| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
06 Sep 2003 07:05:57 PM |
| Object: |
One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
On September 5, 2003, LifeNews posted an article by Maria Gallagher
titled: "Pennsylvania Allows Abortion Facility to Open in Erie."
http://www.lifenews.com/state128.html
________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
Pro-life advocates say they're shocked that the Pennsylvania
Department of Health has given the go-ahead for disciplined
abortion practitioner Steve Brigham to open an abortion
center in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Brigham, who has lost or been forced to give up his medical
license in several states, has a long history of medical,
ethical, and legal violations. Even abortion advocates have
attempted to distance themselves from him because of his
questionable business practices.
Pennsylvania Health Department officials have opted to waive
a requirement that would forced Brigham to obtain transfer
agreements from local hospitals. The transfer agreements
generally state the hospitals will treat women who suffer
from complications following botched abortions.
[...]
Tim Broderick, director of the Erie-based People For Life
organization, tells LifeNews.com several local hospitals
have now gone on record as saying they will accept Brigham's
patients if emergencies arise.
Broderick wonders whether that will mean that these hospitals,
including the Catholic St. Vincent's, will end up completing
botched abortions at Brigham's American Women's Services
facility.
[...]
Officials at American Women's Services abortion business in
Erie have confirmed they will be doing abortions on mothers
who are as far as six months along in their pregnancies.
[...]
________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
Can't help but wonder who got the under-the-table payoffs
necessary to complete this sleazy deal?
Just one more of many examples of bottom-of-the-barrel
type doctors attracted to the swamp of the abortion
industry.
They know the radical liberals will come to their defense
regardless of how many medical, ethical, and legal viola-
tions they commit -- or regardless of how many women they
injure..
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
06 Sep 2003 08:15:24 PM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2003 17:05:57 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
On September 5, 2003, LifeNews posted an article by Maria Gallagher
titled: "Pennsylvania Allows Abortion Facility to Open in Erie."
http://www.lifenews.com/state128.html
________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
Pro-life advocates say they're shocked that the Pennsylvania
Department of Health has given the go-ahead for disciplined
abortion practitioner Steve Brigham to open an abortion
center in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Brigham, who has lost or been forced to give up his medical
license in several states, has a long history of medical,
ethical, and legal violations. Even abortion advocates have
attempted to distance themselves from him because of his
questionable business practices......
Meanwhile, a couple of unbiased reports:
http://pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1062737656232311.xml
ERIE, Pa. (AP) — An abortion clinic has been approved for Erie County,
where the procedure has not been available for more than 20 years.
"We are committed and dedicated to making freedom of choice a reality
for the women of Erie," said Linda Locke, chief operating officer of
American Women's Services. "For too long, the women of Erie have been
forced to drive out of the county to have abortion services provided
to them."
Dr. Steven Brigham had been seeking to open the clinic in downtown
Erie for nearly four years. It will also treat women for sexually
transmitted diseases and provide reproductive health services.
The state Department of Health granted Brigham an exemption from a
required transfer agreement between a clinic and a hospital that
agrees to provide emergency services to the clinic's patients. No area
hospitals would sign the agreement, but state and federal laws require
hospitals to treat patients in emergency situations.
Dave Halligan, one of a handful of protesters with People for Life, a
national anti-abortion organization, said, "This is a sad day for Erie
County... We need to be here, to tell the women that come through here
about loving alternatives."
http://216.87.159.43/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=3516
Friday, September 05, 2003
Questions And Concerns Over Erie Abortion Clinic
People on both sides of the abortion issue say they`re surprised about
the opening of an abortion facility here in Erie.
The announcement came Thursday that American Women`s Services on Peach
Street will begin offering abortions later this month.
Dr. Steven Brigham has been trying for years to offer abortion
services in Erie. Now that the Pennsylvania Department of Health has
given him the go ahead, his office in the Professional Building on
Peach Street will begin offering the service starting on the 19th of
this month.
Both pro-life and pro-choice activists say they thought the project
hit a roadblock when no hospital in the region would give the facility
the required transfer agreement. But the state has now waived the
requirement because several hospitals in our region are federally
funded. That means they`re required to treat a patient even if the
patient`s emergency is a result of an abortion at American Women`s
Services.
Dr. Brigham voluntarily surrendered his medical license back in 1992,
so although he is running the facility, he will not be performing the
actual abortion procedure.
=============================================
If Pro-Lifers would stop killing abortion providers Government
officials would be able to give the job to a more qualified doctor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Jackass |
07 Sep 2003 10:41:46 PM |
|
|
Dorothy <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
The fact is that new and old doctors are staying away from the scuzzball
field of abortion even with the money that they can make.
The fact is that you're a dishonest nutcase.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
08 Sep 2003 06:31:00 PM |
|
|
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message > news:<jg47b.291745$Oz4.80843@rwcrnsc54>...
"Trish" <Discotrish@msn.com> wrote:
[...]
=======================================================================
MINXS wrote:
[snip]
Certainly there are a few doctors who do nothing but perform
abortions, and some of them are sleazy indeed....
=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
MINXS finally wrote something I can agree with.
=======================================================================
MINXS wrote:
...And it's also true that the medical community largely
went on regarding abortion as an underground, criminal
activity even after it was legalized. That's not because
of the nature of abortion itself,
=======================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Let's review:
[...]
In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the
Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the
observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a
matter of less importance we could entertain no com-
promise. An honest judge on the bench would call things
by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans.
of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871). It proffered resolu-
tions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recom-
mending, among other things, that it "be unlawful and
unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or
premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at
least one respectable consulting physician, and then
always with a view to the safety of the child - if that
be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy
of all denominations to the perverted views of morality
entertained by a large class of females - aye, and men
also, on this important question."
Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal
abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place
until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human
Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of
opposition to induced abortion, except when there is
"documented medical evidence" of a threat to the health
or life of the mother, or that the child "may be born with
incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,"
or that a pregnancy "resulting from legally established
statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a
threat to the mental or physical health of the [410 U.S.
113, 143] patient," two other physicians "chosen
because of their recognized professional competence
have examined the patient and have concurred in writing,"
and the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited
by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals."
The providing of medical information by physicians to
state legislatures in their consideration of legislation
regarding therapeutic abortion was "to be considered
consistent with the principles of ethics of the American
Medical Association." This recommendation was adopted
by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA
House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967).
In 1970, after the introduction of a variety of proposed
resolutions, and of a report from its Board of Trustees,
a reference committee noted "polarization of the medical
profession on this controversial issue"; division among
those who had testified; a difference of opinion among
AMA councils and committees; "the remarkable shift in
testimony" in six months, felt to be influenced "by the rapid
changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which
tend to make abortion more freely available;" and a feeling
"that this trend will continue." On June 25, 1970, the House
of Delegates adopted preambles and most of the resolutions
proposed by the reference committee. The preambles emphasized
"the best interests of the patient," "sound clinical judgment,"
and "informed patient consent," in contrast to "mere acquies-
cence to the patient's demand." The resolutions asserted that
abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a
licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consul-
tation with two other physicians and in conformity with state
law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to
violate personally held moral principles. 38
Proceedings [410 U.S. 113, 144] of the AMA House of
Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council
rendered a complementary opinion. 39
[Roe v. Wade; Section VI., para. 6
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=410&invol=113#160
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
08 Sep 2003 07:52:10 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0309081531.4a0edbf9@posting.google.com>, Papa Jack
<papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Papa Jack laughed:
MINXS finally wrote something I can agree with.
=======================================================================
MINXS wrote:
...And it's also true that the medical community largely
went on regarding abortion as an underground, criminal
activity even after it was legalized. That's not because
of the nature of abortion itself,
=======================================================================
You are the most unbelieveable liar on this newsgroup. You have no
shame? I guess that you wrote the following: (Let's review)
Papa Jack corrected:
Let's review:
[...]
"We had to deal with human life ... a matter of less importance..."
[...] An honest judge on the bench would ... do no less." 22 Trans. of
the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).
It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39,
recommending, among other things, that it ... be lawful and ...
professional for any physician to induce abortion premature labor.
In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of
a stated policy of ... induced abortion ..."to be considered consistent
with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association."
This recommendation was adopted [because it] emphasized "the best
interests of the patient," "sound clinical judgment," and "informed
patient consent." 38 Proceedings [410 U.S. 113, 144] of the AMA House
of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a
complementary opinion. 39
This is Papa Jack's idea of a news article. One in which he edits the
crap out of it so that it looks like it says something different.
This is the "pro-life's" idea of truth and honesty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
09 Sep 2003 06:45:56 PM |
|
|
John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com> wrote in message
news:<080920031752103694%john@amelgmm.com>...
In article <6f9e1b49.0309081531.4a0edbf9@posting.google.com>,
Papa Jack <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote:
=======================================================================
MINXS wrote:
[snip]
Certainly there are a few doctors who do nothing but perform
abortions, and some of them are sleazy indeed....
=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
MINXS finally wrote something I can agree with.
=======================================================================
MINXS wrote:
...And it's also true that the medical community largely
went on regarding abortion as an underground, criminal
activity even after it was legalized. That's not because
of the nature of abortion itself, ...
=======================================================================
John Signorelli blabbered:
You are the most unbelieveable liar on this newsgroup.
You have no shame? I guess that you wrote the following:
(Let's review)
=======================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
Did you look at the source I clearly cited, John:
[Roe v. Wade; Section VI., para. 6]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=410&invol=113#160
IOW, I quoted from the applicable section in the
Roe v. Wade decision written by Justice Blackmun.
John screeches and calls me names without bothering to
explain what actually bothers him.
Typically, it really doesn't matter to most PARs, they
just substitute name calling for facts.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Let's review:
[...]
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
"We had to deal with human life ... a matter of less importance..."
[...] An honest judge on the bench would ... do no less." 22 Trans. of
the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).
It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39,
recommending, among other things, that it ... be lawful and ...
professional for any physician to induce abortion premature labor.
In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of
a stated policy of ... induced abortion ..."to be considered consistent
with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association."
This recommendation was adopted [because it] emphasized "the best
interests of the patient," "sound clinical judgment," and "informed
patient consent." 38 Proceedings [410 U.S. 113, 144] of the AMA House
of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a
complementary opinion. 39
=======================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Do you have an URL for all this, John? I'm not really sure what
you're struggling to tell us.
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
This is Papa Jack's idea of a news article....
=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
No, John, NOT a "news article." As I clearly showed
above, I quoted the sixth paragraph of Section VI of
Roe v. Wade. Did that get you confused?
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
...One in which he edits the crap out of it so that it looks
like it says something different.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
No, I didn't "...edit(s) the crap out of it...." I simply
quoted a paragraph from a famous court decision which
made the point I wanted to make.
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
This is the "pro-life's" idea of truth and honesty.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
And, this is a PAR's idea of "debate." Sling some pig
dirt, and holler foul.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
09 Sep 2003 07:54:45 PM |
|
|
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
"We had to deal with human life ... a matter of less importance..."
[...] An honest judge on the bench would ... do no less." 22 Trans. of
the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871).
It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39,
recommending, among other things, that it ... be lawful and ...
professional for any physician to induce abortion premature labor.
In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of
a stated policy of ... induced abortion ..."to be considered consistent
with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association."
This recommendation was adopted [because it] emphasized "the best
interests of the patient," "sound clinical judgment," and "informed
patient consent." 38 Proceedings [410 U.S. 113, 144] of the AMA House
of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a
complementary opinion. 39
=======================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Do you have an URL for all this, John? I'm not really sure what
you're struggling to tell us.
It is the same URL that you provided. I merely "edited" it
differently. As to what I am "struggling" to tell you, I am saying
that you take articles that say one thing, modify them with your
ellipses and bald face deletions, and make some wild claim about what
was said that is a lie. I've observed you do it numerous times but
never said anything until now.
(Message to Chris and Osprey-ellipses are those funny little "..."
marks that he uses when he wants to make a sentence of paragraph say
something it doesn't.)
It would work like this:
Bill Clinton says "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Papa Jack says Bill Clinton said "I did ... have sex with that woman,
Monica Lewinsky."
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
This is Papa Jack's idea of a news article....
=======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
No, John, NOT a "news article." As I clearly showed
above, I quoted the sixth paragraph of Section VI of
Roe v. Wade. Did that get you confused?
Not at all. I just assumed you were trying to pass it off as a news
article based on your past conduct. You know, where you quoted
pro-life propaganda and press releases as "news."
=======================================================================
John Signorelli wrote:
...One in which he edits the crap out of it so that it looks
like it says something different.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
No, I didn't "...edit(s) the crap out of it...." I simply
quoted a paragraph from a famous court decision which
made the point I wanted to make.
No you didn't. You edited it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
08 Sep 2003 10:42:55 PM |
|
|
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/
http://www.humanlife.net/prolifephysicians.html
http://www.nursesforlife.org/
Time to hear from others in the medical profession.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
09 Sep 2003 12:45:44 PM |
|
|
"Dorothy" <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote in news:3%b7b.400224
$uu5.73542@sccrnsc04:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/
http://www.humanlife.net/prolifephysicians.html
http://www.nursesforlife.org/
i already knew tese were anti-choice kook sites but thanks for
posting it for readers to note.
you certainly wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think that
anything these crazies posted was true.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
09 Sep 2003 09:18:33 AM |
|
|
In article <3%b7b.400224$uu5.73542@sccrnsc04>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/
http://www.humanlife.net/prolifephysicians.html
http://www.nursesforlife.org/
Time to hear from others in the medical profession.
LOL! Hardly professionals. Is this the best you can do? Three links
to pro-life propaganda sites?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Abortionist |
09 Sep 2003 10:05:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 07:18:33 -0700, John Signorelli <john@amelgmm.com>
wrote:
In article <3%b7b.400224$uu5.73542@sccrnsc04>, Dorothy
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/
http://www.humanlife.net/prolifephysicians.html
http://www.nursesforlife.org/
Time to hear from others in the medical profession.
LOL! Hardly professionals. Is this the best you can do? Three links
to pro-life propaganda sites?
Well, it's not like anybody's ever done better, is it? Why should
Dorothy stand out from the crowd?
---
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
08 Sep 2003 08:46:59 PM |
|
|
On 9/7/03 9:02 PM, in article
nyQ6b.188370$2x.53365@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dorothy"
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
The fact is that new and old doctors are staying away from the scuzzball
field of abortion even with the money that they can make. They feel there
is something unsavory about the entire field and after putting so much money
into their training, they would rather make their money saving lives rather
than killing them off. There were doctors who went along with the
euthanasia program in Germany and here in the US. I'm sure they were also
looked down on by those with higher ideals.
At least 55 million people, born ones -- die annually. I'm open to reasons
why I should care for this lot over my fellow borns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dorothy" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
09 Sep 2003 10:23:49 AM |
|
|
Because respect for all human life encourages us to be decent to each other.
If any group of humans becomes disposable for the convenience of another
group, it encourages that action toward other groups. You casually state
that 55 million die annually. You show no caring in your statement regarding
these deaths, stating no reasons or ages, or where the number applies.
There appears to be no caring that is being diluted by adding another group
to your concern list.
"Ron Nicholson" <balie@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:BB82A950.2B2E2%balie@rogers.com...
On 9/7/03 9:02 PM, in article
nyQ6b.188370$2x.53365@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net, "Dorothy"
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
The fact is that new and old doctors are staying away from the scuzzball
field of abortion even with the money that they can make. They feel
there
is something unsavory about the entire field and after putting so much
money
into their training, they would rather make their money saving lives
rather
than killing them off. There were doctors who went along with the
euthanasia program in Germany and here in the US. I'm sure they were
also
looked down on by those with higher ideals.
At least 55 million people, born ones -- die annually. I'm open to reasons
why I should care for this lot over my fellow borns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
09 Sep 2003 10:26:24 AM |
|
|
Dorothy <Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
Because respect for all human life encourages us to be decent to each other.
Which is why you call people baby murderers.
"Respect".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: One More Bottom-of-the-Barrel Type |
07 Sep 2003 08:46:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:02:11 GMT, "Dorothy"
<Zuukie@Comcast_nospam_.net> wrote:
The fact is that new and old doctors are staying away from the scuzzball
field of abortion even with the money that they can make. They feel there
is something unsavory about the entire field and after putting so much money
into their training, they would rather make their money saving lives rather
than killing them off. There were doctors who went along with the
euthanasia program in Germany and here in the US. I'm sure they were also
looked down on by those with higher ideals.
And it has nothing to do with nut-balls threatening to kill them, and
in some cases doing so?
=============================================
If Pro-Lifers would stop killing abortion providers Government
officials would be able to give the job to a more qualified doctor.
Larry
(this space unintentially left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
