Friday, March 27, 2009

Tiller jury: Evil, stupid, or both?

George Tiller Jury Finds Him Not Guilty of Violating State Late-Term Abortion Laws

I could cry. Basically they have established that this man can do anything he damned well pleases, and will never in this world be held accountable for it.

Kansas is entirely the Land of Abortionists, where there's no point even passing a law, because you can blatantly break it and get a jury to shrug it off.

What would this man have to do before anybody will hold him accountable?

36 comments:

Kathy said...

I was equally aghast. God have mercy on our country.

Katie said...

That's awful. I feel sick.

army_wife said...

I feel the same way. I was born in Kansas and have deep roots there. I hate what Tiller and his kind have made my home state. It's so demoralizing. It is disgusting what this man has gotten away with.

army_wife said...

However, I must add this: The Kansas Board of Healing Arts has brought Tiller up on 11 disciplinary counts, which mirror that which he was charged with in the criminal case, plus a charge of misleading or defrauding the public. So Tiller isn't completely off the hook yet. I hope they yank his license and end his crimes for good.

GrannyGrump said...

My hopes have been dashed so many times. I thought surely they'd hold him accountable for the death of Christen Gilbert. I thought that the trial would at least result in a hung jury. But I'm beginning to feel like Kansas is an outpost of Hell where God doesn't like to trespass.

army_wife said...

During the time that I've lived in Kansas, God has surely "trespassed" into my life and the lives of other Christians here. I guess He does that since we invite him. There are good people here. It is a mystery to me why they don't get off their duffs and do something. Perhaps so many of them have bought into the political correctness/secular-humanism mindset that they just don't see how bad abortion is. At least some of them see it and fight against it. Take Operation Rescue for example. I may not agree 100% with every little thing they do but most of it I find acceptable, and the important thing is that they are DOING SOMETHING to stand up for the right thing. I think some of the people who dislike abortion just feel discouraged and defeated -- like "what can I do about it? Nobody will listen to me so why try?". That's a shame but as humans we're prone to it at times.

Tlaloc said...

Or maybe, you know, he's innocent.

How many times have the prolifers gone gunning for this guy with everything they had only to have juries and review boards find their complaints without merit?

At some point it is worth revisiting occam's razor and checking if maybe it isn't everyone *else* who's wrong.

GrannyGrump said...

1. Welcome back, Tlaloc. I'd wondered where you'd gotten to.

2. If the woman really was so gravely ill that she needed for the pregnancy to be ended, a responsible doctor would check her into a hospital, not leave her in the LaQuinta attended by her mom.

The fact that Tiller wasn't referring these women to maternal/fetal medicine specialists, or high-risk OB/GYNS, is pretty rock solid evidence that he was looking for somebody to rubber stamp, not somebody to make sure that ending the pregnancy in a prolonged abortion was a better course of action than ending it with a live birth.

Tlaloc said...

Been pretty busy. I left Intel after 8 years this last september 9right before the economy crashed, not my best decision, but que sera sera).

As for Tiller, do you think you have more or less access to the pertinent information than the juries and review boards involved? That being the case isn't it just possible that your distance, and feelings about abortion, are clouding your judgment?

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, juries aren't infallible. One juror voted to acquit Dr. Kevorkian on the grounds of his own (the juror's) near-death experience. The guy said (the juror) "I was dead once, and it wasn't so bad!" Well, on those grounds you can't convict ANYBODY of murder!

And the prosecution in the Tiller case wasn't pointing out the fundamental absurdity of keeping allegedly gravely ill patients in a motel room without medical supervision. The prosecution didn't address how Neuhaus concluded that these women supposedly would suffer irreparable harm from delivering live babies, to the point where laboring in a basement to give birth to a dead baby in a toilet was preferable.

Or is the idea of a botched prosecution in a criminal case also as farfetched as the idea of a jury who didn't have enough information about how Tiller actually practices to pass judgment on what he does?

Tlaloc said...

You are right that juries aren't infallible. Hopefully you know though that pro-lifers aren't infallible either.

So that then all being equal you still have a situation where all of the (supposedly) impartial groups with access to all the verifiable details all reach one conclusion whereas a separate group of people with a definite bias, and who are much more likely to be influenced by innuendo and false rumors, reach the opposite conclusion.

BTW A long time ago I gave you an example of how it might be medically necessary for a woman to get an abortion WITHOUT them being "gravely ill" and needing hospitalization. It is possible.

Tlaloc said...

Let me put it another way-
how many review boards and juries would have to clear Tiller for you to consider he just might be innocent? 10? 50? 100?

If the answer is that no number would be sufficient, then what you seek isn't justice but a witch hunt.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, if you don't see abortion as an intrinsic evil, there's still the fact that in Kansas, post-viability abortions (those performed after any reasonable doctor would just induce labor or do a c-section) are supposed to be done only when the woman would suffer IRREVERSIBLE BODILY HARM if the pregnancy continued.

Can you postulate ONE condition in which a woman pregnant with a baby that COULD be delivered live, would be so gravely ill that she'd possibly die or suffer irreversible bodily harm unless she spent three days in the LaQuinta with her mom in an effort to ensure a dead baby?

Rachael C. said...

Incidences of George Tiller putting his abortion patients in a motel overnight once the abortion procedure has started aren't just rumors:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/002668.html

And can you justify why a patient in the process of a medical procedure should be left unattended (without medical staff) at a hotel overnight?

Rachael C. said...

For a late-term abortion, the process is 2 to 3 days. On the first day, the woman receives an injection which kill the fetus and cervical laminara are inserted as well as Misopristol may be given to soften and aide in dilating the uterus. The woman then returns to the hotel unattended by medical staff for the night. At this point, there is a possibility she may go into labor prematurely or develop a uterine infection (because the the amniotic sac may rupture and the cervix is dilated). On the second day, the woman will return to the clinic and may receive more laminara. Then returns to the hotel again unattended. On the third day, the procedure is preformed. The woman is given an anesthesic and either has a D&E or has labor induction and delivers a stillborn.

Can you explain to us why this women should

Keep in mind, while the Feministing article mentions nurses checking on patients after the procedure, what of patients during the procedure process. Can you justify why these women in the process of a medical procedure should be kept under little to no medical supervision at a hotel, especially considering potential for complications to arise (such as Cristin Gilbert's case).

Rachael C. said...

Here's another shared experience of a woman going into labor alone at the motel without medical supervision after the first procedure day and some shoddy practices on first procedure day.

Rachael C. said...

Arg, forgot the link:
http://operationrescue.org/pdfs/ArmestoComplaintNarrative.PDF

Rachael C. said...

Note: this is a copy of an official court document, which Operation Rescue is hosting on their site, not originating from OR, nor editorial.

Rachael C. said...

And my point? If the woman really was so gravely ill that she needed for the pregnancy to be ended, a responsible doctor would check her into a hospital, not start the procedure, then have her stay in a motel unattended overnight.

Tlaloc said...

"Can you postulate ONE condition in which a woman pregnant with a baby that COULD be delivered live, would be so gravely ill that she'd possibly die or suffer irreversible bodily harm unless she spent three days in the LaQuinta with her mom in an effort to ensure a dead baby?"

Sure, and I've given you this example before-
Imagine a woman with a dramatically narrow uterus, enough so that natural childbirth would be life threatening. Imagine also that she has some condition that makes major surgery like a c section highly risky. Say for instance hemophilia. In that case you have a woman who is not gravely sick and yet needs an abortion or her life will be in immediate risk.

Now was that the case with any of Tiller's patients? I have no way of knowing, but it's a clear example that such circumstances could occur. You cannot rule out the possibility.

Tlaloc said...

"And can you justify why a patient in the process of a medical procedure should be left unattended (without medical staff) at a hotel overnight?"

How is this different than a hospital giving a treatment to a pregnant woman to speed the onset of labor and then letting her go home until labor actually starts?

Rachael C. said...

Imagine a woman with a dramatically narrow uterus, enough so that natural childbirth would be life threatening. Imagine also that she has some condition that makes major surgery like a c section highly risky. Say for instance hemophilia. In that case you have a woman who is not gravely sick and yet needs an abortion or her life will be in immediate risk.

If such were the case, then the woman would more than likely be considered high-risks and would better served in a fully-equipped hospital with close medical monitering, than an outpatient clinic.

Well, on one hand, you give the example of a normal, healthy, low-risk pregnancy for an example of why it's ok for to leave a laboring woman in a hotel room unsupervised, but on the other hand, you cite the example of late-high-risk pregnancies for why we need late-term abortionists like Tiller, and your examples are conflicting. Which point are you trying to make, healthy women are seeking late-term abortions or high-risk women?

And let's quit with the hypothetical situations and look at real statistics from the AGI Institute given for reasons for late-term abortions.

Endangerment to the woman's health and fetal abnormality actually make up a small percentage of late-term abortions, the most common reasons are social.

From the Alan Guttmacher Institute
An Overview of Abortion in the United States: Reasons for Abortions After 16 Weeks Since Last Menstrual Period

Woman did not realize she was pregnant
71%
Difficulty making arrangements for abortion
48%
Afraid to tell parents or partner
33%
Needed time to make decision
24%
Hoped relationship would change
8%
Pressure not to have abortion
8%
Something changed during pregnancy
6%
Didn’t know timing was important
6%
Didn’t know she could get an abortion
5%
Fetal abnormality diagnosed late
2%

Other
11%

Tlaloc said...

"Well, on one hand, you give the example of a normal, healthy, low-risk pregnancy for an example of why it's ok for to leave a laboring woman in a hotel room unsupervised, but on the other hand, you cite the example of late-high-risk pregnancies for why we need late-term abortionists like Tiller, and your examples are conflicting. Which point are you trying to make, healthy women are seeking late-term abortions or high-risk women?"

Christina has said there's no conceivable situation in which a woman might need an abortion for medical reasons and yet not need hospitalization. So I gave precisely such an example.


"And let's quit with the hypothetical situations and look at real statistics from the AGI Institute given for reasons for late-term abortions. Endangerment to the woman's health and fetal abnormality actually make up a small percentage of late-term abortions, the most common reasons are social."

That's fine, and personally I would prefer late term abortions only occurred for medical reasons. But putting up those statistics for why on average women get late term abortions is hardly proof that Tiller performed illegal late abortions under Kansas law.

Can you answer the question I posed? How many juries and review boards would have to find in Tiller's favor before you might reconsider your position that he's guilty?

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, if she can't tolerate "natural childbirth" -- but which I assume you mean vaginal delivery -- then she's not a candidate for Tiller anyway because he does labor induction abortions post-viability. If going through a normal vaginal delivery in a fully equipped hospital to give birth to a live infant after an untampered-with pregnancy is too risky, surely having the uterus tampered with in order to kill the fetus, then spending three days in a motel room prior to expelling the fetus in a basement toilet of an outpatient facility is riskier. Especially if she has a bleeding disorder and might need critical care to treat an obstetric hemorrhage.

As for hemophilia in pregnancy, it's treatable.

Should we count this as just one strike and give you two more chances to come up with a single scenario in which what Tiller does is the medically indicated course of action for a third-trimester mother?

GrannyGrump said...

And Tlaloc, the question was about Tiller's supposedly medically necessary third trimester abortions. That's what he was on trial for. You're contending that those abortions really were medically necessary and that Neuhaus was really doing consults for medical need.

Kathy said...

Tlaloc,

How would a narrow uterus cause a vaginal birth to be dangerous or impossible? That's a new one on me.

But you didn't really answer GG's question. Why the injection to kill the baby before the abortion procedure is done? If the pregnancy must be ended, why not let it end in a live birth? The baby is alive in the womb and viable outside the womb; the abortion procedure is not appreciably different from a medical induction done in a hospital to preserve the mother's life or health, or because her baby is in danger -- the only difference is the intentional death of the baby, rather than intending to keep him or her alive.

Also, in case you haven't realized, there's potential for a lot of blood to be lost in non-hemophiliac women in a standard vaginal birth, as well as in a surgical birth. Or in an abortion. I'm really at a loss to explain how it can make sense for a hemophiliac to have an abortion outside of a hospital which is prepared to deal with her complications.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, if she can't tolerate "natural childbirth" -- but which I assume you mean vaginal delivery -- then she's not a candidate for Tiller anyway because he does labor induction abortions post-viability."

Why is it so hard to imagine a situation where the abortion interrupts the growth of the fetus before it becomes too large to pass through the canal?


"As for hemophilia in pregnancy, it's treatable."

I wasn't talking about the hemophilia complicating childbirth but a C section (i.e. major surgery).

"Should we count this as just one strike and give you two more chances to come up with a single scenario in which what Tiller does is the medically indicated course of action for a third-trimester mother?"

I guess that depends on whether you want to hold me to the same impossible standard you apparently have for him.

You never did answer my question...

Tlaloc said...

Kathy,
I think my answer to Christina above covers your points as well, if you disagree I'll revisit them.

Kathy said...

Tlaloc,

It's not too hard to imagine ending a pregnancy before the baby becomes larger or "too large" -- it happens all the time in every hospital in the country. It's called "induction," and almost always ends in the live birth of the baby, which is its intended course. Many women undergo induction because they believe the baby will become too large to be born vaginally, so seek to begin labor before the baby becomes larger. But this scenario is killing a viable baby -- it's alive inside the womb and can survive outside the womb. The only difference between a medical induction and an abortion at this point is the intended death of the baby in an abortion and the intended life of the baby in an induction. The process of Tiller's abortion is similar to an induction in a hospital, except inductions don't start by injecting digoxin into the baby's heart to kill it, and most inductions are accomplished in a matter of hours, rather than over the course of several days.

I'm still curious about the "narrow uterus" bit.

And you haven't satisfied me as to why it is necessary to kill the baby before it is born, even if it is medically necessary to induce labor before the baby becomes larger.

GrannyGrump said...

Notice that Tlaloc changed the topic from it being even theoretically possible that Tiller's third trimester abortions are legal, to the idea that it's possible that an abortion may be medically advisable.

Come on, Tlaloc. Surely you're inventive enough to come up with a left-handed albino dwarf with sickle cell disease, lupus, and HIV, who developed gestational diabetes and toxemia after suffering 3rd degree burns in the car wreck that broke her pelvis. Come on!

Tlaloc said...

"I'm still curious about the "narrow uterus" bit."

I'm not sure what about that is unclear to you. You are trying to move a sizable object through what is normally a narrow passage. This is very hard on the woman. In the case of a woman with an even narrower passage it may be beyond hard and into life threatening.


"And you haven't satisfied me as to why it is necessary to kill the baby before it is born, even if it is medically necessary to induce labor before the baby becomes larger."

Because allowing the pregnancy to proceed may put a lethal stress on the mother. Again, I find it hard to believe that you can envision no possible set of medical circumstances in which this is the case.

Tlaloc said...

"Notice that Tlaloc changed the topic from it being even theoretically possible that Tiller's third trimester abortions are legal, to the idea that it's possible that an abortion may be medically advisable."

I did no such thing. Clearly Tiller's abortions are legal since multiple juries have found them to be legal. What I've been arguing is your contention that the situation that makes them legal is impossible in reality to occur.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that (even though you know less of the details than the jury) you can know Tiller's guilty because logically his defense cannot occur.

And neither of you has yet been brave enough to answer my question. I find that pretty telling.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, the law was written to meet the insane invention of the US Supreme Court (judges, not doctors) that there be a "health" allowance for post-viability abortions -- something that is nonsensical now that the cranioclast is a thing of the past.

It's as if the law dictated that police must allow motorists to drive cars that have been certified unroadworthy, as long as TWO mechanics have certified that the car isn't fit to drive.

Give me one scenario in which a woman in the third trimester could be so gravely ill that she needs to spend three days in a motel room with the fetus rotting inside her before expelling it in the basement toilet of an outpatient facility, in preference to ending the pregnancy in a fully-equipped hospital in a more timely manner.

Kathy said...

Tlaloc,

I finally understand -- you mean "narrow pelvis" not narrow uterus.

The scenario of a woman who is at risk of lethal complications from surgery while being physically unable to give birth to a full-term infant is possible, but it's a low probability. It's even less of a probability that she will get to the stage of pregnancy where her baby is viable before finding out of her condition; but let's say that she does.

So, she has to end her pregnancy before the baby gets any larger. (Actually, it's very unlikely that she can only safely give birth to a 1.5lb baby, and a 2-pound baby won't fit through her pelvis, but let's say that this is true.) She can choose to induce labor and give birth to a live 1.5lb baby, or she can choose to have her doctor give her baby a lethal injection first and then induce her labor. The pregnancy is equally terminated; the induction procedure is very similar if not identical; the baby is equally born intact -- but in the first instance, the baby is alive, and in the second instance it's dead.

So the question then becomes WHERE IS THE MEDICAL NECESSITY OF KILLING THE BABY PRIOR TO STARTING THE INDUCTION PROCEDURE WHICH IS THE SAME FOR AN ABORTION AS IT IS FOR LIVE BIRTH? Without the lethal injection, the baby would be born alive and have a very good chance of survival. We are agreeing that the pregnancy needs to be ended before the baby gets larger. What I am wanting from you is the medical necessity for ensuring the death of the baby prior to the induction procedure.

Kathy said...

P.s. Do you also believe O.J. Simpson is also innocent of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson & Ronald Goldman, just because a jury found him not guilty?

GrannyGrump said...

Kathy, you also forgot that in the Tiller dead-baby scenario, the baby is killed three days before delivery, and the mother spends those three days in a motel room attended by whoever she brought with her. Tlaloc is insisting that there are conceivable circumstances in which this would be safer than having the mother spend that time in a fully-staffed and fully-equipped hospital, with the baby alive rather than rotting.