Doctor: I'll risk jail rather than stop aborting

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, March 31, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

A doctor who testified yesterday in one of three simultaneous trials challenging the congressional ban on partial birth abortions proclaimed he would probably continue performing the prohibited procedure and risk a jail sentence rather than obey the ban.

Dr. William Fitzhugh of Richmond, Va., said during the Nebraska trial that began Monday, "I'd have to take my chances," according to an Associated Press report.

As WorldNetDaily reported last week, opponents of the government's ban on partial birth abortion are challenging the legislation in New York, Nebraska and San Francisco. All three trials began Monday.

Late last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska issued a restraining order blocking enforcement of the federal ban, expressing concerns that the law did not include an exception for preserving the health of the mother. This legal concern, in turn, has formed the basis of the three challenges that started to unfold this week.

But Anthony Coppolino, representing the U.S. Justice Department, emphasized Monday that Congress relied on recognized experts in drawing up the legislation.

"There are no material health conditions that require this procedure," Coppolino told the judge, according to AP. In fact, Congress's position is that a partial birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman and is outside the standard of medical care, the report added.

The partial birth abortion ban, signed into law last November by President Bush, prescribes a maximum two-year prison sentence for doctors found guilty of performing the outlawed procedure. However, it has not been enforced pending the outcome of the legal challenges.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, along with abortion provider Dr. LeRoy Carhart, Fitzhugh and two other doctors, filed the lawsuit that led to the Nebraska trial. The National Abortion Federation and several doctors initiated the New York challenge, while the San Francisco action was brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and others.

Opponents of the congressional ban – the first time since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that an entire class of abortions has been outlawed – cite legal precedents favoring their position and hope the three courts will follow them.

"Five courts of appeal have said that [the laws] must include an exception for the health of the mother," Priscilla Smith, attorney for Carhart and the plaintiffs, told Kopf, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Since there are many different procedures for performing abortions, Smith told the judge, the physician's judgment is necessary for determining the best procedure, the Tribune reported. Thus, she argued, Congress should not be allowed to legislate such a sweeping ban.

"Enforcement of the act would limit my ability to care for those women," claimed Fitzhugh, according to the Associated Press account.

In the New York trial, plaintiffs' attorney A. Stephen Hut Jr. warned U.S. District Judge Richard C. Casey that graphic descriptions of partial birth abortion might add "an element of emotion," reported AP.

"It is the nature of this procedure itself that gives discomfort," countered Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean H. Lane.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Quote of the Day by SpinyNorman

[GeronL]

ugh

[I still care]

You know, serial killers rarely stop killing until they end up in jail or dead. It's a compulsion they can't resist.

There is something seriously wrong with a man who HAS to crush baby heads even risking jail.

Ted Bundy HAD to crush women's skulls even risking jail.

There is only one real reason to do this procedure - it makes SURE you don't get a live baby. Otherwise, it cries and wimpers in the kidney basin for quite a while, and certain laws say they can't do that. So if they don't crush the skull, the woman may be stuck with a baby they were paid to abort. Can't let that happen.

[Prime Choice]

Sounds to me like the doctor could stand to recall his Hippocratic Oath. Any doctor who performs an abortion for the sake of convenience is violating that very oath.

[gas_dr]

Actually, any doctor who perfroms any abortion is violating the hippocratic oath.

[Ron H.]

Perhaps this baby-killing murderer abortionist should consider having an 'after-birth' abortion performed on himself by one of his fellow life-ending co-horts to see what it might be like to be murdered aborted.

[trebb]

Once again, I think there would be better perspective if it were suggested that death row inmates were "put to rest" by the same method:

Tie them to a chair and leave them unsedated; punch a hole in their skulls and vacuum their brains out; use a hydraulic vise to crush their skull; throw them in a dumpster.

Can you imagine the howl that would arise? Then, make the comparisons to what they do to these innocent babies and ask those who would do it to defend it in the public arena.

[pasquale]

You, doctor, are a barbarian.

[Aquinasfan]

he would probably continue performing the prohibited procedure and risk a jail sentence rather than obey the ban.

Nothing like a principled murderer.

[Aquinasfan]

Can you imagine the howl that would arise?

Even better. Imagine this procedure being done on puppies!

[philetus]

“The Clinton Administration has teamed up with the world’s most infamous baby-killer—Communist China —to produce the abortion chemical, RU-486,” said Judie Brown, president of ALL. “No wonder the FDA tried to keep secret the source of these baby-destroying chemicals.”

Danco contracted with a Chinese pharmaceutical company to manufacture the drug after US and European manufacturers refused to touch the controversial abortifacient. “Now that the FDA has approved the abortion pill in the US, our cooperation with our US partner to export the drug can be launched smoothly,” said an official at the Shanghai Hua Lian Pharmaceutical Co.’s Import & Export.

“The Chinese government will make money on the killing of unborn children in America

[philetus]

I'mNotSorry.net is a site where women can share their positive experiences with abortion. The stories posted on this site may contain graphic descriptions of medical procedures, as well as attitudes that may not be in current vogue. We welcome all visitors of all opinions as long as they are respectful of our views.


http://www.imnotsorry.net/

[ccmay]

It is things like this that should explain why I cannot in good conscience condemn the killing of abortion doctors.

I concur. I do not favor the murder of abortionists, but this is because it is counterproductive to the long-term goal. It scares the soccer mommies.

Morally, I see the abortion-doctor killers in the same light as the German officers who attempted to assassinate Hitler. There will be no punishment for them in the hereafter.

-ccm

[philetus]

After reading this article (linked in my partial-birth abortion post last night) in which Senator Lautenberg is quoted as stating that President Bush "will become the first U.S. President to criminalize safe medical procedures," a friend of mine emailed to ask:

"Since when is having the brains sucked out of the back of your head safe? I guess [they are basing this assertion] on the fact that Ms. Boxer and some other Democrats seem to have survived the procedure."

[epow]

It is things like this that should explain why I cannot in good conscience condemn the killing of abortion doctors.

We may both be banned from the forum, but with certain conditions I have to agree. I believe we would all agree that it would have been a proper and moral act to kill a Nazi concentration camp guard to prevent him herding Jews into a gas chamber. I don't see any difference between that act and using whatever force might be necessary to stop a doctor from crushing the life out of an innocent baby as it is in the process of being born.

I couldn't condone killing an abortionist who has killed babies before and who may once again kill babies. But if it were possible, and the only way, to save an innocent life by using deadly force to prevent a legal but stilll immoral homocide such as the killing of a baby as it is being born, I could see that act as morally equivalent to using deadly force to prevent the murder of any innocent human being in any other setting. Of course such an act would be illegal in our system, and anyone who performed it would be prosecuted for murder. What is beyond comprehension is that doctors have been allowed to legally snuff out the lives of innumerable babies in that manner for the past 31 years.

[NCC-1701]

"... and risk a jail sentence rather than obey the ban..."

He's already risked going to Heaven and everlasting happiness because he loves killing so much. May he, and other serial killers like him, enjoy the deeper, darker, and hotter regions of the Earth.

[philetus]

Abortion is a legal form of post contraception.
Abortion allows many men and women who ,knowingly, conceive a child, to shirk their responsibility for the child.
Abortion encourages pre-marital sex and unprotected sex.

"Fetus" is Latin for Unborn child.

Abortion is murder.
Someone who performs many abortions is a mass murderer.

While I support capitol punishment for any mass murderer,
removing an abortion doctor is not going to make any difference.
It's no different than shooting <one, enemy soldier in a war.
It won't win the war.

Better to find ways to convince people like Kate Michelman and Gloria Feldt, (the two most dangerous women ) that they are wrong.

[FierceDraka]

This doesn't surprise me. I do tech support for an East Coast hospital system. And believe me, a disproportionate number of doctors (when compared to the population at large) are absolute JERKS.

Rude, arrogant, AND condescending all at once. Yeah, I'm really impressed with someone who can't even remember their log-in password from one day to the next...