--sexkitten-- wrote:

Oh? You posted it, but you don't agree with it? So do you disagree
with your quote or not?

You lied, what else needs to be said? You could apologize but that
isn't something you are capable of doing. You think you are always
right and everyone else is wrong.
Let the lie remain on the records, I don't want your apology.

How the hell this came up under my name, I don't know. I didn't write it.

--sexkitten-- wrote:

Oh? You posted it, but you don't agree with it? So do you disagree
with your quote or not?

You lied, what else needs to be said? You could apologize but that
isn't something you are capable of doing. You think you are always
right and everyone else is wrong.
Let the lie remain on the records, I don't want your apology.

How the hell this came up under my name, I don't know. I didn't write it.

--sexkitten-- wrote:

Oh? You posted it, but you don't agree with it? So do you disagree
with your quote or not?

You lied, what else needs to be said? You could apologize but that
isn't something you are capable of doing. You think you are always
right and everyone else is wrong.
Let the lie remain on the records, I don't want your apology.

How the hell this came up under my name, I don't know. I didn't write it.

Adam H. wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 20:33:02 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 20:07:53 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 18:59:44 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 17:24:10 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Louise Mallard wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 18:32:03 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
wrote:

On 27 Aug 2005 13:23:03 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Gaia wrote:

On 15 Aug 2005 04:49:01 -0700, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Are partial-birth abortions

No such procedures.

<clip>

Legislators and medical dictionaries disagree with you.

***** Heishman is lying again. There are no such medical
dictionaries.

Fischer is so worried and having to jump in and try to lie he snipped
out this.. Oh, and he is such a coward he didn't even mark his snip.

"Partial-birth abortion" is a legal term of art, defined by Congress as

***** Heishman is trying to distract from his latest screwup.

No news at 11.

***** Fischer as usual, afraid of the evidence presented thinks that

You lied. You got caught again.

With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are
not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure's impact

Are you now going to claim that you have a medical degree, *****?

Did I say that *****?

Not one of you can prove partial birth abortions are used to save a
woman's life.

Lying again, Mary Anne?
Yes, you are.
Osprey runs from this proof, nothing new there.

"D&X presents a variety of potential safety advantages over other
abortion procedures used during the same gestational period."
- Brief of Amici Curiae American College of Obstreticians and
Gynecologists et. al. in Stenberg v. Carhart, USSC.

"An intact D&X...may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a
particular circumstance TO SAVE THE LIFE OR PRESERVE THE HEALTH OF A
WOMAN, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based
upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The
potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical
practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical
to the lives and health of American women."
- ACOG, "Abortion Policy" (emphasis mine, since Mary Anne isn't so
good at reading for content).

"This bill violates a fundamental principle at the very heart of the
doctor-patient relationship: that the doctor, in consultation with the
patient, based on that patient's individual circumstances, must choose
the most appropriate method of care for the patient. The bill removes
decision-making about medical appropriateness from the physician and
patient."
- ACOG, "American College of Obstreticians and Gynecologists on the
Subject of 'Partial-Birth Abortion' Bans."

"The record shows that significant medical authority supports the
proposition that in some circumstances, D&X would be the safest
procedure."
- USSC, Stenberg v. Carhart

"Defendants claim that a D&X could never be necessary to save a
woman's health, but the evidence at trial failed to support that
contention...There are women who cannot undergo an induction or
hysterotomy, and the D&X is either as safe or safer than the D&E for
those women...Therefore, this Court finds that the D&X could be used
to preserve a woman's health and must be available to physicians and
women who want to rely upon it."
- US District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Rhode Island
Medical Society v. Whitehouse.

"The evidence before the Court is that, in some pregnancies, there may
be no alternative procedure that would protect the health of the
mother as effectively as would the D&X procedure."
- US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond
Medical Center for Women v. Gilmore.

Forget it, AdamH.--Bob Heishman doesn't give a damn what facts are
available.

I know that you don't like to ask for sources and verifications...
But if you hadn't noticed, let me point it out.

My comment
"Not one of you can prove partial birth abortions are used to save a
woman's life."

It still stands true, none of you can point out any PBA's that have
been actually used to save a woman's life.

Of course there are going to be some in congress and some medical
professionals that will argue the term and the issue, that doesn't
refute the statements and sources I brought forth on PBA's.

Yes, what I gave you does in fact tidily refute everything you brought
forth, coming as it does from the authority on the matter. You, of
course, are too much of a coward to respond.

Oh? You are talking to me? I thought you were talking to someone
named MaryAnne.
Well if you are trying to talk to me now...no, your information didn't
refute anything. You gave some statements provided by a few in the
medical field during the national debate on the banning of PBA, that
was all you had done. As far as proving any PBA's have been done to
save a woman's life, you have failed to provide any proof.

I gave you statements given by the organization that is the
representative of over 40 THOUSAND Ob-Gyns.

As for this 'save a woman's life' bumf, you're changing your demands.
I have proven that the medical community considers D&X to be a
necessary procedure and one that could save lives, as you originally
asked.
"Are partial-birth abortions medically necessary to save the mother's
life or protect her from injury?" you asked. Yes, the D&X is medically
necessary in some cases.

Yet you have failed to provide one single case where D&X was necessary
to save a woman's life.

But that wasn't what you asked for, was it? No, it wasn't. I have
provided what you asked for ("Are partial-birth abortions medically
necessary to save the mother's life or protect her from injury?"). It
seems that the authoritative source believes that D&Xs are.

You have failed to provide one single case where D&X was not the
appropriate procedure. Your demand there is designed to be
un-fulfillable since you know that medical records are confidential -
in other words, you're moving the goalposts and hoping nobody notices,
then you'll claim victory. Not going to work, though.

Besides, you've already admitted that 'pba' is as medically accurate
as 'heart attack'

Why are you lying?

Did you or did you not say that 'PBA' is as much a medical term as
'heart attack' is?
1124111656.508078.208390@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Yes, it seems you did. But 'heart attack' is not an accurate medical
term. I know of at least 4 differing types of 'heart attack', with
different effects and different treatment.

Now, why are you accusing me of lying?

Because "I" did not say that. So yes, I am accusing you of lying.

Oh? You posted it, but you don't agree with it? So do you disagree
with your quote or not?

You lied, what else needs to be said? You could apologize but that
isn't something you are capable of doing. You think you are always
right and everyone else is wrong.
Let the lie remain on the records, I don't want your apology.

Go back to sleep, you are boring me at this time and I will pull you
back off the shelf at a later time when I am ready.

So you can't dispute that you've been refuted. We knew that already.
Your admission is accepted.

What admission?

Is it to try to threadjack away

from your inability to address the facts I provided and which refuted
your claim that so-called 'PBA' (D&X) is never medically necessary?

- which is to say, hardly at all. The demand you

make now requires access to confidential medical records. If you think
you can get them, go to it. But I'm not going to follow when you move
the goalposts after being proven wrong.

"D&X presents a variety of potential safety advantages over other
abortion procedures used during the same gestational period."
- Brief of Amici Curiae American College of Obstreticians and
Gynecologists et. al. in Stenberg v. Carhart, USSC.
(So much for your insistence that hysterotomy is always better).

"An intact D&X...may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a
particular circumstance TO SAVE THE LIFE OR PRESERVE THE HEALTH OF A
WOMAN, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based
upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The
potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical
practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical
to the lives and health of American women."
- ACOG, "Abortion Policy"
(So much for your denial that D&X can save lives).

"Defendants claim that a D&X could never be necessary to save a
woman's health, but the evidence at trial failed to support that
contention...There are women who cannot undergo an induction or
hysterotomy, and the D&X is either as safe or safer than the D&E for
those women...Therefore, this Court finds that the D&X could be used
to preserve a woman's health and must be available to physicians and
women who want to rely upon it."
- US District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Rhode Island
Medical Society v. Whitehouse.
(So much for your claim that D&X can't save lives).

The issue, again...started out with someone saying that no medical
dictionary's recognize PBA, I provided legitimate sources to say that
they do.

That's like saying that unicorns exist because the word is in the
dictionary.

Medical dictionary, which was what was claimed to not be true.
Go back to sleep

You still have yet to refute the sources I gave. Shall we take it that
you are unable to? Does it seem like I'm interested in your dictionary
war? This 'issue' started out with your originating post
1124106541.100363.171690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
in which you claimed that D&X is never medically necessary and I have
refuted that claim with expert testimony. Now, you could try to
provide proof in the f