Posted on 05/28/2008 10:58:12 AM PDT by julieee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A Planned Parenthood in the District of Columbia is the subject of a new lawsuit from the mother of a teenager injured in a botched abortion. The abortion involved a teenager who was a victim of rape and the abortion left her with significant medical problems.
According to the lawsuit, Shantese Butler sustained significant physical damage as a result of the abortion and became infertile as a result.
(Excerpt) Read more at LifeNews.com ...
As opposed to....robotic children?
Moor grate righting from the Pros.
bttt
Unfortunately, when it comes to writing, the folks at Lifesite are not pros.
so...Planned Parenthood not only killed another black child with the abortion but they also sterilized another inner city black woman??
I gotta tell ya. If the GOP was behind Planned Parenthood, they would call it the Klan headquarters. Only well-intentioned white liberals with lots of advanced education could trick blacks into killed off 2 of every 3 black babies in order to ‘control’ the population and be grateful to boot.
If the GOP offered to pay for Planned Parenthood to open up new offices in black neighborhoods so that the black population would stagnate and decline, maybe the democrat party would finally wake up and recognize that the genocide they support in their platform is politically harmful to them and the black community.
Planned Parenthood makes coat hangers seem safe.
This story will keep the donations rolling in.
From another local paper today:
http://journalstar.com/articles/2008/05/28/news/local/doc483c430a1b1d2076614909.txt
One significant question I would have is if the parent signed off on the unnecessary abortion and was aware of it. If they were unaware, then the lawsuit would have much more meaning for parental rights in particular.
Thanks for posting....
Unless what they mean is that she is infertile but could carry children, for instance artificial insemination.
Correction I meant to say in vitro fertilization.
The abortion advocates on the Left pretend that there are no more botched abortions now that it “is safe legal and rare”.
As opposed to....robotic children?
Moor grate righting from the Pros.
Probably as opposed to adopted children. The only way Butler will be able to have children will be to adopt.
Reeding comprehenshun is yur frend.
Nor are they pros at fact-checking. They love to run tabloidy headlines, but then provide no source for the allegations. Not a word in here about any medical doctor having confirmed that these injuries are present in the plaintiff at all, much less that they were caused by the abortion procedure, or will preclude future pregnancy. It takes a colossal amount of damage to render a woman completely unable to carry a baby to term, and there’s not even a claim of damage to her ovaries or tubes. Incompetent cervixes are routinely stitched closed in pregnant women (and in most cases, incompetent cervix is the result of previous childbirth).
Surely you didn't think I was unable to extrapolate the writer's meaning from the sentence as written.
That was clear. What wasn't clear was how the writer didn't see a problem when the sentence was proof-read. Or perhaps it wasn't proof-read.
That was clear. What wasn't clear was how the writer didn't see a problem when the sentence was proof-read. Or perhaps it wasn't proof-read.
I'm guessing that the writer/editor probably decided that "As a result of the injuries, Butler will be unable to have biological children the rest of her life" was clear enough and was stylistically preferrable to the more specific and/or technically accurate "As a result of the injuries, the only way Butler will be able to have children for the rest of her life will be through adoption or or possibly through in-vitro fertilization of an egg from a donor."
I added the prolife keyword as I believe that lawsuits are an avenue that should be pursued in getting clinics to close... There is no reason not to pursue clinics based on lack of informed consent (breast cancer , greatly increased chance of dangerously premature birth in subsequent pregnancies, long term emotional distress/depression etc. etc. etc.) ...
Aren't those questions for the court to address rather than an article reporting on the fact that a lawsuit has been filed and outlining the allegations of the lawsuit?
Oh, I don't know. I was thinking of a more simple and direct, "As a result of the injuries, Butler will be unable to bear children normally the rest of her life."
The article is stating these things as fact. If they have reliable sources for the information, they should provide them. The documents filed with the court in connection with the lawsuit would certainly provide professional medical opinions as to the injuries and their possible future implications, but as usual, LifeNews doesn’t bother to check out the documents, and just prints whatever some random person tells them (in this case “Kristan Hawkins, the director of Students for Life of America”) as long as will make for an attention-grabbing story.
The claim that the young woman will never be able to have a biological child of her own is frankly not credible given the specific injuries described. It sounds like a huge leap from “might have some difficulty” to “will never be able to” without any basis whatsoever, and given LifeNews’ track record, the leap was probably made just for the purposes of creating a “shocker” story to generate website traffic. LifeNews has also published wild claims about the “profits” of Planned Parenthood, citing the revenue figures as “profits”.
Informed consent does not spare one from the consequences of malpractice.
Here’s some more info. It’s a pdf of the suit. If you read it, it gives a list of injuries observed and treated during surgery at the ER at Civista Medical Center on the following day. It also lists her injuries, including now being sterile.
http://www.studentsforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/case0011.pdf
They've apparently revised their story from "profit" to "income", but the term "income" still means profit in accounting terms, and the revised version still uses the misleading phrase "made $1 billion". One does not "make" revenue, ones "makes" income/profit. When a restaurant owner, for example, says he "makes" $60,000 a year from running the restaurant, anyone would take that to mean profit, and not that the total money paid by customers all year is only $60,000.
The original headline they published still shows up in a Google search. 2nd hit on a Google search < "planned parenthood" site:lifenews.com > reads as follows, though the cached version has since been updated to read "income":
"Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Makes $1 Billion Income for ...Planned Parenthood Abortion Business Makes $1 Billion Profit for First Time. www.lifenews.com/nat3822.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this"
You’re right. That was completely insensitive. But I graduated after “No Judgements” was mandatory curriculum.
LifeSite and LifeNews are not the same organization. Peter J. Smith does a great job writing for LifeSite.
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.