laws were meant to protect. Even if you believe in a woman's right to choose, this included a 19 inch long baby that weighs about 6 pounds. This is murder, and shouldn't be confused or protected by abortion laws.
Good grief, Todd C! Please knock it off! Until you have more information on that fetus you need to just shut up. You don't know any more than the rest of us.
You am correct, I should have said 'if it's an aborted fetus that has to do with this case, then it's murder'. I did assume that since the police and the article specifically mentioned it, that it was germane to the case, but you are correct - it could have been totally disconnected. :)
@ Toasty
So....It's unconstitutional for a woman to make decisions about how and when or even IF she becomes a parent? And how is it "constitutional" for anyone to tell her otherwise? That sounds like slavery....which, I believe, IS unconstitutional.
Mary, I'd suggest you re-read the comment I was responding to. I was referring to his very first sentence. This isn't rocket surgery.
Abortion is legal despite Axxholes who continually try to change the law. These morons should really find some other way to occupy their time. Try tennis, golf, reading, drinking beer, something, but leave women alone. And if you don't want an abortion, don't get one! You see?It is really very simple.
> A search of Brigham's clinic revealed a fetus aborted at 36 weeks.
We are not talking about an outright attack on all Abortion Laws. We are talking about a Doctor who's gone WAY beyond what most people (even reasonable Abortion Rights advocates) would consider reasonable or moral or legal.
Let's be clear - at 3 weeks or 6 weeks or 10 weeks - we can all argue about what is a Zygote and what is an Embryo and what is a Fetus, and we can all debate when life and thought and human rights and whatever begins. I think that most people agree with and respect a woman's right to her reproductive freedom at 3 or 6 or 10 weeks; but really think about this case - at 36 weeks, there's no more argument.
At 36 weeks, we're talking about a 100% fully formed, full size infant, about 19 inches long, and around 6 lbs. At 36 weeks, the baby can listen, feel, touch and see. The baby opens it's eyes while awake, closes them when asleep, he dreams, and looks towards light and sound, just as a newborn does. This is a baby that can be delivered normally or by c-section, and one that quite likely requires no special ventilation, no incubator and no other extraordinary measures; a baby that would probably go home in a couple days.
At 36 weeks, an 'abortion' is performed by breaking this live infant into chunks, breaking off the arms and legs, and the head, and removing these individual parts from the womb. Before it's killed, the infant struggles, screams and tries to defend itself. This is a 19" and 6 lb baby, and this isn't anywhere close to a 'medical procedure performed on the mother' anymore. It's the mutilation and killing of a baby, and it honestly would (or at least should) horrify you if you were standing there and watching it happen.
This Doctor went, WAY, WAY beyond what abortion laws were designed to do. At 36 weeks, that's not a Zygote, and Embryo or a Fetus - it's an infant, a baby, a child - plain and simple. At 36 weeks, babies certainly deserve our protection.
Todd...Angie is right...you have NO IDEA what happened.
You're in that "PETA" zone...you don't know when to STFU, and you like to bully those who don't want to hear it.
Sorry - honestly. I was trying to participate, not to bully. Sorry.
But, Todd, from the article it seems that the doc is charged with murder from a particular case where the fetus was 21 weeks old. That is legal, since the article states that generally the viability point is 23 weeks old.
Which doesn't make sense.
We do not know why the older fetuses were in her office. They could have died in utero, been spontaneously aborted, or this doc in fact could have violated the law in performing late-term abortions.
There seems to be more to this case than is reported here (unfortunately, all too typical of msn news stories....)
ToddC-
This just in....investigators have discovered a cache of bodies in a hospital basement in (wherever you live).
Oh my it must be a mass murderer!
Or is it just the morgue?
Homesick & JM - You are correct and I apologize, there could be lots of explanations for the bodies. I did assume they were connected to the case, since the police mentioned them.
I was trying to point out that the police and the Medical Board did an investigation (over 16 month's according to the Telegraph) and they've laid 7 murder charges, so there must be more to the case that just a witch-hunt against an abortion doctor for one 21-week abortion. We will have to wait and see.
Abortions ARE legal, but only when done legally. Doctors ARE protected under abortion laws, but only when it's a legal abortion, done legally.
For example: (a wild & somewhat extreme example): If a convicted murderer is scheduled for execution, and if the executioner carries out that execution following all the normal, legal procedures - then it's legal and it's part of his job. On the other hand, if he walks into the prisoner's cell the night before the scheduled execution and stabs him to death, it's no longer a legally protected action, and it's murder.
Likewise, not every pregnancy termination is automatically a legally protected abortion, and I'm just trying to answer the people that have jumped to the conclusion that since the article says the charges stemmed from a 21-week pregnancy, that the doctor was arrested for performing a normal and legal abortion.
In a story on CBSLocal.com about Dr. Kermit Gosnell there are many more details, so maybe I can use it as another example. He delivered babies alive, and then killed them with scissors after they were delivered. Those circumstances would likely be different than the circumstances in this case, but clearly Dr Gosnell is an abortion doctor, who has terminated pregnancies, but that doesn't make those terminations 'abortions' and it doesn't make them legal, like normal abortions are.
Todd...you show class in admitting something you did...thank you...most people just get weird...
The article states that Riley performed an abortion on a 21 week old fetus--not viable under the law. It also states that physicians performing abortions are exempt from this law. What am I missing?
Also, the article states a fetus was found at Brigham's clinic and is believed to have been aborted at 36 weeks.
Not saying Riley performed that abortion, nor has she been charged with it. I would also wait for confirmation from a reliable and named source concerning the age of the other fetus in question.
Witch hunts do not become us. No one likes abortion, but it is a fundamental right. This case looks like political crap.
Todd, all well and good. Except for one minor detail. You're ranting on a false premise by ignoring part of the statement that completely changes the meaning "BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN" You keep quoting parts of the paragraph without those words.
This doesn't mean that it may not be true, but what happened to the presumption of innocence? Or does it not apply to those whom you deem to be less than worthy because of their profession? They are not worthy of the protections of the Constitution and our rules of law?
Not all 36 week old fetuses are viable, and others threaten the life of the mother. How do you know the 36 week old fetus referred to was neither? After the first trimester, things get dicey. That's why it is so important to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. What bothers me most about the anti-abortion crowd is that so many of them are also against the means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. To be in that camp and spend your time moralizing against the pro-choice side seems to me to be utterly reprehensible.
Hi. Just so we're clear and honest with our allegiances, I'm not a Republican (actually, I'm Canadian) and I'm not a fundamentalist Christian (although I admittedly usually do get dragged to church at Christmas and Easter).
The point I was trying to make is that not every pro-lifer needs to have any sort of political or any sort of religious agenda, any more than every pro-choicer needs to be evil. I don't believe that life (or the 'soul') somehow instantly enters at the two cell zygote stage or anything superstitious like that. As a matter of fact, I think that religion IS superstition.
However, it's also ridiculous to associate a respect for life with just Christians or Republicans. It's not like Democrats and Atheists are running around killing people every chance they get - everyone understands that killing people is wrong, and you don't need to be Republican or Christian to be opposed to killing. I'm NOT Republican and I'm NOT Christian - but I most certainly AM opposed to killing people.
Likewise with abortion - not EVERY investigation or every criminal charge that has to do with an unborn child is about a political or religious agenda. Sometimes, it just might be about a crime that was committed to. :) I honestly think that this case is one where the investigators think that a crime was committed, and not that they think this is an affront to God or to the Republican party. :)
And, likewise, not every abortion is necessarily legal or moral either. Don't get me wrong, abortions are clearly legal all over the place within certain reasonable restrictions. While I honestly don't have a problem with a very-early-term abortion, I really do think that after the baby is viable, then it really clearly becomes a life and it really HAS to be protected by the law - more than any inconvenience to the mother or the doctor or the father.
And yes, you are correct - I did edit/shorten the statement about the 36 week old fetus. I honestly wasn't trying to misrepresent what was said, but rather to make it more concise and clear. Many people only read the beginning of an article, and towards the end it added some pretty important information. I don't think this investigation and charges are JUST about the 21 week pregnancy, but the investigation stemmed from there, and they've apparently discovered enough crimes for them to be charged. I don't know, we'll see when it get's to discover or arraignment or to the trial.
Also, a number of people have been saying ''how do you know this or that''. I don't know any more facts than what are in the article. We will have to wait and see. I'm pretty sure it'll get pretty political and pretty religious, and my whole point was that I really wish it didn't have to. This really, really should come down to just law, and not politics or votes. We all know that the religions fundamentalists really do believe that 10 minutes after conception, it's a life with a soul. I think they are incorrect, but that is their core belief. Likewise, we all know that the fundamentalist pro-choicers believe that 10 minutes before delivery, it is still a 'medical procedure performed on the mother', and it's perfectly OK to kill the baby. I also think they are incorrect.
And yet you still appear to be a wingnut Christofascist.
Hi Skrekk, Sorry. I'm not a 'Christofascist', I was trying to participate and answer the poster's question of 'what am I missing'. I was trying to point out that 1) Not every pregnancy termination is automatically a normal, legal abortion, and 2) Not everyone that is opposed to abortion is automatically a Republican or a Christian. I'm neither (I'm Canadian) but I can still be opposed to late-term abortions.
However, I do honestly apologize - too much coffee and too chatty tonight I guess. :)
ToddC:
You have done a "yomen's job" of trying to keep perspectives balanced without casitigating others when misunderstood or labeled. I salute you!
Regards
I will say as eloquently as Todd keeps wording himself, and as unbiased as his replies are, you can really see who the fanatical fundamentalists are (i.e. the people saying how wrong he is without stating any real logic or reasoning except "It should always be a woman's right!" Sounds like Feminazi rhetoric to me, and that's coming from a female...)
There should really be some kind of system that determines weather the child should live or die. A woman getting pregnant by not using protection is totally irresponsible. It's not that I don't think women should have a right but I think the child should have just as much right to continue to live. What is wrong with putting the child up for adoption if you don't want it? 9 months shouldn't be such a inconvenience if you enjoy creating them. God created man and woman with the means to create other men or women. I'm sure he didn't create us to kill our children.
Leaving god out of this, what if a woman is taking the pill and gets pregnant? She was being responsible but is just as pregnant. Do we have doctors check blood for traces of the pill to see if she can have an abortion? I agree with adoption, but as a mother who had to terminate at 5 months due to extreme medical problems with the fetus, I can never agree with no abortions at all.
I'll tackle your second point first. I'm going to take a wild shot in the dark and assume you have never been pregnant. Me neither (surprise), but I've seen the process. Doesn't look like fun. It's painful, expensive, and potentially very dangerous - and that's not including actually giving birth.
Forcing a woman to undergo that experience when she doesn't want to strikes me as tantamount to rape.
Second point. Adoption is perfectly laudible. I think it's great when babies get safe, loving, permanent homes. It's not a replacement for abortion. We currently average about 1.2 million abortions in this country per year. There aren't enough homes.
Do away with all legal abortions it will create more jobs for the clothes hanger business
That is disgusting! Not the least bit humorous and you're a child for posting it.
For those of you unable to recall the time before Roe V Wade, a coat hanger was not a joke. It was a medical tool used by desperate women. Even if the Christian Taliban gets its way and we outlaw abortion, it will still exist, just done differently. What then? Put women in jail for it. Why not stone them. Do you even see the irony?
Unless the fetus is abnormal to the extent it wont survive outside the womb, or will kill the lady if delivered naturally, or by C-section It shouldn't be allowed. Should the baby be unwanted by the lady the baby should be surrendered to the state for adoption. Also, unless the pregnacy occured by RAPE the lady should have her tubes tied so she can't get pregnaut again. People have to start being accountable for their actions in life.
how many kids have you had oh your aman . enogh said shut up and worry about the girls you knocked up in your teen years you need to just shut up its not you bussiness to be makeing comm, that you know nothing about......
So you're the judge and jury of women regardless of the individual? I don't think so. Men have no right to sit in judgement of women. Men force women into sex even when they're married. So don't pretend to know all circumstances that could possible arise for a woman to become pregnant. It's strictly the woman's decision since SHE HAS TO CARRY THE BABY.
so we have more children in the system to pay for . Look if you want a abortin get onr just keep it to your self and you men start staying around not just to make a baby but take care of one . so if you play be sure you can pay just leave the matter to the one that has the job of carrying the baby. and has to take care of one .you men dont stick around long enogh to even voice a opp. anyway how would like being pregant no man no job because it was so fun pretendeing to make one until it happens then you a$$holes leave faster then a roadrunner after a bug.. So try this one if you play pay .
Yes, people do need to be accountable...but remember..it takes TWO...so stop talking like there are all these women out there that are banging every guy they come across to get pregnant.
ENOUGH of this double standard bull@!$%#.
As for the children...my dad was adopted...luckily, my grandparents gave him a life...and luckily he wasn't aborted, or I wouldn't be here.
However, there are those that weren't aborted. Their parentshad them, or they were adopted, yet their lives became a living hell for each of them.
Abuse, neglect, up to and including murder. Just read the daily headlines on your home page and you will find, sooner or later, a story where someone abused, someone molested, someone kidnapped and/or killed a child.
Go ahead and read all the grisly details, and how that child suffered.
Anyone who would allow their child to become a victim is just as bad as getting an abortion...in that case, which is worse?
Everyone's yammering on about the 36-week apparent abortion (which I agree is horrific and I consider myself to be pro-choice) but the charges against both doctors are for 21-week abortions of non-viable fetuses in a state that exempts doctors from fetal murder charges. Why is this even going to court? There must be more to the story that what's shown here.
I agree - I don't think it's just a Republican / Christian witch-hunt, and I also think there must be more to the case than just a normal 21-week abortion. The article says: (I'll shorten/edit for clarity)
The charges against Riley stem from a botched abortion [where the] 18-year-old patient suffered serious injuries, and Riley drove her to a nearby hospital rather than call 911.
Brigham... ...has been charged with murder in the death of that fetus and four others.
So, lots of people are jumping to the conclusion that this is just a Republican / Christian witch-hunt and that it was just about a normal, regular 21-week term abortion. There appears to be much more to it than that. For example, it might also be that 'seriously injuring the 18-year-old patient resulting in the death of her baby' is considered a criminal act, and is not considered a normal medical abortion. In the case of Brigham, it's clearly not about just this one normal 21-week term abortion, since he's charged with 5 murders.
According to a story in the Baltimore Sun: The board found that the doctors started the procedure in New Jersey, dilating her uterus, and then made her drive herself to Elkton to finish the abortion. After the teen's uterus ruptured, police said, the doctors drove her, nearly unconscious, to a nearby hospital emergency room. Brigham was not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland. The Maryland Board of Physicians said both violated acceptable medical practices in their treatment of the teen.
So, the Police & The Maryland Board of Physicians (not Republicans or Christians) investigated the circumstances, and they see that these two doctors committed crimes.
The law says that women have the right to chose an early-term abortion. But not every termination of a pregnancy is legal or protected by Abortion laws.
Sorry - I didn't realize how much 'noise' I was posting while trying to debate the other side of the conversation, so please ignore this. No reply is needed. I'll STFU now. )
As a male I would like to say men are entitled to a speculative opinion on the matter of abortion but nothing more. Moral subjectivity cannot come into play with something so vague as when life begins. I don't understand why those who continually bring up the right of the unborn fetus are simultaneously very comfortable with the idea of infringing upon a woman's rights. I am against any further control instituted by our local, state, or federal governments, whether it be guns, drugs, abortion or any other hot button issue. We have to stop trying to obtain equillibrium through means of control and prosecution of those who fail to oblige. It is a woman's right to make her own decision based on her understanding of the situation, the well being of many lives are involved. If we as a species are going to continue to inflict harm upon all other living things on this planet for the sake of survival and well being then it needs to be understood that preventing unplanned children from being pushed through society is also imperative to our survival and progress as a species. The positive outcome of adopted children does not negate the fact that the ratio between willing and capable caregivers and unwanted children is highly weighted towards the latter.
I'm sorry, but the argument that you are just an incubator for a 36 week fetus holds little water. A 36 week fetus will survive without an incubator, so that's no excuse. I'm all for the rights of the woman, but this is beyond common sense!
It is totally the business of the woman and her doctor. It is not the state's business.
I'm embarrassed to live in Maryland. This is misuse of a law that was created for entirely different cases. Only the low-life anti-abortion movement would stoop so low as to find a loophole in a current law and apply it out of legal context. But that may be a good defense for the physicians in this case. When the legislation was passed it was specifically stated by the legislators that this law would not be used to charge doctors performing abortions. Ultimately both will get off these false charges.
If a fetus is viable at 23 weeks, than I'm God.
It sounds like there are real issues of medical malpractice here, but it does not sound like a murder charge is in order for the aborted fetus. Reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, something else in the statutes of Maryland, but murder - no. The abortion itself, presumably at the request of the woman herself, seems to be just about the only thing that was legal in this case. Why did this girl have to cross state lines to get an abortion? Could she not find a licensed, competent physician to perform the abortion in her own state? If not, then pay attention to these circumstances, because anyone old enough to remember will tell you that this is what back alley abortions looked like before Roe v. Wade. As anti-choice activists make it more and more difficult for doctors to perform safe abortions and women become more desperate to obtain them, we will start to read horror stories about what happens when women are forced to take these risks. This kind of situation is what led to legalizing abortion to begin with. Apparently, this country has a short memory and there have to be some tragedies to remind us from time to time.
I just love how certain people are always trying to re-wright this law ,but when it comes to helping a underage pregnant woman like buying her groceries,or taking her to the Doctor extra their no were to found,also they tote the adoption angle witch isn't a slice a pie people it's not like you can walk into DHS and " say I wanna adopt a kid,point to who I need to see ,and I want one of this sex,age ,race extra,and they reply coming right up". No it's along drawn out process that takes up to year or longer... Involving background check's and Lot's of stuff people. I think from reading the article that it sounds like "political Bull---- from the right wing to tote votes,real sad...
Let's get these Republicans out of office. They are nothing but hypocrites and a danger to this country. They have NEVER been serious about the abortion isssue-- they use it ONLY as a vote getting vehicle, inflaming people's passions beyond any reason. When has ANY Republican introduced any constitutional ammendment to ban abortion??? NEVER! American are TIRED of this bovine excrement!
Hopefully these politically motivated prosecutions will be reveal for what they are. And with a lot more hope the prosecutors will be prosecuted. (or at least persecuted).