Reno tries to squash the prolife movement
Angus Bandera
most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
Janet Reno has targeted the Rev. Pat Mahoney, Director of Christian Defense
Coalition, Rev. Philip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, and Jeff
White, national and regional Operation Rescue leader.
They are all co-defendants in the FACE lawsuit coming to trial on January
19 2000. They are being attacked for a prayer vigil and rescue at an
abortion clinic in Washington DC on the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.
As thousands of pro-lifers gathered in Washington DC on January 22, 1998,
to mourn for the children killed in this vast holocaust, a small band of
rescuers determined that marching was not enough.
They gathered at an abortion mill called Capitol Woman's Center, to make a
prolife statement and to intervene on behalf of those babies scheduled to
die.
They knelt in prayer at the doors of the abortion mill, asking God for
forgiveness for the mass murderers and asking that the nation would see
their actions as "a witness to the true horror of abortion and the love of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ". They then lay down, blocking the entrances,
and people who were determined to go inside had to step over them.
And they were promptly taken to jail.
But apparently paying their fines and serving their sentences was not
enough for Janet Reno and the Federal Government. They wanted to make an
example out of them, to stop others from protesting and trying to rescue
the babies.
This draconian law, which is clearly unconstitutional, is being used to
squash the pro-life movement.
The Apostle Peter was jailed and then severely threatened not to preach in
Jesus' name. The protesters' answer to the Federal Government is the same
as Peter's answer to the officers who threw him in jail:
"We ought to obey God rather than man."
The leaders are determined not to give in to the pressure and threat of
fines and jail sentences.
The Government has asked them for settlement. All they must do is agree to
an injunction not to rescue unborn children. But they will not agree to
settle. They will not apologize for saving children's lives and they will
not agree to an injunction not to do it again.
As the Apostle Peter once said "Whether it is right in the sight of God to
listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the
things we have seen and heard."
Oddly enough, within months of their rescue and prayer, the Capitol Woman's
Center shut down. This gives them hope and encouragement.
If they lose this case it will mean a nation-wide injunction, an injunction
prohibiting the rescue of children at all abortion clinics around the
United States.
Personally, I believe that, if the trial goes against them, it will only
increase the public sympathy for the noble heroes who so unselfishly tried
to rescue the babies.
If an injunction is issued prohibiting people from lying down in front of
clinic doors, it will only create more heroes willing to risk jail for the
sake of the babies lives.
The public is already turning against abortion because of the disgusting
facts emerging about Fetal Tissue Research and the obviously brutal methods
of Partial-Birth Abortion, and the method of letting born babies die as
used by the seriously misnamed Christ Hospital. This legal action by Reno
will only make people more prolife.
Troy Newman, the Director of Operation Rescue West, who is also in the
group being targeted by Reno, says "I will not be silenced; I will not go
away." Neither will we!
Angus Bandera
_________________________________________________
Source for quoted material:
Operation Rescue West
P.O. Box 11408
Las Vegas, NV 89111-1408
_________________________________________________
Chad Snyder
ang...@ihug.com.au says...
> The Federal Government and Janet Reno are coming after some of the USA's
> most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
And with good reason...with all the hate and violence that pro-lifers
seem to project outside abortion clinics!
> Janet Reno has targeted the Rev. Pat Mahoney, Director of Christian Defense
> Coalition, Rev. Philip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, and Jeff
> White, national and regional Operation Rescue leader.
>
> They are all co-defendants in the FACE lawsuit coming to trial on January
> 19 2000. They are being attacked for a prayer vigil and rescue at an
> abortion clinic in Washington DC on the 25th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.
Rescue? Are you sure it wasn't kidnapping (taking a pregnant woman
outside of the clinic against her will)? It's a shame that the prayer
vigil wasn't enough for them. Instead, they had to participate in an
illegal "rescue" as well.
Will this trial be taking place in Nevada or elsewhere?
> As thousands of pro-lifers gathered in Washington DC on January 22, 1998,
> to mourn for the children killed in this vast holocaust, a small band of
> rescuers determined that marching was not enough.
Children? What children? Fetuses aren't children. *chuckle*
> They gathered at an abortion mill called Capitol Woman's Center, to make a
> prolife statement and to intervene on behalf of those babies scheduled to
> die.
They couldn't make a statement without illegally blocking entry into the
clinic or without kidnapping pregnant women from the clinic? Jeesh! I
really doubt they came running out carrying babies to safety. ;)
> They knelt in prayer at the doors of the abortion mill, asking God for
> forgiveness for the mass murderers and asking that the nation would see
> their actions as "a witness to the true horror of abortion and the love of
> the Gospel of Jesus Christ". They then lay down, blocking the entrances,
> and people who were determined to go inside had to step over them.
Prayer wasn't enough for them? They had to lay down and try to illegally
block the entrance to the clinic? I wonder why prayer wasn't enough for
them. Perhaps it is for the same reasons that prayer isn't enough for
those who choose to take action into their own hands by gunning down
abortion doctors.
> And they were promptly taken to jail.
Well I would hope so, since they broke the law(s)!
> But apparently paying their fines and serving their sentences was not
> enough for Janet Reno and the Federal Government. They wanted to make an
> example out of them, to stop others from protesting and trying to rescue
> the babies.
I'm glad to hear Janet Reno and the Federal Government finally want to
make an example of them since such actions seem to have influenced
several things. First, the number of abortion doctors that have been
murdered have increased greatly in the last few years. I wonder how many
were murdered in the 70's and early 80's compared to now? I also wonder
how violent and forceful the pro-life movement was then compared to now.
I would imagine that the number of murders are far more now than what
they were back then. Likewise, I imagine that the pro-life moment was
not as violent and forceful as they are now.
Additionally, the semi-recent incident with the "Nuremburg Files Webpage"
that was found on a pro-life site, which contained a hitlist of all (or
most of) the abortion doctors is definitely another example of why it's
about time Janet Reno got involved.
> This draconian law, which is clearly unconstitutional, is being used to
> squash the pro-life movement.
What draconian law? The law against kidnapping and blocking access into
a clinic? Yeah right. Tell me another one. The pro-life movement will
not be squashed. Its members will still be able to post to newsgroups
such as this one (and all the other ones you cross posted to) and express
their opinions. Additionally, they will still be able to picket abortion
clinics, but hopefully at a safer distance without illegally blocking
access to clinics or kidnapping pregnant women by removing them from
clinics against their will.
> The Apostle Peter was jailed and then severely threatened not to preach in
> Jesus' name. The protesters' answer to the Federal Government is the same
> as Peter's answer to the officers who threw him in jail:
There's a difference between preaching/expressing one's views and
blocking access to a clinic or kidnapping. So your analogy to the
Apostle Peter is not valid. Perhaps these pro-lifers might learn to
refrain from breaking these laws in the future once they've been made
an example of by Janet Reno.
> "We ought to obey God rather than man."
Yes, Christians should obey God, but they should not confuse what God
says and what they want. God wouldn't want pro-lifers to be violent,
forceful lawbreakers. So why don't Christian pro-lifers obey him instead
of doing what they want or what they think God wants?
> The leaders are determined not to give in to the pressure and threat of
> fines and jail sentences.
If they don't learn their lesson from this experience, then they will
have been too closed-minded to learn from it.
> The Government has asked them for settlement. All they must do is agree to
> an injunction not to rescue unborn children. But they will not agree to
> settle. They will not apologize for saving children's lives and they will
> not agree to an injunction not to do it again.
Kidnapping pregnant women in order to "save" fetuses is illegal and
wrong. If they can't refrain from breaking the law, then I hope they
stay in jail and rot there. Maybe they will have more time to thoroughly
read the bible and learn the error of their ways.
> As the Apostle Peter once said "Whether it is right in the sight of God
> to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak
> the things we have seen and heard."
>
> Oddly enough, within months of their rescue and prayer, the Capitol
> Woman's Center shut down. This gives them hope and encouragement.
Yeah, they had to shut down out of fear from the Rescue Operation people
running in and kidnapping people and taking them out against their will.
They were also probably afraid at least one of them would pull out a gun
on them once he/she entered the clinic.
> If they lose this case it will mean a nation-wide injunction, an
> injunction prohibiting the rescue of children at all abortion
> clinics around the United States.
Children? What children? Did these rescue operation members come running
out holding the hands of a child? I don't think so. I just love this
blatantly false propaganda you spout off. *roll eyes*
> Personally, I believe that, if the trial goes against them, it will
> only increase the public sympathy for the noble heroes who so
> unselfishly tried to rescue the babies.
Only among right-wing, pro-life fanatics like yourself who don't know the
difference between a fetus and a baby or child.
> If an injunction is issued prohibiting people from lying down in
> front of clinic doors, it will only create more heroes willing to
> risk jail for the sake of the babies lives.
Why must they lay down in front of the doors and illegally block the
entrance to a clinic? Do they really lack that much faith in God or
something?
> The public is already turning against abortion because of the
> disgusting facts emerging about Fetal Tissue Research and the
> obviously brutal methods of Partial-Birth Abortion, and the method
Yeah, the brutal methods that in some cases saves the life of the
woman or prevent her from having serious health problems. Luckily, God
is concerned about women (both their life and health) unlike pro-lifers
like yourself.
> of letting born babies die as used by the seriously misnamed Christ
> Hospital. This legal action by Reno will only make people more prolife.
It's really sad that the pro-lifers don't believe that prayer is enough
to help their cause. Instead, they have to lower themselves to breaking
the law by violating the rights of other women (or by murdering abortion
doctors).
> Troy Newman, the Director of Operation Rescue West, who is also in
> the group being targeted by Reno, says "I will not be silenced; I
> will not go away." Neither will we!
Reno isn't trying to silence Troy Newman; she's just trying to get this
crazy Newman person from breaking the law by illegally blocking the
entrance to a clinic and from kidnapping pregnant women by removing them
from the clinic against their will. If Troy Newman just wanted to speak,
he could do so without engaging in all of these other illegal activities.
--Rachael, the Moderate
queena...@webtv.net
has targeted the Rev. Pat Mahoney, Director of Christian Defense
Coalition, Rev. Philip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, and
LAWBREAKERS AND HARASSERS OF WOMEN & CLINICS>>>>. They are all
co-defendants in the FACE lawsuit coming to trial on January 19 2000.
at an abortion clinic in Washington DC on the 25th anniversary of Roe
January 22, 1998, to mourn for the children killed in this vast
holocaust, a small band of rescuers determined that marching was not
IS STUPID>>> called Capitol Woman's Center, to make a prolife statement
and to intervene on behalf of those babies scheduled to die. <<<TO BLOCK
ACCESS OF WOMEN WHO HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BE THERE....THEREBY BREAKING
A FEDERAL LAW KNOWN AS FACE>>>>> They knelt in prayer at the doors
<~~BLOCKED ACCESS>>> of the abortion mill, asking God for forgiveness
<< U SHOULD DO THAT AT YOUR CHURCH....for the mass murderers and asking
that the nation would see their actions as "a witness to the true horror
of abortion and the love of the Gospel of Jesus Christ". They then lay
"BLOCKING"....BREAKING THE LAW>>>and people who were determined to go
inside had to step over them. <<<THEY SHOULDNT HAVE TO STEP OVER
ANYTHING...THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGH TO BE THERE And they were promptly
taken to jail <<YAY>>>.
CONSEQUENCES....LIKE THEY ALWAYS TELL "OTHERS" TO FACE THEIRS>>> for
Janet Reno and the Federal Government. They wanted to make an example
to rescue the babies. This draconian law, <<<NO ITS A NEW FEDERAL LAW
MADE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF GROUPS LIKE OPERATION RESCUE BLAME THEM>>>
which is clearly unconstitutional <<<NOT AT ALL....THE RIGHT TO GO TO A
CLINIC AND OBTAIN AN ABORTION IS LEGAL>>>>, is being used to squash the
pro-life movement. "We ought to obey God rather than man." <<THIS IS
YOUR PROBLEM.....WE MUST ALL OBEY THE LAW>>> The leaders are determined
not to give in to the pressure and threat of fines and jail sentences.
to an injunction not to rescue unborn children. But they will not agree
to settle. They will not apologize for saving children's lives and they
WILL BE BACK TO BREAK THE LAW AGAIN...THROW THE BOOK AT EM'>>>>. As the
Apostle Peter once said "Whether it is right in the sight of God to
listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the
things we have seen and heard." Oddly enough, within months of their
OF ANYTHING THE ANTI CHOICE GROUPS DID>>> This gives them hope and
encouragement. <<<TO BREAK THE LAW MORE>>>> If they lose this case it
will mean a nation-wide injunction, an injunction prohibiting the rescue
WOULD BE A GREAT DAY FOR CHOICE IF IT HAPPENS>>>> Personally, I believe
that, if the trial goes against them, it will only increase the public
unselfishly tried to rescue the babies. <<NO IT WILL INCREASE THE POLL
NUMBERS FOR THE PRO CHOICE MOVEMENT ONCE AGAIN SHOWING THE PUBLIC THE
"REAL" ACTIVITIES OF "RESCUING" If an injunction is issued prohibiting
people from lying down in front of clinic doors, it will only create
LAYING DOWN IN FRONT OF A CLINIC WILL JUST MAKE YOU A GOOD SPEED
BUMP>>>>>. The public is already turning against abortion <<KEEP
DREAMING...ALL POLLS SHOW THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS ARE PRO CHOICE!!>>
because of the disgusting facts emerging about Fetal Tissue Research and
the obviously brutal methods of Partial-Birth Abortion, and the method
Hospital. This legal action by Reno will only make people more prolife.
Operation Rescue West, who is also in the group being targeted by Reno,
says "I will not be silenced; I will not go away." Neither will we!
***AND "WE" WILL NEVER GO BACK..........
M is for Malapert
>The Federal Government and Janet Reno are coming after some of the USA's
>most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
Good. They deserve it.
>Personally, I believe that, if the trial goes against them, it will only
>increase the public sympathy for the noble heroes who so unselfishly tried
>to rescue the babies.
A majority of Americans blame the "pro-life" movement, either directly
(27%) or indirectly (almost 40%) for atrocities like the murder of Dr.
Barnett Slepian. I don't think these "heroes" are going to get much
sympathy from a disgusted public.
And speaking of that...
Victims of "Pro-Life" Violence
A chart of those injured and killed in the most extreme anti-choice
attacks, for handy reference...
http://prochoice.about.com/library/blplvictims.htm
Groman
BMcCandlss
>>most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
>
>
>>Personally, I believe that, if the trial goes against them, it will only
>>increase the public sympathy for the noble heroes who so unselfishly tried
>>to rescue the babies.
>
>(27%) or indirectly (almost 40%) for atrocities like the murder of Dr.
>Barnett Slepian. I don't think these "heroes" are going to get much
>sympathy from a disgusted public.
>
>And speaking of that...
>
>Victims of "Pro-Life" Violence
>A chart of those injured and killed in the most extreme anti-choice
>attacks, for handy reference...
>http://prochoice.about.com/library/blplvictims.htm
And look at all the great Nazis that died in WWII, murdered by paranoid,
jew-loving inferior races!
BMcCandlss
>
>
Only in cases of rape.
Groman
BMcCandlss <bmcca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991025153223...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >even if fetuses were children there is nothing wrong with abortion ...
:-)
> >
> >
>
Groman
BMcCandlss <bmcca...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991025153128...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
Ron Nicholson
> >even if fetuses were children there is nothing wrong with abortion ... :-)
> >
> >
>
> Only in cases of rape.
Oh, Mr. Lawyerman,
Do tell the constitutional reasons for suspending the right to life of
"person," "citizen," or "human being" conceived during an assault two months
prior to the deliberate killing?
And can we infer, that you don't include therapeutic abortions?
Chad Snyder
> even if fetuses were children there is nothing wrong with abortion ... :-)
Then that is where we disagree. The only reason justifiable to kill a
"child" would be if the "child" was hurting the mother in some serious
way (e.g. it would kill her or it would cause her to be sterile in
addition to finding out that the "child" had some serious birth defect).
--R
hereti...@my-deja.com
ang...@ihug.com.au (Angus Bandera) wrote:
> The Federal Government and Janet Reno are coming after some of the
USA's
> most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
Oh, don't be silly,
it's really US, The New Illuminati(tm) who are going after you.
Not because of you hatred of children, we just don't like you.
Stupid, ugly, ill-dressed fuckwits like you rtlers are aesthetically
displeasing to Our Fearless Leader, the Cultural Icon Formerly
Known as Elvis. So you must be eliminated, we don't want to
assimilate you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
BMcCandlss
>From: Ron Nicholson ba...@home.com
>Date: Mon, 25 October 1999 11:09 PM EDT
>Message-id: <38151A39...@home.com>
>
>BMcCandlss wrote:
>
>> >even if fetuses were children there is nothing wrong with abortion ... :-)
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>Oh, Mr. Lawyerman,
>
>Do tell the constitutional reasons for suspending the right to life of
>"person," "citizen," or "human being" conceived during an assault two months
>prior to the deliberate killing?
>
>And can we infer, that you don't include therapeutic abortions?
The right to life is not suspended, it simply fails to confer a duty to the
woman upon whom the assault was made, to SUPPORT that life.
Ron Nicholson
> >And can we infer, that you don't include therapeutic abortions?
>
> The right to life is not suspended, it simply fails to confer a duty to the
> woman upon whom the assault was made, to SUPPORT that life.
What assault?
Abortions due to rape are not classified as therapeutic abortions. Prior to Roe
though, women certainly were required to support those embryos in many states.
El QueSabe
Just saw a show, Maury, that covered the issue of children born of rape. The
children knew they were born of rape and loved so dearly the women that bore
the burden.
Vote Libertarian!
Ron Nicholson
Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others. And has nothing to
do with what was being discussed.
HE, not me, was arguing why rape abortions would be legal.
I was challenging that they were....
abortion_...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson
El QueSabe
>Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others. And has
>nothing to
>do with what was being discussed.
Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
Vote Libertarian!
enya...@my-deja.com
ang...@ihug.com.au (Angus Bandera) wrote:
> The Federal Government and Janet Reno are coming after some of the
USA's
> most prominent pro-life leaders with a vengeance.
>
Defense
> Coalition, Rev. Philip Benham, Director of Operation Save America,
and Jeff
> White, national and regional Operation Rescue leader.
>
> They are all co-defendants in the FACE lawsuit coming to trial on
January
> 19 2000. They are being attacked for a prayer vigil and rescue at an
> abortion clinic in Washington DC on the 25th anniversary of Roe vs.
Wade.
>
1998,
> to mourn for the children killed in this vast holocaust, a small band
of
> rescuers determined that marching was not enough.
>
make a
> prolife statement and to intervene on behalf of those babies
scheduled to
> die.
>
> forgiveness for the mass murderers and asking that the nation would
see
love of
> the Gospel of Jesus Christ". They then lay down, blocking the
entrances,
> and people who were determined to go inside had to step over them.
>
>
> enough for Janet Reno and the Federal Government. They wanted to
make an
> example out of them, to stop others from protesting and trying to
rescue
> the babies.
>
to
> squash the pro-life movement.
>
preach in
> Jesus' name. The protesters' answer to the Federal Government is the
same
> as Peter's answer to the officers who threw him in jail:
>
>
of
> fines and jail sentences.
>
agree to
> an injunction not to rescue unborn children. But they will not agree
to
> settle. They will not apologize for saving children's lives and they
will
> not agree to an injunction not to do it again.
>
God to
> listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the
> things we have seen and heard."
>
> Oddly enough, within months of their rescue and prayer, the Capitol
Woman's
> Center shut down. This gives them hope and encouragement.
>
injunction
> prohibiting the rescue of children at all abortion clinics around the
> United States.
>
only
> increase the public sympathy for the noble heroes who so unselfishly
tried
> to rescue the babies.
>
front of
> clinic doors, it will only create more heroes willing to risk jail
for the
> sake of the babies lives.
>
disgusting
> facts emerging about Fetal Tissue Research and the obviously brutal
methods
as
> used by the seriously misnamed Christ Hospital. This legal action by
Reno
> will only make people more prolife.
>
> group being targeted by Reno, says "I will not be silenced; I will
not go
> away." Neither will we!
>
This is reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement, such as the lunch
counter sit-ins, or the Freedom Riders.
In this case, however, we have a federal gov't in opposition to the
protesters, whereas Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were at least
somewhat helpful. Also, the media would show the civil rights
protesters in a positive light, whereas today's media is not
sympathetic.
It is interesting to note how some folks have decided it's okay to
throw the book at these nonviolent protesters due to the violent crimes
of others.
It's also worth noting that every attorney general has more than a full
plate of criminals to pursue, so they must pick and choose who they
want to go after. Reno has selected the folks who were laying down.
That pleases me in a way, because most people can see through the heavy
handedness, and it makes our cause all the more poignant.
It took 250 years to shake off slavery. And another 100 years to start
to deal with segregation.
It might take a long time to eliminate legalized abortion, too. Then
again, time isn't the active ingredient to change -- action is. So
maybe this mis-step by Reno will help to speed the process along. It
would be nice if we could stop the killing before it reaches a hundred
million.
> _________________________________________________
> Source for quoted material:
>
> Operation Rescue West
> P.O. Box 11408
> Las Vegas, NV 89111-1408
> _________________________________________________
>
OneChoice
news:s195cq...@news.supernews.com...
> even if fetuses were children there is nothing wrong with abortion ... :-)
>
[remainder snipped]
Finally! A pro-abortionist willing to admit the philosophical underpinning
of abortion.
OneChoice
Life
Ron Nicholson
You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
abortion_...@my-deja.com
enya...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> El QueSabe wrote:
>
> > In article <3819B6DE...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson
<ba...@home.com> writes:
> >
> > >Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others.
And has
> > >nothing to
> > >do with what was being discussed.
> >
> > Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
>
> You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
Um, Ron has aparently missed out on the silly slogan, "Every child a
wanted child." EQ's brilliant response shines the light on that lie.
Ron Nicholson
Bite me. I read usenet, and onenet -- some 400 posts daily and respond to
maybe 25% of them. He trimmed to much. I didn't know what he was
referring to. Your comment clarifies nothing.
abortion_...@my-deja.com
enya...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <381B7148...@home.com>,
> > Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > > El QueSabe wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3819B6DE...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson
> > <ba...@home.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in
others.
> > And has
> > > > >nothing to
> > > > >do with what was being discussed.
> > > >
> > > > Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
> > >
> > > You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
> >
> > Um, Ron has aparently missed out on the silly slogan, "Every child a
> > wanted child." EQ's brilliant response shines the light on that lie.
> >
>
> Bite me. I read usenet, and onenet -- some 400 posts daily and
respond to
> maybe 25% of them. He trimmed to much. I didn't know what he was
> referring to. Your comment clarifies nothing.
The irony here is palpable. Ron is the master trimmer. One need only
examine the thread on "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Anti-Choice" to
see what I mean.
Ron's notion that EQ comment, "Does the lack of love mean what is not
loved can be killed?" is not relevant to the abortion issue needs no
further comment, since it is more damning than any comment one could
make.
enya...@my-deja.com
Please let me add that I really do apreciate the articles that you
provide links for! You're providing a real service. That includes for
the screamers who come here. Remember even abortionists have become
ardent advocates for life, so there is hope amongst the most
intransigent.
I used to be pro-choice. And then I saw photographs of an aborted
child that someone was kind enough to leave behind in a classroom. I
didn't switch immediately, but the pictures led me inexorably to
becoming pro-life.
Thank you again for making the information available.
>
> _________________________________________________
> Source for quoted material:
>
> Operation Rescue West
> P.O. Box 11408
> Las Vegas, NV 89111-1408
> _________________________________________________
>
Ron Nicholson
> The irony here is palpable. Ron is the master trimmer. One need only
> examine the thread on "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Anti-Choice" to
> see what I mean.
I oppose any restrictions on third term abortions. The ONLY reason I
commented was because of the assertion concerning the motives of others. The
rest of thread is just of no interest.
> Ron's notion that EQ comment, "Does the lack of love mean what is not
> loved can be killed?" is not relevant to the abortion issue needs no
> further comment, since it is more damning than any comment one could
> make.
I've responded to this. If you won't remind me of what was being said, piss
off.
enya...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The irony here is palpable. Ron is the master trimmer. One need
only
> > examine the thread on "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Anti-
Choice" to
> > see what I mean.
>
> I oppose any restrictions on third term abortions. The ONLY reason I
> commented was because of the assertion concerning the motives of
others. The
> rest of thread is just of no interest.
A) The thread referred to has nothing to do with third term abortions.
B) Contrary to Ron's assertion in caps, he railed against the bill on
two separate occasions due to his concern that the law would be
enforced unequally. When he learned that it wouldn'rt be because the
new law would supercede an older law, he dropped it like a hot potato.
>
> > Ron's notion that EQ comment, "Does the lack of love mean what is
not
> > loved can be killed?" is not relevant to the abortion issue needs no
> > further comment, since it is more damning than any comment one could
> > make.
>
> I've responded to this. If you won't remind me of what was being
said, piss
> off.
The brilliance of EQ's remark needs no connotation.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <381C8428...@home.com>,
> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > The irony here is palpable. Ron is the master trimmer. One need
> only
> > > examine the thread on "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Anti-
> Choice" to
> > > see what I mean.
> >
> > I oppose any restrictions on third term abortions. The ONLY reason I
> > commented was because of the assertion concerning the motives of
> others. The
> > rest of thread is just of no interest.
>
> A) The thread referred to has nothing to do with third term abortions.
Sorry. Simple confusion with another thread. Doesn't alter content of what I
wrote.
> B) Contrary to Ron's assertion in caps, he railed against the bill on
> two separate occasions due to his concern that the law would be
> enforced unequally. When he learned that it wouldn'rt be because the
> new law would supercede an older law, he dropped it like a hot potato.
You're right, that was news. Which makes the bill window dressing as every
state has current legislation, suggesting the same problem whenever the
federal legislation becomes applicable. Other states. Murder is an A class
felony in all states. An illegal abortion would then become an A class
felony, while others not.
> > > Ron's notion that EQ comment, "Does the lack of love mean what is
> not
> > > loved can be killed?" is not relevant to the abortion issue needs no
> > > further comment, since it is more damning than any comment one could
> > > make.
> >
> > I've responded to this. If you won't remind me of what was being
> said, piss
> > off.
>
> The brilliance of EQ's remark needs no connotation.
After checking back. R O T F L M A O.
Please feel free to find ONE post of mine that said a child being unwanted
following birth (rape or otherwise) was a reason I supported choice. In
fact, my comment had a much simpler point; there are other situations than
presented on daily talk shows.
enya...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <381C8428...@home.com>,
> > Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > > enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > The irony here is palpable. Ron is the master trimmer. One need
> > only
> > > > examine the thread on "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Anti-
> > Choice" to
> > > > see what I mean.
> > >
> > > I oppose any restrictions on third term abortions. The ONLY
reason I
> > > commented was because of the assertion concerning the motives of
> > others. The
> > > rest of thread is just of no interest.
> >
> > A) The thread referred to has nothing to do with third term
abortions.
>
> Sorry. Simple confusion with another thread. Doesn't alter content of
what I
> wrote.
No problem. It happens to all of us.
>
> > B) Contrary to Ron's assertion in caps, he railed against the bill
on
> > two separate occasions due to his concern that the law would be
> > enforced unequally. When he learned that it wouldn'rt be because the
> > new law would supercede an older law, he dropped it like a hot
potato.
>
> You're right, that was news. Which makes the bill window dressing as
every
> state has current legislation, suggesting the same problem whenever
the
> federal legislation becomes applicable. Other states. Murder is an A
class
> felony in all states. An illegal abortion would then become an A class
> felony, while others not.
A minor correction and an addition. Twenty-four states presently have
laws of various types that are similar to the federal legislation.
The federal bill wouldn't be window dressing because murder and assault
cases are tried either at the state level or the federal level, not
both. The proposed bill fills in a gap. For example, if a kidnapping
and assault were involved, it would tried at the federal level. Also,
in Washington D.C. all criminal cases are tried at the federal level.
>
> > > > Ron's notion that EQ comment, "Does the lack of love mean what
is
> > not
> > > > loved can be killed?" is not relevant to the abortion issue
needs no
> > > > further comment, since it is more damning than any comment one
could
> > > > make.
> > >
> > > I've responded to this. If you won't remind me of what was being
> > said, piss
> > > off.
> >
> > The brilliance of EQ's remark needs no connotation.
>
> After checking back. R O T F L M A O.
>
> Please feel free to find ONE post of mine that said a child being
unwanted
> following birth (rape or otherwise) was a reason I supported choice.
In
> fact, my comment had a much simpler point; there are other situations
than
> presented on daily talk shows.
E.Q.'s point relates to the fact that many people who have abortions
and many who support abortion do so in part based on the concept that
every child should be a wanted child. This is a public newsgroup. So
E.Q.'s message was not necessarily targeted to Ron, but to the entire
reading audience.
Ron Nicholson
Every state has a criminal charge for an illegal abortion. This new
information reinforces the concern. E, C, and A class felonies are vastly
different. There is nothing to prevent state jurisdiction being rode
roughshod by the federal government. Waco is just one example that pops to
mind. As well, any enacted legislation can be modified removing the
exclusion of abortion, or pre-existing laws.
> The federal bill wouldn't be window dressing because murder and assault
> cases are tried either at the state level or the federal level, not
> both. The proposed bill fills in a gap. For example, if a kidnapping
> and assault were involved, it would tried at the federal level. Also,
> in Washington D.C. all criminal cases are tried at the federal level.
I am not stating that they would be tried twice. A kidnap charge is a kidnap
charge (state or federal) the same as with murder (a class felonies in both
jurisdictions -- the classification of the felony is the same. There may be
a variance in sentencing guidelines. The proposed legislation, OTOH, is
discussing TWO different charges, with two vastly different punishments.
Excluding other states presents a problem. The "gap" cannot be filed in the
other jurisdictions. This isn't justice for those embryos, those women, etc.
For example, how is it just if a woman in California (?) is assaulted by her
ex-lover who has the intent of ending her pregnancy. He receives perhaps a 2
year prison sentence when the offense is an E class felony? Compared to a
woman just north of her in Oregon, where the case is taken federal, the
person she is assaulted by doesn't know there is pregnancy, and has no
intent to injure the embryo, and is just an argument that went to far --
that person receives a life sentence.
Not to mention issues of misuse. What provisions are made to ensure that
assaults against women by woman will not be relegated to the lesser crime as
they could be viewed differently that an assault by a former lover/husband?
Or that the legislation would not be used against a husband who smokes near
his pregnant wife, or what would normally be ruled an accident against the
woman, be charged as an A class felony concerning the embryo.
Please tell me how this protects doctors, performing therapeutic or elective
abortions. The claims of an assault, or lack of informed consent could
result in doctor's performing any abortion being subject to this
prosecution.
As I stated, I have never offered such reason in support of abortion. You
could have simply refreshed my recollection as requested.
Chad Snyder
> In article <angband-ya0240800...@news.syd.ihug.com.au>,
> ang...@ihug.com.au (Angus Bandera) wrote:
> This is reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement, such as the lunch
> counter sit-ins, or the Freedom Riders.
The counter sit-ins and the Freedom Riders blocked peoples' access to
something? I wouldn't say it's reminiscent of the Civil Rights Movement.
> In this case, however, we have a federal gov't in opposition to the
> protesters, whereas Presidents Kennedy and Johnson were at least
> somewhat helpful. Also, the media would show the civil rights
> protesters in a positive light, whereas today's media is not
> sympathetic.
With how many abortion doctors have been murdered and abortion clinics
have been bombed, I can understand why the media isn't sympathetic to the
pro-life movement.
> It is interesting to note how some folks have decided it's okay to
> throw the book at these nonviolent protesters due to the violent crimes
> of others.
Violent crimes of "others" who happen to also be pro-lifers. Besides,
blocking access to abortion clinics is unconstitutional because it
prevents women from gaining access to those clinics. These women have
the right to enter those clinics and should not be prevented from
entering such clinics.
> It's also worth noting that every attorney general has more than a full
> plate of criminals to pursue, so they must pick and choose who they
> want to go after. Reno has selected the folks who were laying down.
Probably because they were violating other peoples' constitutional
rights.
> That pleases me in a way, because most people can see through the heavy
> handedness, and it makes our cause all the more poignant.
You wish.
> It took 250 years to shake off slavery. And another 100 years to start
> to deal with segregation.
And you know what? Most conservative pro-lifers of the south supported
slavery back then. It was the "liberal" north that fought to shake off
slavery. Likewise, segregation occurs more in the south than it does in
the north...to this day even.
> It might take a long time to eliminate legalized abortion, too. Then
> again, time isn't the active ingredient to change -- action is. So
Action? What? Continue shooting abortion doctors, bombing abortion
clinics and violating other peoples' constitutional rights by blocking
access to abortion clinics? Lovely.
> maybe this mis-step by Reno will help to speed the process along. It
> would be nice if we could stop the killing before it reaches a hundred
> million.
It would be nice if the pro-life movement would quit being hypocritical
by only caring about fetal life and not giving a damn about the rest of
life.
--Rachael, the Moderate
El QueSabe
>enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <381B7148...@home.com>,
>> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
>> > El QueSabe wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article <3819B6DE...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson
>> <ba...@home.com> writes:
>> > >
>> > > >Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others.
>> And has
>> > > >nothing to
>> > > >do with what was being discussed.
>> > >
>> > > Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
>> >
>> > You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
>>
>> Um, Ron has aparently missed out on the silly slogan, "Every child a
>> wanted child." EQ's brilliant response shines the light on that lie.
>>
>
>Bite me. I read usenet, and onenet -- some 400 posts daily and respond to
>maybe 25% of them. He trimmed to much. I didn't know what he was
>referring to. Your comment clarifies nothing.
>
Sorry Ron, I had no idea what your load was per day. I'll try to include more
of previous posts.
Vote Libertarian!
El QueSabe
>El QueSabe wrote:
>
>> In article <3819B6DE...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com>
>writes:
>>
>> >Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others. And has
>> >nothing to
>> >do with what was being discussed.
>>
>> Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
>
>You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
>
The killing of the not loved is what abortion *is* all about.
Vote Libertarian!
Ron Nicholson
> In article <381BC6E7...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> writes:
>
> >enya...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> In article <381B7148...@home.com>,
> >> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> >> > El QueSabe wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <3819B6DE...@home.com>, Ron Nicholson
> >> <ba...@home.com> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Yes, that is the case in many instances. Not the case in others.
> >> And has
> >> > > >nothing to
> >> > > >do with what was being discussed.
> >> > >
> >> > > Does the lack of love mean what is not loved can be killed?
> >> >
> >> > You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
> >>
> >> Um, Ron has aparently missed out on the silly slogan, "Every child a
> >> wanted child." EQ's brilliant response shines the light on that lie.
> >>
> >
> >Bite me. I read usenet, and onenet -- some 400 posts daily and respond to
> >maybe 25% of them. He trimmed to much. I didn't know what he was
> >referring to. Your comment clarifies nothing.
> >
>
> Sorry Ron, I had no idea what your load was per day. I'll try to include more
> of previous posts.
It usually isn't a problem. But since your reply didn't connect to anything I
recalled writing, I was lost.
Ron Nicholson
> >You trim too much. And this sounds relevant to abortion, not!
> >
>
> The killing of the not loved is what abortion *is* all about.
Sorry, I just don't see it that way. And even if true, so what?
pruden...@my-deja.com
article <angband-ya0240800...@news.syd.ihug.com.au>, >
ang...@ihug.com.au (Angus Bandera) wrote: > > > > Personally, I believe
that, if the trial goes against them, it will > only > > increase the public
sympathy for the noble heroes who so unselfishly > tried > > to rescue the
Operation Rescue and it's Gestapo-like tactics *intensely*. Perhaps if you
stopped blindly believing your own ridiculous press releases you might be
able to put things in prespective. > > This is reminiscent of the Civil
Rights Movement, such as the lunch > counter sit-ins, or the Freedom Riders.
since the early 1960's. The anti-abortion movement bears no resemblance to
the civil rights movement. Indeed, the fanatical white men waving bibles at
women trying to get into clinics are reminiscent of the fanatical
bible-waving white men who oposed civil rights. Pru
BMcCandlss
>>
>>> >And can we infer, that you don't include therapeutic abortions?
>>>
>>> The right to life is not suspended, it simply fails to confer a duty to
>the
>>> woman upon whom the assault was made, to SUPPORT that life.
>>
>>What assault?
>>
>>Abortions due to rape are not classified as therapeutic abortions. Prior to
>>Roe
>>though, women certainly were required to support those embryos in many
>>states.
>>
>
>Just saw a show, Maury, that covered the issue of children born of rape. The
>children knew they were born of rape and loved so dearly the women that bore
>the burden.
>
That's very admirable; however it just should not be made mandatory.
dhaw...@my-deja.com
Can you imagine Ron during the Nuremburg Trials?
"The killing of Jews is what the Holocaust is all about? Sorry, I just
don't see it that way. And even if true, so what?"
Have you thought about going into public relations, Ron?
Ron Nicholson
ROTF.
That you folks waste time here instead of establishing personhood and
rights for z/e/fs is your legacy.