Lila Rose assaulted by Planned Parenthood escort

posted at 11:45 am on February 1, 2010 by Cassy Fiano

Lila Rose is a well known pro-life advocate. As the president and founder of Live Action, she’s done a lot of really amazing work exposing Planned Parenthood for what they really are: an evil organization looking to profit off of the slaughter of the unborn by any means necessary. They’ll manipulate women into getting abortions. They’ll lie about the science. And time after time, they’ve been proven to look the other way when cases of alleged statutory rape are presented to them. All of this has been exposed to be light thanks to the hard work of Lila Rose. Whether you are for or against abortion is really irrelevant — every parent in America should be against Planned Parenthood for the crimes they commit and the lack of ethics possessed by this organization.

Given all that, it’s really not a surprise what happened about a month and a half ago. While visiting a clinic in San Jose, CA, a male Planned Parenthood escort approached her… and then struck her.

At approximately 11:50am on Thursday, December 17th, 2009, Live Action President Lila Rose was struck by a male uniformed Planned Parenthood escort. The attack occurred on a public sidewalk outside a Planned Parenthood affiliate located at 1691 The Alameda in San Jose, California.

Lila Rose was visiting the abortion clinic with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to abortion alternatives.

According to a police report filed at the scene, supported by several witnesses, the following interaction took place between Miss Rose and the uniformed Planned Parenthood escort:

Rose, from the public sidewalk: “Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?”
Escort approaches Rose rapidly from Planned Parenthood parking lot, says, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”
Rose offers to show Escort a picture: “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”
The Escort strikes Miss Rose’s hand, knocking literature and Bible to the ground. Rose steps further back on sidewalk, Escort steps towards Rose.
Escort, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”
Rose says, “What about the baby’s choice?”
Escort says, “It’s not a baby!” Escort turns around and walks away.

Police were called and interviewed the victim and several witnesses. Rose sustained no injuries from the attack. Charges of assault and battery are pending. There have been no apologies.

Live Action maintains a strong commitment to non-violent public discourse. We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort’s attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence.

I was asked by Live Action to try to contact Planned Parenthood and get a response from them about this incident. I genuinely wanted to know their side of the story. Have they done their own investigation into this? Is the escort, a Gerard Nordley, still working with Planned Parenthood? Do they have a statement? Will they issue an apology?

I called their public relations department repeatedly for over a month. I left message after message. I never received a single phone call to follow up about this incident, or a single e-mail. This leads me to believe that Lila Rose’s statement is indeed accurate, and that Planned Parenthood is trying to keep this quiet. I understand the role of escorts for abortion clinics, and approaching the abortion protestors is not in the job description. Assaulting them is definitely not. Lila wasn’t hurt, thankfully, but what happens next time? If this man wasn’t even disciplined for his actions, what will keep him from taking it a step further with someone else? And if Planned Parenthood does not discipline this man in any way, or issue an apology to Lila Rose, then you have to assume that they approve of his behavior.

Just one more thing to add to the list of reasons why this organization is truly rotten to the core.

UPDATE: I wanted to issue a note to clear up the confusion surrounding the Gerard – Gerald Nordley website. I contacted Lila to confirm that the man on the website is indeed the man who assaulted her, and she did. Also, the church he says he attends on his website is apparently not far from San Jose, CA. Hope that answers some questions.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

No problem on the formatting deal. I’ve hit some key and done that myself.

Protesting in front of clinics is intended to draw publicity, and it did.

My point was that I admire groups that simply focus on offering positive services more than that approach. We’ve had so many awful stories regarding abortion protests.

It makes me ill.

AnninCA on February 2, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Actually, Jimbo, the idea of the Nuremburg trials is exactly in line with what I’m saying.

You can twist in the wind all you want, but what I said before stands. I hold responsible the leaders who know better, the doctors who lie, and the PP administration that takes aim at the unborn for the sake of their pocketbooks. I have not said anything further.

You may continue with your hysteria ’til the sun falls, but it doesn’t make it any more true. Again, the problem is you, and will continue to be you, and will not cease to be you as long as you hold to this view.

Besides, a man who says he’ll have his own granddaughter killed is in no position to cry “terror!” on any other man.

You’re damn right there is anger on this side – that’s what I was saying from the beginning of the thread, about this, and other topics. As Obama said, pro-life and pro-choice will never come to grips – you don’t give a damn about the life of a child, and we actually do. Save your righteous indignation – the blood of innocents isn’t on my hands. If you would see whose hands it is on, start with Sanger, and work from there.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Actually, Jimbo, the idea of the Nuremburg trials is exactly in line with what I’m saying.

You can twist in the wind all you want, but what I said before stands. I hold responsible the leaders who know better, the doctors who lie, and the PP administration that takes aim at the unborn for the sake of their pocketbooks. I have not said anything further.

–So in other words, you think any politician who doesn’t vote to make abortion totally illegal should be killed?

Jimbo3 on February 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM
I stand by that. What would you have me say? Murder is excusable because it’s defended by current law?

–You said nothing about trials or process of law or anything like that yesterday, Kinley. So you are changing your story. Like I said, I think under your logic, you’d think you have a right to kill me if I refused to vote for a ballot proposition that made abortion illegal.

–And don’t try to blame others for your failure to control your temper and emotions.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 9:42 AM

Ah, Jim. How wonderfully the mind works.

Never did I say a man ought be shot in the streets as was Tiller. You may search the thread, I wish you the best of luck.

You have started with the conclusions you wished to jump to, which, incidentally, you have done your entire life, it seems. Have fun with that.

You can think whatever you want, Jim. It doesn’t make it true.

As for my temper, you’ve earned every last bit, and I will apologize for nothing. You would counsel your daughter to abort your granddaughter – you are a nightmare to me. I will pray for you.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

In other words, Jim, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 9:51 AM

–So you think it’s morally appropriate for you to kill someone who refused to pass a law banning abortion? Isn’t that murder?

If you… as a leader… support and endorse the slaughter of our children… and vote against the laws which would protect said children… you are party… to murder… and ought suffer the penalty… for murder…

It cannot be said any more plainly.

KinleyArdal on February 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM


So in other words, you think any politician who doesn’t vote to make abortion totally illegal should be killed?

Jimbo3 on February 1, 2010 at 2:19 PM
I stand by that. What would you have me say? Murder is excusable because it’s defended by current law?

To hell with your pacifistic baiting! At the top of our lungs we are screaming about fifty million dead infants, and you are trying to claim moral high ground against my supposed psychosis. Have at it as long as it pleases you, but don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

KinleyArdal on February 1, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Never did I say a man ought be shot in the streets as was Tiller. You may search the thread, I wish you the best of luck.
……
KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 9:50 AM

–See above. Nothing about trials, nothing about due process of law, etc.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Didn’t you say you’d snuff your own grandkid?

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM

In other words, Jim, you couldn’t find what you were looking for. I am torn between pity and exasperation.

How do people in the USA get penalized for crimes, Jim?

By trial.

I can think of two posts offhand, both bantering with Bob, about a ‘jury of peers’ qualified to judge the villains I have named. This is the biggest crime against humanity that ever occured, and it isn’t my fault you’re too damn blind to see it.

Heed my words. You’re a damn coward for continually returning to this overplayed shtick about the frightened voter casting a ballot for ‘human rights’ and having the evil right-wingers chase him down.

Neither you, nor I, are leaders, and we are not that important. Get a grip on yourself. Instead of panicking over your own life, have a little concern for what might be your granddaughter one day.

And for the love of God, stop playing the moral high card when you know damn well if you stay your filthy hands, your daughter would give birth to a baby girl in nine months. Envision that in your mind, then envision the money you hand to Planned Parenthood. If it doesn’t sicken you, you are beyond help. I know well you already are, as a man who can claim to justify this to God is well past the point of insanity – but here’s your chance nonetheless.

In review, grow up, grow a damn spine, and rekindle your soul.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM

In review, grow up, grow a damn spine, and rekindle your soul.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM

1. “You know you don’t want to start executing doctors wholesale…”

…au contraire. As I said, jail for genocide is laughable. Execution. To those who don’t like it, or to Jimbo, who will undoubtedly make mention of how I [don’t] (I think you wrote this wrong) want to kill people – frankly, m’dear, the killers don’t account for the vast populace. Death penalty. end of discussion.

………
In review – politicians and planned parenthood doctors – execution

–Here’s what I could find. It really wasn’t clear that you were talking about trials.

–And I do have a spine. If I didn’t, why would I be debating you?

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

It takes a load of guts to go keyboard to keyboard, I’ll give you that. A lesser man might pale in comparison.

The above post impresses me little. What do you think the penalty would be? Again, Nuremburg is an excellent analogy.

Proverbs 26:11, Jim. I am very nearly out of ideas in how to reply to you. ._. The things that make a normal person sick to their stomach affect you not in the least. You are a very different breed of berry, one I cannot comprehend, for which I do indeed thank the Lord.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 10:26 AM

A person who helps a woman exercise her legal rights in the face of hate from people like you.

Grow Fins on February 1, 2010 at 12:10 PM

LOL!
Do you smell that?
It’s the smell of hate.
Troll hate.

Badger40 on February 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Didn’t you say you’d snuff your own grandkid?

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM

Yeah, his heart is that dark. It is sad.

daesleeper on February 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I called their public relations department repeatedly for over a month. I left message after message. I never received a single phone call to follow up about this incident, or a single e-mail. This leads me to believe that Lila Rose’s statement is indeed accurate, and that Planned Parenthood is trying to keep this quiet. I understand the role of escorts for abortion clinics, and approaching the abortion protestors is not in the job description. Assaulting them is definitely not. Lila wasn’t hurt, thankfully, but what happens next time? If this man wasn’t even disciplined for his actions, what will keep him from taking it a step further with someone else? And if Planned Parenthood does not discipline this man in any way, or issue an apology to Lila Rose, then you have to assume that they approve of his behavior.

While I’m sure that Planned Parenthood does not approve of knocking a book out of someone’s hand, to make a big case of this incident is more than a little insane. The reason that Planned Parenthood didn’t answer the phone call was simply that they thought Cassy has serious mental or emotional issues. On the other hand, Cassy made the best use of her time in making those phone calls.

thuja on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Didn’t you say you’d snuff your own grandkid?

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Yeah, his heart is that dark. It is sad.

daesleeper on February 2, 2010 at 10:42 AM

I did. My daughters are not married and that’s what I would tell them.

KinleyArdal, I posted a summary of our discussion on Ed’s post on the SuperBowl, if you want to continue the discussion there.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Even if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, under no constitutional legal theory can anyone prosecute anyone who performed or had an abortion in the past. All this talk about charging people with murder and executing them is crazy and creepy.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

–And I do have a spine. If I didn’t, why would I be debating you?

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM

I presume that you debate someone as unstable Kinley for your amusement, because you are not debating Kinley for the intellectual love of a good argument. On the other hand, I suppose some good does come from getting all the implication of “pro-life” ideas out in the open: execution of abortionists, environmental devastation, banning of contraception, and so forth.

thuja on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM

So Jim, if I understand you correctly. Your grandchild does not have the right to life because your daughters are not married?

Would you advise them to get an abortion if they were married. What if you had unmarried sons?

What if your daughters were married had a child, and then divorced or were widowed. I guess your grandchild should be killed on the spot.

Stout on February 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM

KinleyArdal, I posted a summary of our discussion on Ed’s post on the SuperBowl, if you want to continue the discussion there.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Aye, I noticed. To quote from one of my favorite films o.o It is foolishness to argue with someone who will not listen to you. Of course, this extends both towards you, and back towards me.

There is nothing to be gained from the discussion, as neither of us will budge. I have said my piece, and stand by it, Thuja’s attempt at snippy commentary notwithstanding. Although I am curious about environmental devastation being tied into pro-life. That’s a new one…

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Even if abortion was made illegal tomorrow, under no constitutional legal theory can anyone prosecute anyone who performed or had an abortion in the past. All this talk about charging people with murder and executing them is crazy and creepy.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM

–You and I know that. Not sure that Kinley does, because he’s apparently not a lawyer.

Kinley, BTW if you’re still reading here, there is a subset of the Evangelicals who think being “green” is connected to being a good stewart of the Earth as required by the Bible. You might want to google that. I think Rick Warren is part of it.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM

What national government enacted the death penalty for crimes against humanity? We helped hang a dozen Nazis for that one.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM

Although I am curious about environmental devastation being tied into pro-life. That’s a new one…

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM

It’s part of the carbon-footprint/overpopulation argument. By being pro-life, you are causing the destruction of the Earth because of the increase carbon output by overpopulation, along with decrease in food supply, etc. It’s a BS argument, the overpopulation/carbon-footprint crowd have been crowing that nonsense ever since, at least, Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb.” Nevermind that every prediction of environmental doom has come and gone unfulfilled, but that won’t stop those heavily invested in the movement. Anyway, that is what Thuja was referencing in that comment.

TQM38a on February 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Kinley, BTW if you’re still reading here, there is a subset of the Evangelicals who think being “green” is connected to being a good stewart of the Earth as required by the Bible. You might want to google that. I think Rick Warren is part of it.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM

Well, I won’t fuss about that, if that’s what they’d like to do, because, again, it doesn’t involve bloodshed of the innocent, so it really doesn’t inspire a passionate rebuke. Or any rebuke at all, for that matter. o.O More power to ‘em.

And no, I’m not a lawyer, nor would I wish to be one. It is precisely this prancing about the law that currently protects and endorses the murder I am so fired up over that is the problem. >.> But, of course, in the liberal world, up is down, and death is life. Paging George Orwell.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM

It’s part of the carbon-footprint/overpopulation argument. By being pro-life, you are causing the destruction of the Earth because of the increase carbon output by overpopulation, along with decrease in food supply, etc. It’s a BS argument, the overpopulation/carbon-footprint crowd have been crowing that nonsense ever since, at least, Paul Ehrlich wrote “The Population Bomb.” Nevermind that every prediction of environmental doom has come and gone unfulfilled, but that won’t stop those heavily invested in the movement. Anyway, that is what Thuja was referencing in that comment.

TQM38a on February 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM

Thank you for that clarification. I was kinda spinning my wheels trying to figure that one out.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM

I was “assaulted” by the cashier at Starbucks today. She “struck” my hand when she gave me my change back. Charges are pending.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I was “assaulted” by the cashier at Starbucks today. She “struck” my hand when she gave me my change back. Charges are pending.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM

Big surprise, a liberal man scared of a girl. :D

Oh, wait, that was another joke, wasn’t it? Rats.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Stout on February 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM

*crickets* Still waiting to hear the logic…

Stout on February 2, 2010 at 12:10 PM

With the over population concern of the left, what exactly are they going to tell the third world nations that have an excessive population rate and want to immigrate to the USA? They think that aborting people here will help the enviornment and what good will that do when the USA takes in an over abundance of illegal or legal immigrants. Shall the our nation take in all the the third world? By the way CRR6 if a conservative had made the same type of “struck” you would be singing a different tune.

garydt on February 2, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Oh, wait, that was another joke, wasn’t it? Rats.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM

That’s alright, you’ll get it next time.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM

What national government enacted the death penalty for crimes against humanity? We helped hang a dozen Nazis for that one.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I suggest that you and others look up the legal authority for the Nuremberg trials instead of making up your own definition of crimes against humanity.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 12:51 PM

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM

What you call dancing around the law sane people call Art. I, sect. 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM

What you call a woman’s choice I call blatant murder.

Everyone has to pick their priorities, right?

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM

I suggest that you and others look up the legal authority for the Nuremberg trials instead of making up your own definition of crimes against humanity.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 12:51 PM

That’s hysterical. “You and what army”, right?

Slapping pamphleteers at the mall and curetting the grandkids is sane? Maybe all the pharmaceuticals in the drinking water is a bigger problem than we figured.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM

What you call a woman’s choice I call blatant murder.

Everyone has to pick their priorities, right?

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM

What you say I said, I never said.

Either you have no clue of what Art. I, sect 9 is or you’re trying to deflect attention away from your desire to do away with all our legal protections.

Nice try, a$$hole.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 1:06 PM

That’s hysterical. “You and what army”, right?

Slapping pamphleteers at the mall and curetting the grandkids is sane? Maybe all the pharmaceuticals in the drinking water is a bigger problem than we figured.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM

IOW, you have no idea of what crimes against humanity means or the basis for the Nuremberg trials.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

I was “assaulted” by the cashier at Starbucks today. She “struck” my hand when she gave me my change back. Charges are pending.
crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I’ll bear your hearty Lefty sense of humor in mind next time I see a union picket line. After all, people PAY to get shot by paintballs! It’s FUN!

IOW, you have no idea of what crimes against humanity means or the basis for the Nuremberg trials.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 1:08 PM

The Allied victory in Europe enabled them to write post-facto laws applying only to the militaries of defeated powers. That’s the basis.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM

What you say I said, I never said.

Either you have no clue of what Art. I, sect 9 is or you’re trying to deflect attention away from your desire to do away with all our legal protections.

Nice try, a$$hole.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Oooo, vulgarity. I stand in awe of your fighting spirit.

At the moment, you stand in defense of the indefensible. 0.o You will be criticized accordingly. If all you care to do is criticize my Constitutional understanding, I freely accept that. That is not my priority.

Quote what laws you will, the murder of children is still the murder of children at the end of the day. It is a crime against humanity – take your legal knowledge and espouse my villainy all you wish, I care little – and it should be treated as such. Hopefully, one day soon, it will come to be.

The truth is that YOU have no idea what crimes against humanity is. But that isn’t surprising. o.0

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Ladies and Gentleman, you want to know how an entire country could be cool with murdering millions of Jews, just look at the posters here who consider the unborn a non-human.

That’s the only way you can deal with mass killing, render them non-human.

Anarchists, Libertarians, and Leftists, ya gotta love em!

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 1:25 PM

BTW-have any of you pro-choicers ever thought about what this does to the genetic diversity of the human population?
Genetic diversity is what helps us remain competitive as mammals on this planet.
And I stress that we really need to maintain the highest diversity if we want to stay ahead of the microbes out there waiting to kill us.
The human species has very low genetic diversity in comparison to most of the animals on this planet.

Badger40 on February 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Ladies and Gentleman, you want to know how an entire country could be cool with murdering millions of Jews, just look at the posters here who consider the unborn a non-human.

That’s the only way you can deal with mass killing, render them non-human.

Anarchists, Libertarians, and Leftists, ya gotta love em!

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 1:25 PM

If you really think what is happening is equivalent to the Holocaust….you’re being awfully casual about it.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

If you really think what is happening is equivalent to the Holocaust….you’re being awfully casual about it.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

I thought you had to go for the day. (:

It is hard to not become sarcastic when you deal with people on a daily basis who equate murder with a casual operation for health benefits. Cynicism is the child of experience, who chose not to abort.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM

If you really think what is happening is equivalent to the Holocaust….you’re being awfully casual about it.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Why don’t you try some reading comprehension classes there, Sparky.

I never mentioned the country, I never mentioned any particular historical event, or particular movement, but I knew someone like you would chime in with a statement like that.

The statement I made happens to be a fact, whether it be Nazi Germany, Communist China, or Ancient Rome, the only way murder (and killing in war is not murder!) can be tolerated in the minds of a populace is to de-humanize the victims. And that is exactly what you pro-aborts do on a regular basis. I am merely stating a fact.

Joe Pyne on February 2, 2010 at 1:34 PM

BTW-have any of you pro-choicers ever thought about what

this does to the genetic diversity of the human population?
Genetic diversity is what helps us remain competitive as mammals on this planet.
And I stress that we really need to maintain the highest diversity if we want to stay ahead of the microbes out there waiting to kill us.
The human species has very low genetic diversity in comparison to most of the animals on this planet.

Badger40 on February 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM

–Please don’t let people in Iowa or Appalachia know this. It’ll just give them an excuse to continue to have sex with animals.*

*–No animals were harmed during the writing of this comment. This should not be taken to imply that all people in Iowa or Appalachia have sex with animals, or that, in fact, that anyone in those two areas has ever, is considering, or will ever have sex with animals. Enjoy spirits responsibly. Do not attempt sex with animals at home. Void in Nebraska and other places where prohibited by law.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Oooo, vulgarity. I stand in awe of your fighting spirit.

It was in response to your blatant dishonesty and your bizarre ideas that you are going to be able to jettison our Constitution and arrest, try, and execute people en masse some day.

At the moment, you stand in defense of the indefensible. 0.o You will be criticized accordingly. If all you care to do is criticize my Constitutional understanding, I freely accept that. That is not my priority.

More gas from a pompous windbag. You don’t get to make up shi*te and falsely claim I posted it. You do not get to null and void our Constitution. You sound mentally ill.

Quote what laws you will, the murder of children is still the murder of children at the end of the day. It is a crime against humanity – take your legal knowledge and espouse my villainy all you wish, I care little – and it should be treated as such. Hopefully, one day soon, it will come to be.

You do not get to gut the US Constitution because you have this fantasy about wanting to arrest and execute people. And, no it is not a crime against humanity. You do not get to make up your own definitions.

The truth is that YOU have no idea what crimes against humanity is. But that isn’t surprising. o.0

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 1:21 PM

No, it’s YOU who doesn’t have a clue and are merely making crap up. But, that isn’t surprising since you are dishonest and suffer under the false belief that you are going to be able to try and execute people ex post facto.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM

The Allied victory in Europe enabled them to write post-facto laws applying only to the militaries of defeated powers. That’s the basis.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM

No.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Dripping irony, considering the act of abortion is 99.998% of the time retroactive birth control – in other words, refusing to take responsibility for your actions in having created a baby in the first place.

PJ Emeritus on February 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM

I love the “rape and incest” argument, when PP’s own internal surveys show those are lest than 1 tenth of one percent of all abortions performed. So save it.

PJ Emeritus on February 2, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Sorry meant to quote Jimbo:

Jimbo3 on February 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM

PJ Emeritus on February 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM

If you really think what is happening is equivalent to the Holocaust….you’re being awfully casual about it.

crr6 on February 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

If you don’t see any similarities at all, you’re being awfully obtuse about it.

What do pro-choice people say? “It’s not really a baby.” They purposefully make the fetus into a non-human so that it is easier to dispose of.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 2, 2010 at 2:24 PM

No.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Yes. London Charter was adopted in April 1945 and only covered the Axis and only the war. Ex post facto law.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Mentally ill is hiding mass murder behind the shield of the Constitution, and it doesn’t stop me. I’m not making anything up – you’re defending the indefensible with Constitutional rights – as you wish, I understand your point of view – but I’m not stopping myself over it.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM

No.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Yes. London Charter was adopted in April 1945 and only covered the Axis and only the war. Ex post facto law.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM

–The US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws. And the Nuremburg trials were primarily based on “crimes against peace” and similar matters by the armed forces who conquered Germany. Crimes against humanity were only one of the four charges.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Mentally ill is hiding mass murder behind the shield of the Constitution, and it doesn’t stop me. I’m not making anything up – you’re defending the indefensible with Constitutional rights – as you wish, I understand your point of view – but I’m not stopping myself over it.

KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Mentally ill is in your pompous comments with vague threats of extra judicial retribution. And yes, you are making things up and you are still making things up. And no, apparently you don’t understand my point of view. Again, if you think you are going to try and execute people in violation of the ex post facto clause, you are seriously deranged.

Blake on February 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM

–The US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws. And the Nuremburg trials were primarily based on “crimes against peace” and similar matters by the armed forces who conquered Germany. Crimes against humanity were only one of the four charges.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Made up
By victorious allies
After the fact
To punish
Defeated Axis bastards.

Primarily?? Ok we’ll primarily act on some other charge. In CA it’s a crime to violate somebody’s civil rights, that’s been on the books since 1991. Time served for felony violation of civil rights, and then hanged for crimes against humanity.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM

The US Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws. And the Nuremburg trials were primarily based on “crimes against peace” and similar matters by the armed forces who conquered Germany. Crimes against humanity were only one of the four charges.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Made up
By victorious allies
After the fact
To punish
Defeated Axis bastards.

Primarily?? Ok we’ll primarily act on some other charge. In CA it’s a crime to violate somebody’s civil rights, that’s been on the books since 1991. Time served for felony violation of civil rights, and then hanged for crimes against humanity.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 2:59 PM

–CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 9. A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts may not be passed.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 3:34 PM

—And to be clear, the current law against violating someone’s civil rights wouldn’t apply to this situation, so that’s why a legislative change would be an ex post facto law.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

–Mike, I think there is just as much hatred on your side for anyone who is pro-choice. Take a look at this thread and see which side is throwing the insults.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM

Jimbo3,

There is a difference between blatant hatred and justified outrage and opposition to a heinous act perpetrated by those who employ false monikers “Women’s Right to Choose,” and “Reproductive Rights” while perpetrating atrocities and inhumane acts such as induced abortion, snatching the life from an already alive human being.

Killing an already reproduced person and calling it “Reproductive” anything is absurd!

Screaming “Woman’s Right to Choose” and turning around and hating, and fighting against women who DO choose, they Choose life, is also absurd!

It is understandable that people would be outraged at the slaughter of new human beings via induced abortion, just as it would be understandable that people would be outraged if rape, kidnapping, torture, dismemberment, assault and battery, theft, and pedophilia were “legalized.”

If we were all aborted, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Abortion ends a person’s life. Choosing life, the “Choice” abortion obsessed individuals and groups HATE to allow, enables us to carry on this conversation, for if we were abortted, if we were not alive, we wouldn’t be able to converse or do or experience anything else.

Life, rather than being aborted, also enables those who weren’t aborted to decide to snuff out the life of other, new human beings, a “Choice” that their mommy did not make, which results in their choice killing others so they have no “Choice.” It’s okay for THEM to be alive and judge that others are not worthy of life. A sick, perverted, cruel, malicious, selfish imposition of death by abortion upon others who cannot defend themselves.

Life.

It does make a difference.

William2006 on February 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM

The Allied Any victory in Europe anywhere enabled them ALWAYS allows the victors to write ex-post-facto laws applying only to the militaries of defeated powers losers. That’s the basis reality.

Chris_Balsz on February 2, 2010 at 1:17 PM

You were hedging around a bit there. I thought it needed a little more ‘edginess’.
What do you think?
 
I prefer to repeat the phrase “Those who will not study history are DOOMED to repeat it.”
(I substituted the DOOMED because has a more realistic flavor)

Blacksmith8 on February 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Or in the words of your dear leader “I(we) won”

Stout on February 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Meant to say our dear leader…

Stout on February 2, 2010 at 4:23 PM

Mike, I think there is just as much hatred on your side for anyone who is pro-choice. Take a look at this thread and see which side is throwing the insults.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Jimbo3,

There is a difference between blatant hatred and justified outrage and opposition to a heinous act perpetrated by those who employ false monikers “Women’s Right to Choose,” and “Reproductive Rights” while perpetrating atrocities and inhumane acts such as induced abortion, snatching the life from an already alive human being.

…….

William2006 on February 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM

–So, to boil your argument down, anything the prolifers say about prochoicers is because of justified outrage whereas anything the prochoicers say about prolifers is because of blatant hatred. Hmmm.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 4:28 PM

re: all this kerfuffle about whether, at some future date, those who are most responsible for the practice of abortion might be tried for crimes against humanity.

* Leaving aside all considerations of law, it would certainly be justice; especially if they were first immersed in a corrosive liquid for a period of time, then disarticulated and, if still alive, left in a closet until the expire.

* Leaving aside all considerations of law, the fact that abortion is supported, to a greater or lesser degree, by roughly half the populace will guarantee that even if abortion was done away with there would never be sufficient legitimacy for such trials.

* BUT if the public was behind it, decades of liberal “living document” interpretation (such as Roe itself) have rendered the Constitution virtually powerless to protect citizens against any sort of tyranny. If the politicians wanted to do it, and they weren’t worried about losing their jobs (i.e. the public was on board), they could round up any section of the public they wanted to, have them summarily executed, and get away with it.

RegularJoe on February 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM

–So, to boil your argument down, anything the prolifers say about prochoicers is because of justified outrage whereas anything the prochoicers say about prolifers is because of blatant hatred. Hmmm.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Well, it’s not as though this was a symmetrical relationship. We have one party that advocates killing of millions of innocent people, and another party that is trying to stop it. So yeah, I think your summation was actually pretty good, except I would say “blatant evil” rather than “blatant hatred”.

RegularJoe on February 2, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Typical Liberals
Somewhat Chappaquidical
Kill the Babies
Save the Whales
Smoke but don’t Inhale

ronnyraygun on February 3, 2010 at 6:07 AM

Mike, I think there is just as much hatred on your side for anyone who is pro-choice. Take a look at this thread and see which side is throwing the insults.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Jimbo3
,

There is a difference between blatant hatred and justified outrage and opposition to a heinous act perpetrated by those who employ false monikers “Women’s Right to Choose,” and “Reproductive Rights” while perpetrating atrocities and inhumane acts such as induced abortion, snatching the life from an already alive human being.

…….

William2006 on February 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM

–So, to boil your argument down, anything the prolifers say about prochoicers is because of justified outrage whereas anything the prochoicers say about prolifers is because of blatant hatred. Hmmm.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 4:28 PM

That is not it. Your statement is a false argument and a real stretch. I did not say that, YOU did!

I clarified that abortion takes the life of innocent human beings. I said nothing about hating abortion choicers.

Nevertheless, abortion choicers often do spew hatred against women, their babies, and life choicers, which is why so many abortion choicers go crazy when Tebow and his mother might appear in a video clip celebrating life. They are often intolerant, mean spirited, foul of mouth, full of venom, and often violent, something that few life choicers are, and something that life choicers are unjustly, and dishonestly painted as being, while abortion choicers, who are often violent and mean spirited and intolerant, are often painted, by the media and Hollywood, as loving, caring, compassionate, salt-of-the-earth saints and angels.

The outrage against abortion is real, and justified.

As I’ve stated, and as others have stated, induced abortion takes the life of living human beings. It is not the removal of a mole. Abortion is not cosmetic surgery, or removal of body fat. Abortion is not visit to the beauty parlor for a hair cut. Abortion is not getting one’s nails painted.

We all have a beginning as individual human beings. In order to arrive at our 20th birthday, enter college, earn a degree, become a carpenter, a mechanic, a track and field star, a kung fu master, a linguist, the president of the United States, go SCUBA diving, see the sunset in Arizona, Wyoming, India, Key West, Maui, or Kauai, Hawaii, or in order to meet a beautiful girl, fall in love, marry her, have children with her, and vise versa – for women, in order to meet a wonderful man, love him, marry him, have children with him, raise a family together, experience the sweetness of love, the joy of parenthood, and the wonderful adventure of family, and so much more in life, we all must first begin our lives.

We begin our lives as tiny human beings, as human embryos, which is merely a clinical term for the first eight weeks of our lives. Then we continue our lives in what is clinically referred to as the Fetal stage. During our first eight weeks, the embryonic stage, we pass through the most rapid stage of development in our lives, forming virtually all our major organs and body parts. During the fetal stage our body continues to mature and connections continue to be made.

This development is an overlapping process which continues even after birth and into adulthood.

Abortion kills us, or kills the new person, the new human being, thus cutting off their pathway to a glorious, wonderful, joyous life experience, the chance to love and to be loved, the chance to fail, the chance to succeed, the chance to weep, the chance to dance with joy.

Jimbo,

As I’ve stated elsewhere, (expanded here as follows) if rape, assault and battery, kidnapping, robbery, larceny, extortion, torture, and murder were legal and commonplace, as abortion is, would people be outraged if we spoke out against it and worked to end such abuse?

This is the reality of abortion.

Human beings, via induced abortion, against their will, are subjected to slaughter in various ways, including slicing and cutting and chopping their bodies to pieces, pulling their bodies apart, burning them with chemicals, inducing birth and killing them as they are being born, puncturing their skulls, introduction a suction hose and extracting the contents of their skulls, killing them. Some victims of abortion have survived and were left to die, while others have survived and are alive, living adult lives today.

No. The main difference between hate filled abortion advocates and the main impetus motivating abortion opponents, “Life choicers,” is the fact that real human beings are really being abused, and slaughtered.

Yes, it is right and just to oppose abortion and encourage a REAL choice, the Choice of life, just as it is right and just to oppose those violations of human beings I mentioned above – rape, assault and battery, kindapping, torture, murder, etc.

William2006 on February 3, 2010 at 6:46 AM

They are often intolerant, mean spirited, foul of mouth, full of venom, and often violent, something that few life choicers are

–Really? Because almost all the comments I seem to see on this blog from life choicers show intolerance, mean spiritness, foul words and being full of venom, including yourself.

Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Jimbo,

As I’ve stated elsewhere, (expanded here as follows) if rape, assault and battery, kidnapping, robbery, larceny, extortion, torture, and murder were legal and commonplace, as abortion is, would people be outraged if we spoke out against it and worked to end such abuse?

This is the reality of abortion.

Human beings, via induced abortion, against their will, are subjected to slaughter in various ways, including slicing and cutting and chopping their bodies to pieces, pulling their bodies apart, burning them with chemicals, inducing birth and killing them as they are being born, puncturing their skulls, introduction a suction hose and extracting the contents of their skulls, killing them. Some victims of abortion have survived and were left to die, while others have survived and are alive, living adult lives today.

No. The main difference between hate filled abortion advocates and the main impetus motivating abortion opponents, “Life choicers,” is the fact that real human beings are really being abused, and slaughtered.

Yes, it is right and just to oppose abortion and encourage a REAL choice, the Choice of life, just as it is right and just to oppose those violations of human beings I mentioned above – rape, assault and battery, kindapping, torture, murder, etc.

William2006 on February 3, 2010 at 6:46 AM

Thank you so damn much for this post.

KinleyArdal on February 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM

–Really? Because almost all the comments I seem to see on this blog from life choicers show intolerance, mean spiritness, foul words and being full of venom, including yourself.
Jimbo3 on February 3, 2010 at 9:38 AM

I can’t speak for others, but as Heinlein once wrote, “I’m an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch”.

You took an argument about a general policy and tried to personalize it around you and your own views and your own family in the trust that we’d be ashamed to condemn YOU. Well now you know better. You won’t be getting any apologies.

Chris_Balsz on February 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM

–Please don’t let people in Iowa or Appalachia know this. It’ll just give them an excuse to continue to have sex with animals.*

*– This should not be taken to imply that all people in Iowa or Appalachia have sex with animals, or that, in fact, that anyone in those two areas has ever, is considering, or will ever have sex with animals. Enjoy spirits responsibly. Do not attempt sex with animals at home. Void in Nebraska and other places where prohibited by law.

Jimbo3 on February 2, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I know you are trying to be funny.
But it isn’t.
If that is the first thing that comes to your mind when I pose a serious question about how abortion affects our genetic diversity, & therefore SURVIVAL, as a species, and you come up with people having sex with animals, it really is a window into your soul.
And the fact that you mention the Appalachians, & then deny you meant that the people who live there don’t do that with animals, & then mention NE, strikes me as extremely juvenile:you must not be very knowledgeable on the subject, so you make dumb, sick jokes.
I really have a point here on this subject.
By aborting our future offspring, we as a species are taking natural selection into our own hands.
We are inaverdently reducing our ability to survive future catastrophes (probably microbial) by reducing our genetic diversity as we kill our unborn.
Geneticists really need to take a hard look at this practice.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Badger, although you and I agree that abortion is bad, I’d say your argument is a poor one, and I can’t let it stand without refutation. As succinctly as I can manage: eugenics is an abhorrent practice; but I’d say your argument leads THERE more readily than to a pro-life position.

RegularJoe on February 3, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I’d say your argument is a poor one, and I can’t let it stand without refutation. As succinctly as I can manage: eugenics is an abhorrent practice; but I’d say your argument leads THERE more readily than to a pro-life position.

RegularJoe on February 3, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I didn’t mention eugenics. Where in that statement do see me mention eugenics at all?
Here is the official definition of eugenics:The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
I made a side point on the effect that abortion may have on our species.
Since everyone here has already made the moral argument, I provided another one not even related to morality to give pro-choicers another reason to think about why abortion is bad for our society.
My argument is not leading to a ‘eugenics’ position.
My argument has NOTHING to do with eugenics.
I am talking about how genetic diversity;the propagation of genetic material, AKA evolution: is important for our survival as a species.
I never once said we should breed for certain traits & not others.
I pose the problem that when you abort/kill people, who hold a variety of GENES (traits), you exacerbate the problem of our low genetic diversity.
Instead of aborting/killing people, we should consider other ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies so that we are not killing off our chances of a more diverse population.
Summary:
Aborted fetuses, human beings, may have genes that are important for our survival.
By getting rid of them in our population, we actually may be weakening our species.
So do not come down on me bcs you don’t know what’s going on.
Eugenics never entered into ANYTHING I’ve said on here.
I’m trying to be as nice as possible here, but really, do you even know what you are saying?
I am a staunch pro-life

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM

RegularJoe on February 3, 2010 at 1:38 PM

I am going to assume I know why you assumed eugenics in relation to my comment:
Ther mention of ANYTHING even remotely ‘Darwinian’, evolutionary, etc., brings out the ‘eugenics’ in people.
I mention genetic diversity & you automatically think survival of the fittest ergo natural selection- ergo eugenics.
That is not what biodiversity is about.
The study of eugenics is NOT what being ‘fit’ as a species is about.
The fitness of our species gets lost with every aborted child.
The aborted children I am talking about may have genetic diseases, problems, etc.
But they are STILL valuable to our genetic population.
I.e. a Down’s Syndrome child may have the genetic key to fighting a disease that we haven’t had to fight yet & if we abort them all as unwanted pregnancies, we are then at a disadvantage as a species.
So you can say that in some cases a side effect of abortion is eugenics.

Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6