Forget it Crabs, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's other websites and more info as well that those figures about Iraq are highly innaccurate there's alot of propoganda put out by the Iraqi ministry. He also has had no problem using chems in the past on his own folks so who knows where those problems come from. I've seen alot of studies that are done by well respected people that refute the claims. I have very very good friends who have Gulf War syndrome, guys I served right next to. I am lucky so far, but believe me if there was any credible evidence that showed it was a cause to their sickness, I'd be all over it, I could develop symptoms later in life, I think about it often . Everything I've seen points towards chemicals being used or more likely our innoculations. Case in point pilots who were offshore on carriers or who flew B-52's from Diego Garcia. They were 35,000 feet in the air and over counntry for a short period of time and many cases were on their own oxygen supply. They were vaccinated in case they were shot down. Some pilots have Gulf War Syndrome even though they were never in the region for more than 1 minute going 530 kts and were at 30,000 feet on their own air supply.
Thanks, i do to, I get tested once a year and the minute I feel sick or get a headache I start to wonder and it eats at ya.
You're right we don't know for sure what is causing the sickness in our troops or the Iraqi people. There was alot of shit floating around over there. I'm not saying I'd want DU dust sprinkled on my cereal but it's pretty minute numbers. Alot of the tonage was anti aircraft and air to ground (a-10) attacks where it's 20 m.m cannnons that aren't very accurate. Sitting there inert or in pieces not in a body it's pretty harmless, again I wouldn't eat it but I think there's alot of factors. My point is that there would be a distinct advantage for our enemies if without conclusive research we scrapped DU. If it's shown to be harmful to our troops and civilian population (well anymore then conventional) I'd be the first one to lobby to get rid of it.
Well I wouldn't kill and starve my own people in the process. If you really see no difference that's fine. So you understand it fine, that doesn't make it right.
Activists are marking the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
The Associated Press Frieda Parker of Camano Island, listens to speakers at a anti-abortion rally Thursday on the Capitol Campus in Olympia, Wash. Anti-abortion demonstrators presented red roses to lawmakers before the rally.
WASHINGTON - Anti-abortion activists marking this week's 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision say they have their first chance in years to put a dent in abortion rights now that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
"We will pass the first significant pro-life legislation actually limiting abortions in 30 years," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. and a leading abortion foe. He predicted Congress will move quickly to pass a measure banning a late-term abortion procedure called partial birth abortion by opponents.
Congress passed a measure twice, in 1996 and 1997, banning the procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. President Clinton vetoed it each time. The House passed the measure again last year, but the then-Democratic-controlled Senate never took up the measure.
"We will pass a partial birth abortion ban," Brownback said. "That's going to hearten people. It's been a long fight. We're finally turning some of the battle."
President Bush has said he would sign the bill, one of several abortion-related measures Republicans will push this legislative session. Their optimism is expected to be apparent Wednesday when thousands of marchers converge on Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision three decades ago legalizing abortion.
"I think we'll hear a great deal of hyperbole about Roe being at risk from the abortion side. I hope they're right," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. "From our side, we're going to assert even more, with compassion but with earnestness, that the holocaust of the unborn has to stop."
But Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said passing anti-abortion bills will continue to be difficult in the 100-member Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome parliamentary tactics for blocking action on most bills. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
"This is not a Senate that's going to be approving sweeping legislation to challenge Roe," Johnson said. "It is a Congress now in which we have a chance for a fair debate on these sorts of reforms that are supported by most Americans."
Abortion-rights supporters, who also have a series of events planned for the anniversary, acknowledge that the advantage in Congress has switched to abortion foes. "The Republicans are controlling every branch of government, and we have now entered the anti-choice trifecta," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
Maloney and others pointed to a series of actions Bush has taken administratively, including an executive order that bars U.S. aid to international groups that support abortion and withholding $34 million from international family planning programs overseas.
The administration announced last year it would begin classifying developing fetuses as unborn children as a way of extending prenatal care to low-income pregnant women. Abortion rights activists denounced the move as a backdoor way of undercutting their rights. And two weeks ago Bush declared Sunday as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
"This administration and the anti-choice members of Congress are weaving a pernicious web of anti-choice attacks," said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
January 21. 2003 6:30AM 30 years later, the debate over abortion is as heated as ever
By COLLEEN KAY PORTER, Gainesville, FL
Wednesday marks the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States, and ultimately changed the way that Americans view their bodies, their sexuality and their offspring.
What do Americans think about abortion? To answer that question, a special report from the Gallup organization analyzed poll results from 1996 to 2001, examining the responses to 146 survey questions asked by 18 different research organizations.
Their conclusion was that, decades later, Americans are still deeply divided over the issue of abortion, with variability in support depending on the specific circumstances.
Most Americans (81 to 90 percent) favor abortion to save the health or life of the mother, but only a minority (25 to 43 percent) support abortions for financial, work, school or other lifestyle reasons.
So when pro-choice activists claim that most Americans favor legalized abortion, they are right. But pro-life activists are also correct when they say that most Americans do not endorse abortion on demand.
One source of such schizophrenia is the "exceptions."
Extremists from either end of the spectrum try to paint abortion as an all-or-nothing proposition, claiming it is hypocritical to favor abortion under particular circumstances, but not others. But the polling data suggest that most Americans straddle the middle of the road, and think abortion is acceptable only in certain circumstances.
This philosophy is not hypocritical or "situational ethics." It values the sanctity of human life while recognizing the imperfections of our world. This outlook is morally consistent, and hinges on the issue of choice.
When a woman is raped, her choice is taken away. Thus the outcome of the pregnancy is the responsibility of the man who instigated it, not the woman who is also a victim. Similarly, when a mother's life would be threatened by the physical demands of continuing a pregnancy, she no longer has the choice to be a mother.
In these cases, abortion means that a human life will be ended. But the pregnant woman is not responsible for murder. Her choice was taken away, and she was simply doing the best she can under horrible circumstances.
I am not an apologist for abortion. Those "special circumstances" make up a small percentage of abortions in the U.S. They are not a justification for abortion on demand. In many ways, widespread abortion is symptomatic of a society that is characterized by premature sexual activity, glamorization of infidelity and devaluation of marital bonds.
In our zeal to avoid "legislating morality," we risk losing our sense of humanity. We have circumvented the laws of nature. If abortion is used as an easy remedy to save people from the consequences of their actions, then they never need to learn a better way, and things will never improve.
I also object to the misogynist arguments used in favor of abortion, that raising a child alone is too hard, or that giving a baby up for adoption is just too difficult. I find that attitude insulting to women, and I believe that most women are stronger and more capable than that. They are grown-ups, able to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Some self-proclaimed feminists try to argue that abortion on demand is an essential right that women must have in order to achieve their full potential. This rhetoric sounds a lot like the views of Southern slaveholders two centuries ago regarding the necessity of slavery to keep the plantations in operation. Haven't we learned anything about denigrating others in order to claim rights for ourselves?
I dream of a world where abortion is rare. I yearn for a country of economic opportunity so that poor women don't feel forced into abortion. I long for a time when people engage in responsible sexual activity.
Thirty years later, we are still not there yet.
Colleen Kay Porter is a Gainesville mother of five and a researcher at the University of Florida.
Washington Post reporters and other supine anti-war publicists claim that the large rallies organized by the (unlabeled) Trotskyite kook group International ANSWER demonstrate a broad public sentiment against President Bush's war plans. So why won't they make this case for the pro-lifers?
Paula, do you think a $250K maximum for any Lawsuits is the correct amount for the woman in MN. who lost both her breasts to an idiot doctor who made such a terrible mistake?
No. How much is your penis worth?
How can you put a price on something of such intimacy that has emotional and psychological as well as physical lifelong damages.
I think it depends on many factors. The age of the woman; young and never been intimate with anyone yet, whether she is married or not, has she finised having children and experienced the pleasures of nurturing her children thru breastfeading, how important her breasts were to her self image, her career (if applicable), etc.
Certainly, the emotional distress and psychological damage must have been tremendous.
If she was a young woman, not married and had not yet had kids, the amount should be more than say a 50 year old grandmother.
Another point though is how extensive was the operation? Are they able to rebuild new breasts without much visible scarring?
If she was young, not yet married and had her whole life ahead of her and was looking forward to children and breastfeeding, etc. the amount should be great like maybe 10million after lawyers fees.
If she is older and gets new breasts better than what she had before(with today's technology) then you are dealing with not such a severe emotional and psychological distress.
January 19. 2003 6:30AM Women reflect on abortions, evoking range of emotions
By DAVID CRARY AP national writer
"Syverson, a stockbroker from Hampden, Maine, with two sons in their 20s, regrets the two abortions she had as a troubled teenager and has worked with an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life to dissuade other women from doing what she did."
"I know abortion hurts women, so I'd sure like to make it hardly ever happen," she said.
"Roughly 1.2 million abortions are performed nationwide each year, yet abortion foes say it is still wrong, even if commonplace. Some denounce it as murder and depict abortion clinics as "death camps."
"I was very much in favor of legalized abortion - I felt it was absolutely necessary for women to be able to meet their educational and career goals," she said. "But it turned out to be very traumatic psychologically. . . . I instinctively knew I had ended the life of my child."
"Though she now opposes abortion, Jenkins doesn't believe the time is right for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. She advocates an incremental approach, starting with programs to help young, pregnant women stay on track in their education and careers even if they give birth."
"I don't think we're at a place to close all the doors," Jenkins said. "I want to see options that empower women. Whether women regret or don't regret their abortions, there are very few who feel they had all the options available to them when they were pregnant."
This is a very good article and I hope you all get the chance to read it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Â Paula I - (PFID:13d102) - 05:21pm Jan 19, 2003 PST (# 2608 of 2669) QUESTION: Why did you write the book?
ANSWER: We wanted the American people to have an inside view of what goes on beyond the closed and secretive doors of these abortion clinics. Everybody has this view that it's like any other medical environment in which people act in a certain professional manner and everything is clean. We knew that was not the case with the typical abortion clinic, and we wanted to show people the reality. That's another reason we went overboard on the documentation.
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH Behind the abortion clinic door Unique book documents unseen culture's devastating toll on women and workers
Posted: January 18, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Mark Crutcher's heavily documented probe into the culture of abortion clinics resulted in a groundbreaking book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice." Crutcher, president of the pro-life group Life Dynamics, used public records and first-hand accounts to uncover abortion's devastating and often gruesome toll, not only on unborn children, but on women and abortion providers. Since it was published in 1996, the evidence has only mounted, contends Crutcher, who spoke to WorldNetDaily yesterday.
I am reposting these in case anyone missed them last week.
What thoughts do you have on the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade?
I wonder what Norma (Jane Doe) of Roe vs. wade is thinking today. What a shame no one has her featured for an exclusive interview.
As usual fold, you don't have the facts. Here is the story:
Bush's proposed measure wouldn't cap damages for actual financial losses, such as wages and medical expenses. But it would supersede state laws to limit non-economic damages such as pain and suffering to $250,000 and punitive damages to twice actual losses, up to a cap of $250,000.
When things are in print, it is easy to interpret a certain emotion. I was not writing that in anger. I apoligize for sounding that way. :(
I asked my husband the same question and he said jokingly "according to you about 50 cents!".
I responded jokingly "You're being awful generous, aren't you?"
But seriously, I think a cap on lawsuits is a good idea actually, even though there would be cases in which it would seem like an unusually small amount.
If each breast is considered a seperate procedure, she should get $250,000 for each one.
Recently, a Republican State Senator from Kansas, Kay O’Connor, was asked to join in a celebration of the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote. "You probably wouldn’t want me there, because of what I would say," O’Connor replied.
"I think the 19th Amendment, while it is not evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don’t approve of," Senator O’Connor continued. "If men were doing their job of taking care of women and children, then women wouldn’t be required to vote."
how do you guys do it around here?...
<slams head on desk>...like that?
Where do the Dems find people like McKinney, Byrd, the idiot woman who was talking about all the good things Bin Laden has done etc ? There's doozies on both sides of the aisle crabs. Somebody is voting them in.
no...it's Republicans For Choice that made the claim. I'm certainly not a Republican.
now for your claim...
Wirthlin Worldwide itself claims that it's approach is "identifying a course of action that helps achieve your objectives", not exactly an unbiased approach. From their website...
The company's background in politics provided the seedbed for lessons learned about the value of timely information, the need to identify and focus resources on your most persuadable "swing" targets, the elements of effective leadership, and the power of values-based communication. Those lessons have been applied with great success in our consulting for corporate and institutional clients around the world.
"persuadable 'swing' targets?
These people boast being a counselor to Ronald Reagan and you expect them to be unbiased? They do "research-based strategic counsel" for crying out loud.
tell me who the client was and we can see how biased it is.
I mean, what did they do, call up 1000 people in Lynchburg, VA and claim it represents an entire country?
From all appearances, Wirthlin Worldwide is a Republican spin advisor.
WHat the deal probably is is that Wirthlin's pro-life client needed something to support their stance on abortion in order to "persuade those swing targets" and Wirthlin provided it.
of course the point isn't the numbers...the point is that a considerable number of conservatives are for choice...which makes them at odds with your condemning of it as "liberal".
Forget it Crabs, we'll have to agree to disagree. There's other websites and more info as well that those figures about Iraq are highly innaccurate there's alot of propoganda put out by the Iraqi ministry. He also has had no problem using chems in the past on his own folks so who knows where those problems come from. I've seen alot of studies that are done by well respected people that refute the claims. I have very very good friends who have Gulf War syndrome, guys I served right next to. I am lucky so far, but believe me if there was any credible evidence that showed it was a cause to their sickness, I'd be all over it, I could develop symptoms later in life, I think about it often . Everything I've seen points towards chemicals being used or more likely our innoculations. Case in point pilots who were offshore on carriers or who flew B-52's from Diego Garcia. They were 35,000 feet in the air and over counntry for a short period of time and many cases were on their own oxygen supply. They were vaccinated in case they were shot down. Some pilots have Gulf War Syndrome even though they were never in the region for more than 1 minute going 530 kts and were at 30,000 feet on their own air supply.
the point is, we don't KNOW that we aren't the cause.
DU, when vaporized, acts as both a chemical and radiological agent
I hope you don't suffer any effects down the road, truly I do.
Thanks, i do to, I get tested once a year and the minute I feel sick or get a headache I start to wonder and it eats at ya.
You're right we don't know for sure what is causing the sickness in our troops or the Iraqi people. There was alot of shit floating around over there. I'm not saying I'd want DU dust sprinkled on my cereal but it's pretty minute numbers. Alot of the tonage was anti aircraft and air to ground (a-10) attacks where it's 20 m.m cannnons that aren't very accurate. Sitting there inert or in pieces not in a body it's pretty harmless, again I wouldn't eat it but I think there's alot of factors. My point is that there would be a distinct advantage for our enemies if without conclusive research we scrapped DU. If it's shown to be harmful to our troops and civilian population (well anymore then conventional) I'd be the first one to lobby to get rid of it.
god forbid it's a fair fight
That's a nice sentiment if you're sitting in your living room. If someone's trying to kill you I guarantee you want every advantage availible.
tell that to Saddam...we have been threatening to kill him for years now and yet condemn him for trying to get the playing field somewhere near level.
If you don't see the difference between the two forget it. I suppose Hitler was just trying to "level the playing field too"
crabs loves saddam! isn't it sweet?
there is a difference between love and understanding
if you don't see the difference then forget it
So you understand Sadamn. How nice. You're right, forget it.
you stated what you would do if someone wanted to kill you
why would you think Saddam would be any different?
Is it the chicken or the egg, crabs?
Well I wouldn't kill and starve my own people in the process. If you really see no difference that's fine. So you understand it fine, that doesn't make it right.
my point was that it's not right...not for anyone.
you're right, let's leave him alone seeing as what a great guy he is. Poor poor Sadamn.
we could always hire him again
slams Jt's head on desk
OW!
I wasn't ready for that!
Luv2Fly 1/20/03 3:07pm
Luv, it is apparent you mowed down the crabgrass. Don't forget to weed and seed to prevent a future problem. ;)
Crabgrass, now can we get back to the topic of abortion?
and here I thought we were talking about the sanctity of birth deformities by radiation through weaponry
Abortion foes urge new limits
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Activists are marking the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
The Associated Press
Frieda Parker of Camano Island, listens to speakers at a anti-abortion rally Thursday on the Capitol Campus in Olympia, Wash. Anti-abortion demonstrators presented red roses to lawmakers before the rally.
WASHINGTON - Anti-abortion activists marking this week's 30th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision say they have their first chance in years to put a dent in abortion rights now that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
"We will pass the first significant pro-life legislation actually limiting abortions in 30 years," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. and a leading abortion foe. He predicted Congress will move quickly to pass a measure banning a late-term abortion procedure called partial birth abortion by opponents.
Congress passed a measure twice, in 1996 and 1997, banning the procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. President Clinton vetoed it each time. The House passed the measure again last year, but the then-Democratic-controlled Senate never took up the measure.
"We will pass a partial birth abortion ban," Brownback said. "That's going to hearten people. It's been a long fight. We're finally turning some of the battle."
President Bush has said he would sign the bill, one of several abortion-related measures Republicans will push this legislative session. Their optimism is expected to be apparent Wednesday when thousands of marchers converge on Washington to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision three decades ago legalizing abortion.
"I think we'll hear a great deal of hyperbole about Roe being at risk from the abortion side. I hope they're right," said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J. "From our side, we're going to assert even more, with compassion but with earnestness, that the holocaust of the unborn has to stop."
But Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said passing anti-abortion bills will continue to be difficult in the 100-member Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome parliamentary tactics for blocking action on most bills. The Senate has 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
"This is not a Senate that's going to be approving sweeping legislation to challenge Roe," Johnson said. "It is a Congress now in which we have a chance for a fair debate on these sorts of reforms that are supported by most Americans."
Abortion-rights supporters, who also have a series of events planned for the anniversary, acknowledge that the advantage in Congress has switched to abortion foes. "The Republicans are controlling every branch of government, and we have now entered the anti-choice trifecta," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.
Maloney and others pointed to a series of actions Bush has taken administratively, including an executive order that bars U.S. aid to international groups that support abortion and withholding $34 million from international family planning programs overseas.
The administration announced last year it would begin classifying developing fetuses as unborn children as a way of extending prenatal care to low-income pregnant women. Abortion rights activists denounced the move as a backdoor way of undercutting their rights. And two weeks ago Bush declared Sunday as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
"This administration and the anti-choice members of Congress are weaving a pernicious web of anti-choice attacks," said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
January 21. 2003 6:30AM
30 years later, the debate over abortion is as heated as ever
By COLLEEN KAY PORTER,
Gainesville, FL
Wednesday marks the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States, and ultimately changed the way that Americans view their bodies, their sexuality and their offspring.
What do Americans think about abortion? To answer that question, a special report from the Gallup organization analyzed poll results from 1996 to 2001, examining the responses to 146 survey questions asked by 18 different research organizations.
Their conclusion was that, decades later, Americans are still deeply divided over the issue of abortion, with variability in support depending on the specific circumstances.
Most Americans (81 to 90 percent) favor abortion to save the health or life of the mother, but only a minority (25 to 43 percent) support abortions for financial, work, school or other lifestyle reasons.
So when pro-choice activists claim that most Americans favor legalized abortion, they are right. But pro-life activists are also correct when they say that most Americans do not endorse abortion on demand.
One source of such schizophrenia is the "exceptions."
Extremists from either end of the spectrum try to paint abortion as an all-or-nothing proposition, claiming it is hypocritical to favor abortion under particular circumstances, but not others. But the polling data suggest that most Americans straddle the middle of the road, and think abortion is acceptable only in certain circumstances.
This philosophy is not hypocritical or "situational ethics." It values the sanctity of human life while recognizing the imperfections of our world. This outlook is morally consistent, and hinges on the issue of choice.
When a woman is raped, her choice is taken away. Thus the outcome of the pregnancy is the responsibility of the man who instigated it, not the woman who is also a victim. Similarly, when a mother's life would be threatened by the physical demands of continuing a pregnancy, she no longer has the choice to be a mother.
In these cases, abortion means that a human life will be ended. But the pregnant woman is not responsible for murder. Her choice was taken away, and she was simply doing the best she can under horrible circumstances.
I am not an apologist for abortion. Those "special circumstances" make up a small percentage of abortions in the U.S. They are not a justification for abortion on demand. In many ways, widespread abortion is symptomatic of a society that is characterized by premature sexual activity, glamorization of infidelity and devaluation of marital bonds.
In our zeal to avoid "legislating morality," we risk losing our sense of humanity. We have circumvented the laws of nature. If abortion is used as an easy remedy to save people from the consequences of their actions, then they never need to learn a better way, and things will never improve.
I also object to the misogynist arguments used in favor of abortion, that raising a child alone is too hard, or that giving a baby up for adoption is just too difficult. I find that attitude insulting to women, and I believe that most women are stronger and more capable than that. They are grown-ups, able to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Some self-proclaimed feminists try to argue that abortion on demand is an essential right that women must have in order to achieve their full potential. This rhetoric sounds a lot like the views of Southern slaveholders two centuries ago regarding the necessity of slavery to keep the plantations in operation. Haven't we learned anything about denigrating others in order to claim rights for ourselves?
I dream of a world where abortion is rare. I yearn for a country of economic opportunity so that poor women don't feel forced into abortion. I long for a time when people engage in responsible sexual activity.
Thirty years later, we are still not there yet.
Colleen Kay Porter is a Gainesville mother of five and a researcher at the University of Florida.
Washington Post reporters and other supine anti-war publicists claim that the large rallies organized by the (unlabeled) Trotskyite kook group International ANSWER demonstrate a broad public sentiment against President Bush's war plans. So why won't they make this case for the pro-lifers?
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20030121.shtml
'Bill - Fold' 1/21/03 6:21am
No. How much is your penis worth?
How can you put a price on something of such intimacy that has emotional and psychological as well as physical lifelong damages.
I think it depends on many factors. The age of the woman; young and never been intimate with anyone yet, whether she is married or not, has she finised having children and experienced the pleasures of nurturing her children thru breastfeading, how important her breasts were to her self image, her career (if applicable), etc.
Certainly, the emotional distress and psychological damage must have been tremendous.
If she was a young woman, not married and had not yet had kids, the amount should be more than say a 50 year old grandmother.
Another point though is how extensive was the operation? Are they able to rebuild new breasts without much visible scarring?
If she was young, not yet married and had her whole life ahead of her and was looking forward to children and breastfeeding, etc. the amount should be great like maybe 10million after lawyers fees.
If she is older and gets new breasts better than what she had before(with today's technology) then you are dealing with not such a severe emotional and psychological distress.
January 19. 2003 6:30AM
Women reflect on abortions, evoking range of emotions
By DAVID CRARY
AP national writer
"Syverson, a stockbroker from Hampden, Maine, with two sons in their 20s, regrets the two abortions she had as a troubled teenager and has worked with an anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life to dissuade other women from doing what she did."
"I know abortion hurts women, so I'd sure like to make it hardly ever happen," she said.
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=GS&Date=20030119&Category=NEWS02&ArtNo=201190331&Ref=AR&Profile=1001
"Roughly 1.2 million abortions are performed nationwide each year, yet abortion foes say it is still wrong, even if commonplace. Some denounce it as murder and depict abortion clinics as "death camps."
"I was very much in favor of legalized abortion - I felt it was absolutely necessary for women to be able to meet their educational and career goals," she said. "But it turned out to be very traumatic psychologically. . . . I instinctively knew I had ended the life of my child."
"Though she now opposes abortion, Jenkins doesn't believe the time is right for a reversal of Roe v. Wade. She advocates an incremental approach, starting with programs to help young, pregnant women stay on track in their education and careers even if they give birth."
"I don't think we're at a place to close all the doors," Jenkins said. "I want to see options that empower women. Whether women regret or don't regret their abortions, there are very few who feel they had all the options available to them when they were pregnant."
This is a very good article and I hope you all get the chance to read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paula I - (PFID:13d102) - 05:21pm Jan 19, 2003 PST (# 2608 of 2669)
QUESTION: Why did you write the book?
ANSWER: We wanted the American people to have an inside view of what goes on beyond the closed and secretive doors of these abortion clinics. Everybody has this view that it's like any other medical environment in which people act in a certain professional manner and everything is clean. We knew that was not the case with the typical abortion clinic, and we wanted to show people the reality. That's another reason we went overboard on the documentation.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30556
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Behind the abortion clinic door
Unique book documents unseen culture's devastating toll on women and workers
Posted: January 18, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: Mark Crutcher's heavily documented probe into the culture of abortion clinics resulted in a groundbreaking book, "Lime 5: Exploited by Choice." Crutcher, president of the pro-life group Life Dynamics, used public records and first-hand accounts to uncover abortion's devastating and often gruesome toll, not only on unborn children, but on women and abortion providers. Since it was published in 1996, the evidence has only mounted, contends Crutcher, who spoke to WorldNetDaily yesterday.
I am reposting these in case anyone missed them last week.
What thoughts do you have on the 30th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade?
I wonder what Norma (Jane Doe) of Roe vs. wade is thinking today. What a shame no one has her featured for an exclusive interview.
As usual fold, you don't have the facts. Here is the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75694,00.html
bodine's tagline says "Feel the love. And then take responsibility for it instead of trying to butcher it on a whim you corrupt, immoral liberal"
now, that sure makes it sound like he's trying to say that all women who get abortions are corrupt, immoral liberals.
so how about some facts...
1/6th of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or evangelical.
while 25% of women in America are Catholic, nearly 1/3rd of abortion patients say they are Catholics.
liberal and conservative women get abortions in pretty much equal numbers...
maybe bodine is trying to say that it's only corrupt and immoral if you are liberal, but if you are a Republican, it's okay
I just think it would be helpful if this abortion issue didn't make people so crazy.
It's been hijacked by extremes on both sides. And they're equally scary people.
So debate simmers on high, with occasional boil-overs.
I didn't write the tagline. But I might amend it from "liberal" to "sack of crap."
71% of Republicans nationwide are pro-choice
to hear bodine tell it, they are "corrupt", "immoral" and "sack[s] of crap"
either that or he has two standards, one for Republicans and another for liberals.
'Bill - Fold' 1/22/03 8:20am
When things are in print, it is easy to interpret a certain emotion. I was not writing that in anger. I apoligize for sounding that way.
:(
I asked my husband the same question and he said jokingly "according to you about 50 cents!".
I responded jokingly "You're being awful generous, aren't you?"
But seriously, I think a cap on lawsuits is a good idea actually, even though there would be cases in which it would seem like an unusually small amount.
If each breast is considered a seperate procedure, she should get $250,000 for each one.
NO SEX for loyal Republicans
the Trent Lott of Republican women?
how do you guys do it around here?...
<slams head on desk>...like that?
"If men were doing their job of taking care of women and children, then women wouldn’t be required to vote."
No one is requiring her to vote. I think it would be good if she didn't.
this is a Senator we are talking about...holy shit...
where do the Republicans find these people anyway?
I don't think she's serious.
Can't be.
Where do the Dems find people like McKinney, Byrd, the idiot woman who was talking about all the good things Bin Laden has done etc ? There's doozies on both sides of the aisle crabs. Somebody is voting them in.
After word got out that O'Connor had reportedly told the league that she didn't think the 19th Amendment was a good idea, O'Connor confirmed and clarified her views for the Associated Press
She's serious alright
please provide quotes and context
thanks
crabs you seem to have things wrong as usual:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20030122.shtml
People from Kansas get what they deserve with her.
Crabs,
You don't rememer hearing any quotes from the 3 mentioned above ?
Well then again you were probably a supporter of McKinney. Is that a black helicopter ?
I see Al Sharpton is running under the Dem ticket (snicker)
no...it's Republicans For Choice that made the claim. I'm certainly not a Republican.
now for your claim...
Wirthlin Worldwide itself claims that it's approach is "identifying a course of action that helps achieve your objectives", not exactly an unbiased approach. From their website...
"persuadable 'swing' targets?
These people boast being a counselor to Ronald Reagan and you expect them to be unbiased? They do "research-based strategic counsel" for crying out loud.
tell me who the client was and we can see how biased it is.
I mean, what did they do, call up 1000 people in Lynchburg, VA and claim it represents an entire country?
From all appearances, Wirthlin Worldwide is a Republican spin advisor.
WHat the deal probably is is that Wirthlin's pro-life client needed something to support their stance on abortion in order to "persuade those swing targets" and Wirthlin provided it.
Al Sharpton is a boob
From all appearances, Wirthlin Worldwide is a Republican spin advisor.
What do you think "Republicans for Choice" are doing?
well...they are Republicans, aren't they? What did you expect?
they obviously aren't advancing the party line though
well...they are Republicans, aren't they?
My guess is that they are not.
of course the point isn't the numbers...the point is that a considerable number of conservatives are for choice...which makes them at odds with your condemning of it as "liberal".
Not at all. "choice" is liberal nonsense. If there are a few butchers that have conservative views on other issues doesn't make butchery conservative.
maybe if you hold your hands over your ears real tight and yell real loud they will go away
They can go away and that would be fine by me. You could join them and it would be something else that I would welcome.