Posted on 01/18/2008 11:17:57 AM PST by Lorianne
An Iowa grandmother has been banished to jail, including a night in isolation, after refusing to give in to a judge's demand that she submit to a psychiatric exam and take psychotropic drugs if prescribed to mitigate her opposition to abortion, her husband has confirmed.
"It is not 'my body, my choice?'" Donna Holman told Johnson County District Court, giving new meaning to a common pro-abortion slogan, in her pleadings submitted in support of her request for a reconsideration of her sentence.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
No, we can take it back anytime we care enough too...
Thank you for a knowledgeable and well-written post!
The last time I saw Operation Rescue (a different group)in action they had pregnant women lay down in the path of cars - that was clearly illegal and put the babies at risk - so I had no problem with them being arrested.
Any pregnant woman who would do such a thing should have her child taken away from her the moment the cord is cut. :(
Louder for the hearing impaired :)
People need to find the whole story out before they go off, and always remember also you can’t believe the media. It seems the Holmans don’t get along with pro-life types either.
And here is some more, from freeper anti-Bubba182.
“Holman stood with a group of Hill supporters outside the prison in Gainesville, Florida, and spoke admiringly of him in interviews with newspapers.”
“Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much a man as he was,” he told The New York Times. “I haven’t killed anyone yet, but I believe they deserve to die,” he told the Orlando Sentinel.”
“Those words prompted managers of the Emma Goldman Clinic, where Holman and his wife, Donna, stage weekly protests, to obtain a temporary restraining order against him.”
“In an interview with The Associated Press, Holman, 57, said he could not bring himself to kill another human being, but praised those who would — and said he hopes more abortion providers are murdered.”
“My heart leaps for joy every time one of them gets popped,” Holman said. “You won’t find me weeping over the grave of an abortionist.”
“antiaborticide”? They’re against killing “aborts”? What’s an “abort”? (It’s a verb, not a noun.)
ping for later
This is all I've read and I guarantee that this is not even remotely the whole story. Really going out on a limb here considering it's WND and all./s
Yep. She was sentenced to 30 days after being convicted of harrassment and something else. The judge offered to suspended the sentence pending her taking the psych exam and follow through. She said no thanks and went to jail. Has nothing to do with changing her views on abortion. Typical BS that comes from WND.
We are really at a cross road,,, stories like this are being posted all over the net,,, it is pure Fascist! Pure evil! No judge has the authority or is placed on the bench to force her personal opinions onto the public with the threat of punishment for anyone who disagrees. She may be getting away with it for now,,, but she is a tyrant. She is acting as a despot! There is not other words for what she is doing!
yeah,, the pro abortionists might be eating this up for now,,, but this kind of power will not stop at that issue.
When the communists took over Russia,,, the first targets were the rich, property owners and so forth,, but, it didn't take long before the poor became the enemy as well! The so called poor blacks applauded when Mugabe took the farms from the whites in Zimbabwe and gave them to poor blacks. it was only within a few years he took them from the poor blacks and gave them to his personal friends! It wasn't just the white farmers that suffered from his actions,, the entire nation is a prison now and everyone is starving except those few in power.
It will be like that here,, libs love to see these judges cross the line, abuse their powers and make these edicts against Christians and conservatives, or whatever class the libs hate. But,, a tyrants lust and appetite for power only grows! it will just be a matter of time before anyone or everyone that ever crosses her will be her target. No personal opinion or desire of hers, if she is left unchecked, will be considered too small to force onto the public.
Typical WND article. Stir outrage, and provide enough actual fact to maintain a modicum of credibility.
To me it sounds like Mrs. Holman sounds like she was acting pretty crazy, but I won’t reach any conclusion about this case until and unless I see another source of information. WND’s version of events is base wholly on the statements of her husband. As is their wont.
Journalism 101: Never take statements from a single source at face value. It’s a postulate. Like, if a=b and b = c then a = c.
If Hillary wins in November this will happen every day.
MADD isn’t persecuted for showing kids in high school and the rest of us the pictures of car wrecks and telling about the results of DUI. How about the anti-smokers who show us lungs with cancer or anti-alcohol activists who show cirrhotic livers?
Nobody can determine a situation from one side of the story, and clearly, WND presents only one side of the story.
However, throughout the United States, and for many years, and far transcending the abortion debate, judges tend to meet people who are not mentally sound. Therefore, despite what this woman, and WND say, I am not going to say that the judge erred, especially because that judge proposed a reasonable solution of a simply psychiatric review, which judges are want to do at intervals.
That is, while she might not *like* psychiatrists, visiting one, and I even said, specifically, a “pro-life” psychiatrist, could vindicate her in just a few minutes.
So what is more important to her? Her objections to psychiatry, or her opposition to abortion and the clearing of her good name? If nothing else, she could spend the time discussing pro-life issues with the psychiatrist, and he would *still* most likely be able to give a medical diagnosis that she is perfectly competent. IF SHE IS.
If she remains so adamantly opposed to seeing even a pro-life psychiatrist, it seems to me that the judge has a point.
I might also suggest that even you have considerable suspicion that she could *not* meet with any psychiatrist without them, objectively and in an unbiased manner, determining that she is, indeed, not mentally sound.
I say this because, as no one has yet mentioned, not all psychiatrists routinely prescribe drugs. Many abhor drugs and prefer other means of treatment. So even if she does not want to see a psychiatrist because he will drug her, her objections are still not valid.
So, it boils down to her refusing to provide a 5-minute interview. How reasonable is that?
*Any* argument in her behalf, or the reasonableness of her statements and actions is trumped by this unreasonable attitude.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.