Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery


Just in case you didn’t think anti-choice activists could get any lower—a fair supposition, considering the murders of abortion providers and “activism” mostly aimed at trying to shame women for abortion—welcome to the next phase, which involves attempts to humiliate a dead woman for getting a medically indicated abortion. Obviously, anti-choicers are sensitive to P.R. and so know better than to admit openly they’re trying to shame a dead woman and harass her family, so they pretend that they’re sharing her private information and putting her face and name on placards out of “concern.” But like any concern trolls, the actual concern is a put-on, meant to make the hateful sentiments behind it harder to call out.

The story is simple: A patient at Dr. Carhart’s office in Germantown, MD passed away recently while undergoing a very late term (reported at 33 weeks) abortion. Her loss is devastating no doubt for her doctors as well as her family, but sadly, surgery is a risky undertaking. People die from all sorts of surgery, including minor surgeries like knee surgery. When it comes to pregnancy, death is rare, but not unheard of—indeed, giving birth is 14 times more dangerous than abortion. Despite the higher risks of childbirth, however, no one would ever insist on not allowing women to choose childbirth, because we understand that few things in life are risk-free.  Indeed, the standard with surgery—including later abortions—is to weigh the risks of surgery against the risks of continuing the pregnancy, and, having discovered the latter are higher, choosing the surgery instead. Is that an absolute guarantee that surgery will never be risky? No, but it’s also not an absolute guarantee that you won’t die in a car wreck on the way to your surgery, either.

Two major things make the anti-choice explanation of this woman’s death (and no, I won’t name her, because I respect her family’s right to privacy, unlike the anti-choicers who have forced this issue by not respecting her privacy) so upsetting. First is the utter inability of anti-choicers to understand concepts like “informed consent,” especially when it comes to women. Second is the utter lack of logic of their position, which only makes sense if you believe that there should be no medical interventions to help a woman.

Taking these one at a time, let’s tackle the first. As noted, childbirth is 14 times more dangerous than abortion. It’s true that later abortions are more dangerous than the vast majority of abortions, shrinking these numbers, but nonetheless, we know this: The patient was having a medically indicated abortion. Anti-choicers would have you believe that women abort at 33 weeks because they’re bopping along, being too dumb for basic rational thought—this is assumed to be a standard trait in women—when an evil abortion provider lures them through tightly-honed seduction techniques into getting an abortion. Anti-choicers claim the motive for this supposed scheme is profit, though it’s well-established that a profit-motivated obstetrician would make way more money delivering babies than aborting pregnancies. 

Here’s the reality: Maryland prohibits post-viability abortions unless the mother’s health is in danger or the fetus has a serious defect. We may not know the particulars of this woman’s case, but we know that she had a medically necessary reason for her abortion, and was likely referred by her obstetrician. We know she was excited to have this baby, because she had a Pinterest board full of links like this and this. Taken together, it’s easy enough to understand the utterly obvious: This woman had a pregnancy gone horribly wrong and needed an abortion for medical reasons, an abortion that was no doubt difficult to choose because it represented the loss of a much-wanted baby. To paint her as some sort of moron who was hoodwinked into an abortion because she was too dumb to know better is beyond vile. That’s a level of misogyny that assumes women have no brains at all, that assumes women are too stupid to make even the most basic decisions about their lives with the assistance of expert advice. This is a worldview that assumes that a woman’s consent to surgery doesn’t matter, because it’s a worldview that assumes women are too low to be able to make decisions, much less consent to anything.

The only way out of that conclusion is to argue that doctors shouldn’t perform a medically necessary surgery because it has risks. Which leads up to anti-choice logic fail number two: Their argument, by necessity, can only be an argument against the very existence of medicine. Yes, surgery has risks, and that means some people die. But if a single person’s death means that the surgery should never happen, that means we should stop performing surgeries. That means no more heart surgery, knee surgery, kidney transplants, or even mole removals. Each of these carries risks, and by anti-choice logic, since the only acceptable risk rate is 0%, that means none of these can be performed. Sure, in many cases, the risk of not doing it is exponentially more fatal than the risk of doing it. But we’re talking about people who saint women for dying rather than accepting medical interventions. They’re clearly willing to accept higher death rates if it meant fewer interventions in reproductive health care; I just demand that they be logically consistent and object to all surgical interventions on the grounds that it’s better to run the much higher risk of dying of natural causes than take the smaller risk of dying from interventions. Oh yeah, and hold only themselves to this standard, instead of infringing on the right of the rest of us to trade small risks for the opportunities to be healthier in the long run.

The eager dash to invade this woman’s privacy and belittle her in her death by insinuating she was too stupid to know what she was doing and was somehow being exploited by her doctors demonstrates everything you need to know about the anti-choice movement: They’re heartless, not caring how much they hurt this woman’s family in the eagerness to shame her for an abortion, even after she’s died. They’re idiots, pretending not to know that surgery carries risk and that doesn’t mean that people have to weigh benefits against the risk. And they’re deeply, deeply sadistic, not only in wanting to force women to undergo dangerous pregnancies gone horribly wrong, but also not even letting the few who pass away have any peace from their vicious shaming of women for making complex reproductive decisions, even women who, for medical reasons, had no good choice at all. Any attempts to pretend that the anti-choice movement isn’t a bunch of organized misogynists who mindlessly want to sacrifice women’s futures and even lives for the hell of it should be put to rest by this disgraceful abuse of a woman’s memory, simply because they disagree with her choice to end a pregnancy gone wrong. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • http://twitter.com/irisvanderpluym Iris Vander Pluym

    Well said! And thanks for the Monday morning rage, Amanda. Works much better than coffee at getting my blood going.

    “Anti-choicers would have you believe that women abort at 33 weeks
    because they’re bopping along, being too dumb for basic rational
    thought—this is assumed to be a standard trait in women…”

    Pure projection on their part: their minds are casualties of a faith-based worldview, one that encourages magical nonsense and the word of authority over basic rationality, ergo, everyone’s must be.

    “…when an evil abortion provider lures them through tightly-honed seduction techniques
    into getting an abortion.”

    More projection—of their own gullibility. The world is a fearful place full of dangerous predators who can easily take advantage of the stoopid wimmenz.

    In my more benevolent moments I almost feel sorry for them. But then I remember that they’d wish me dead if I got pregnant, and I feel pretty good about despising and mocking them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=578762983 Cait McKnelly

    I have had just one burning question ever since this story broke. Why was this woman who was so far along in her pregnancy, a WANTED pregnancy from all indications, and having a medically indicated abortion not cared for in a hospital and instead, forced to go to a free standing out patient clinic for her care?
    I can answer that question but the only logical answer isn’t palatable. She was forced to go there because of fear. Hospitals fear the state and their anti-abortion laws. Doctors fear the state and their anti-abortion laws. Doctors also fear anti-abortionists that murder doctors. This woman’s life was taken from sheer thuggery and fear. The lives of women are being lost to FEAR and not only are states allowing it, they are complicit in it. This is just one more example of the institutionalized abuse that women suffer at the hands of the state.

    • Caro13

      Cait, you are absolutely right that the lack of abortion care availability in most hospitals (at any stage of pregnancy or for any indication) is a problem and a result of anti-choice intimidation of doctors and institutions. However, as far as I’ve heard, there is no reason to believe that this patient received a lower standard of care from Dr. Carhart and his team than she would have in a hospital setting or that not being in a hospital contributed to her death. In fact, the reason women with serious medical problems necessitating a later abortion travel from all over the country to see Dr. Carhart is that he is one of the only doctors in the country who actually has the expertise and experience necessary to do such procedures. That in and of itself is the problem, though, as you indicated — there *should* be doctors throughout the country, particularly at major hospitals, who are trained to provide abortion in all sorts of circumstances and willing to offer it, but there simply aren’t at this point.

      • keefers42

        some doctors don’t want to murder babiesthey save life not end it

        • HeilMary1

          Most doctors don’t want fetuses murdering mothers!

        • Origami_Isopod

          Typical semi-literate fetus humper.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1042389310 Sapphron Grace

          Your inability to properly construct a sentence is just as indicative of your lack of intelligence as your over-simplification of a complex situation. In any event, it is NO ONE ELSE’S BUSINESS when a woman decides to abort.

        • http://www.facebook.com/melissa.mccann Melissa McCann

          But happy to murder a woman by not providing a medically necessary abortion.

    • Amanda Marcotte

      I wouldn’t worry too much; she went to Dr. Carhart because he’s a specialist in this procedure. Yes, abortion politics means there are very few specialists in late term abortion, but for the individual patient, you go to Dr. Carhart because he’s better and therefore safer than anyone else. That doesn’t mean nothing ever goes wrong—nothing is full-proof. But most OB-GYNs don’t know how to do an abortion at 33 weeks.

      But don’t blame Dr. Carhart. This is NOT the result of incompetence on his part, nor would it follow that someone better would be doing this if there were more people in the field. Sometimes doctors doing surgery lose patients. It happens.

      • Margaret Sanger

        Too Clever Amanda, the “unnamed woman” wanted her baby dead because the prospect of a live birth was beyond her willingness to deal with it. Oh, Dr. Carhart’s incompetence, in fact, killed her.

        • Ginny_in_CO

          She wanted her baby dead? The prospect of a live birth may have been impossible. Fetal death does occur in utero, unexpectedly and unrelated to OB care. Is that ‘defective’ enough for you?und had revealed the fetus had anencephaly? That means the brain had not developed and will not develop. The baby dies very shortly after the umbilical cord is cut. Not enough brain to breathe spontaneously, let alone see, hear, feed, talk, etc. That qualifies as ‘defective’ for me.(FWIW, I took embryology in college.) The difference in size from 33 weeks to 40 is very significant, adds to the increased mortality rate of childbirth.

          Some of the leaked information about her symptoms and sudden death shortly after she arrived at the hospital point to a complication that is significant in pregnancy, labor, delivery and postpartum. It can be a nasty problem, or lethal. I’ve been an RN since ’77. 16 years in critical care with experience in a preterm labor unit plus in home care with infusions to prevent early labor. Some things happen that are not predictable or preventable. The complication I suspect can be associated with surgery, whether a c-section, orthopedic, chest, etc. And that particular complication can be so bad, it is virtually impossible to save the patient. In all my years, I know of one person, and all the cardiologists, internal med docs and other specialists that worked the unit had never known one either. The specialist brought in was aware of the really small percent who had survived.

          People who have had organ transplants see some similarities. The operation is a choice, it can save your life or take it. The worst case scenario happened here in Denver ~ 2 years ago. The organ donor was a live family member, who died of one of those low but possible risks shortly after the surgery. The organ transplant team had the donor, patient and other family members discuss the possibility prior to the surgery so, they were better prepared to deal with the outcome.

          Everyone should have access to good medical care and the freedom to chose to follow their physician’s advice or not. Just heard of a new study that found stress levels are elevated to dangerous levels when the person is having problems in a relationship. I have often wondered how many of the patients using a Planned Parenthood Clinic for any kind of OB Gyn care are at higher risk because of the protesters traumatizing them. It is cruel, disrespectful and selfish to impose your beliefs on another person when their actions are legal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1042389310 Sapphron Grace

            Very excellent information and exceedingly well stated.

        • HeilMary1

          From the Washington Post:
          “burntnorton
          2/9/2013 7:15 AM EST Michael, a woman is not a Tupperware container for babies. Being pregnant involves the active participation of the woman. Every cell in her body is affected. Every organ works to sustain and grow the fetus. She is virtually guaranteed to suffer significant weight gain, extreme pain, disfigurement, incontinence, insomnia, and nausea. She faces a significant risk of internal organ damage, months or years of post delivery incontinence, genital damage, hemorrhage, diabetes, stroke. . .
          And that doesn’t even touch on the fact that pregnancy is a leading
          cause of death and disability for young women.

          You cannot be forced to donate so much as an ounce of blood (the risk of whoch is gleeting pain and in rare circumstances an “easily treated injection site infection) even if you are the only person available to to so and your own child will die within the day from injuries you caused. But you would force women into 10 months of total slavery rather than let them safely terminate a 2 week old fetus.”

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/guns-vs-abortions/2013/02/07/eb24d0a0-6fd0-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_allComments.html#comments

        • B. Hutchings

          Are you insane? I think its pretty clear her life was on the line in the first place, or else she wouldn’t have been referred to a late term procedure.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_732V2LZRFSFTTGUDDQYJSSRE7M Maude

      One of my women’s lit professors, who was born in Russia and lived in Germany for years, remarked that the most striking difference to her between American and Western European reproductive health care is that, in Europe, women go to the same clinic to both birth their babies and terminate their pregnancies. All of the procedures fall under the umbrella of women’s reproductive health care, and all happen in the same building, by the same doctors. In American abortion politics, abortion is separate. Women know you don’t go to the same place to have a baby as to have an abortion. Abortion facilities perhaps developed in this way due to conservative gender attitudes in the broader culture, religious hostility toward birth control and abortion, or the fact that the heavily male-focused institution of medicine never fully accepted abortion as a legitimate medical need, etc. There are probably many reasons. In any case, though I would not doubt the quality of care at American abortion facilities, it definitely allows for abortion to be alienated from “regular” reproductive health needs and designated as the “opposite” of birth in the public consciousness, rather than as part of the continuity of a woman’s whole reproductive life. This is a huge vulnerability to our abortion-care networks. Conservatives are aware of the cultural work that’s already been done to alienate abortion and will continue to take advantage of it by passing regulations attempting to close stand-alone abortion clinics.

      • nettwench14

        That’s fascinating. I have never thought of it that way. They are definitely guilty of trying to separate women’s reproductive health as something that is elective and not a necessity, which is how they have characterized the whole birth control coverage debate.

      • Kathi J

        Prior to Roe (legal) abortions were performed in hospitals by OB/GYN’s who also delivered babies and frequently was paid for by insurance. That all changed after Roe and one of the reasons was probably cost, the cost of a hospital abortion far exceeds what free-standing abortion clinics charge.

    • Maryanna Price

      Every doctor, every clinic, every hospital should be required to perform abortions at all stages of pregnancy. No exceptions. “Pro-life” means you choose to give birth no matter what, not that you get to make women’s medical decisions for her.

      • http://twitter.com/Tonks07 Mandy

        I agree!

        Relevent quote:

        “Doctors in emergency rooms have no right to
        refuse to provide medical care to someone who overdosed on heroin, even though
        heroin is illegal and many people are morally opposed to its recreational use.
        They have to care for drunk drivers, even though driving drunk is both illegal
        and a pretty universally assy thing to do. Why, then, should a hospital be
        forced to bend over backwards to accommodate people’s religious beliefs
        surrounding abortion, a legal medical procedure protected by the Constitution?”

        — Erin Gloria Ryan, “Nurses Fight
        For Their Right To Refuse Women Care”

    • John Raymonda

      And now to make matters worse, we have the “trap” laws being enacted in Mississippi and North Dakota (see http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/07/north-dakota-senate-passes-trap-law-passes-so-called-personhood-amendment/ ) and under consideration in other states that will use draconian requirements and regulations to eliminate non-hospital abortion facilities.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1736499491 Baron Von Poogle

    The idea that these people think women are utter morons isn’t that far fetched. I recently had a discussion with one of these types who told me in all sincerity women abort to save their figures. He totally believed that. Was one of the most enlightening moments for me to realize the depths of stupidity humans have fallen to, when people ACTUALLY believe stuff like that.

    • brself

      I would bet $100 (and I’m not prone to gambling) that the guy you mention also judges women by their “figures.”

      • HeilMary1

        And justifies cheating on, divorcing and even shooting them when they lose their looks to childbearing! That type runs Washington, DC and the Catholic Church.

        • keefers42

          don’t know where you get your info but it’s wrong no such thing in the church

          • HeilMary1

            You don’t read newspapers!

    • Kathi J

      A woman who posts on Yahoo boards says the reason most “girls” get abortions is to keep their size “0” figures. Stunningly stupid.

  • Pingback: Daily Feminist Cheat Sheet

  • http://twitter.com/bsaunders Barbara R Saunders

    Let’s face it: the attack on late-term pregnancy is really an attack on early-term pregnancy. Women like this poor soul are simply casualties to that strategy. Change the calculation of when pregnancy begins, and a few more women seeking abortions end up over the line. Move the definition of “late-term” from, say, 22 weeks to 20 weeks, and a few more women end up over the line. There’s always a ticking clock: to discover that one is pregnant, to get the money together, to travel to the clinic. And then there’s whatever hoop women have to jump through to prove the length of the pregnancy. Second doctor’s opinion? That takes time, too. It’s all about stalling people.

    • nettwench14

      That’s absolutely evident in these laws they are passing with ultrasounds and waiting periods. As well as an attack on the affordability of the procedure. It’s all about whittling away at access, since they can’t repeal Roe v. Wade. Frankly, I don’t understand how any of these laws imposing hurdles on a legal procedure are constitutional. Especially a law mandating any kind of medical procedure!

    • Maryanna Price

      The attack on later terminations doesn’t even make sense; if they really wanted to attack the “whores” and “sluts” and “welfare queens” and drive-through abortionistas, they would seek to ban all abortions before twenty weeks. The women receiving later abortions are usually doing it because they are the ones who “deserve” them: the dying women and rape victims.

  • Margaret Sanger

    The unnamed woman, unnamed out of respect for “her family’s right to privacy,” of course, had a “(reported at 33 weeks) abortion” because she didn’t want to give birth to a baby who was initially wanted until she found out that it was DEFECTIVE, period.

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      Excuse me, but unless you’re an actual friend or member of this woman’s family (which I doubt)–you have no idea what was going on with this woman’s pregnancy or how it was affecting her health. Therefore, the drivel you’re spouting is just so much ignorant speculation–something that anti-choicers seem to be indulging in with regards to this case.

      • Margaret Sanger

        Excuse me, but your friend Amanda Marcotte doesn’t mind spouting as much ignorant speculation as possible about the “unnamed woman” at the heart of this tragedy, but you agree with her, which is to say that you agree that this “unnamed woman’s” baby needed to be killed by LeRoy Carhart. Sadly, his “medical expertise” also resulted in her death. —– Original Message —–
        From: Disqus
        To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
        Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:11 PM
        Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

        Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

        Excuse me, but unless you’re an actual friend or member of this woman’s family, you have no idea what was going on with this woman’s pregnancy or how it was affecting her health. Therefore, the drivel you’re spouting is just so much ignorant speculation–something that anti-choicers seem to be indulging in with regards to this case.
        User’s website

        Link to comment

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          I agree that this was a personal matter involving this woman, her family and her doctors, And this was a wanted pregnancy gone horribly wrong. What the situation was, I don’t know–and neither do you, Buford. But I respect this woman’s right to make her choice and to take the risk that is inherent in any surgery. Furthermore, I think her family deserves to be able to mourn privately,without having their lives turned into a circus without being stalked and attacked by rabid anti-choice fanatics who saw fit to release her name without asking her family’s permission.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Jennifer,

            At 33 weeks gestation, and NO reasons cited as to actual threats to the mother’s HEALTH -at least none noted by Amanda- it appears to me that the ONLY reason why a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy at this late stage is because she didn’t want to give birth to a DEFECTIVE baby who would no doubt pose a severe FINANCIAL and EMOTIONAL BURDEN to her and hers, if the baby even survived delivery. THIS was my entire point, even if YOUR KIND would rathe tar me as a “rabid anti-choice fanatic.” Damnit, woman, I want to save BOTH lives. DO YOU? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:52 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I agree that this was a personal matter involving this woman, her family and her doctors, And this was a wanted pregnancy gone horribly wrong. What the situation was, I don’t know–and neither do you, Buford. But I respect this woman’s right to make her choice and to take the risk that is inherent in any surgery. Furthermore, I think her family deserves to be able to mourn privately,without having their lives turned into a circus without being stalked and attacked by rabid anti-choice fanatics who saw fit to release her name without asking her family’s permission.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • katecrowe

            You have no idea if the fetus was even viable. Her doctors indicated the abortion, and the patient accepted their diagnosis. You don’t belong in the middle of that decision.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Kate,

            Neither do you have any idea if her fetus was “even viable,” not that this matters to you, really. “Her doctors” indicated the abortion? Name them. Oh, btw, you don’t belong in the middle of that decision, either, not that you care, really.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:34 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            katecrowe wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You have no idea if the fetus was even viable. Her doctors indicated the abortion, and the patient accepted their diagnosis. You don’t belong in the middle of that decision.
            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Kate’s not trying to insert herself in the middle of that decision, Buford. But you are, and you have no right to be there.

          • HeilMary1

            Don’t you have a pedophile priest protection convention to be attending at this time?

          • goatini

            “Name them”? WE are not the ones violating HIPAA here.

          • Margaret Sanger

            I don’t know that anyone violated HIPPA here, as most of the information about the “unnamed woman” at the heart of this tragedy could have been gleaned by doing elementary detective work, like observing and tracking her behavior with one’s own eyes.

          • goatini

            And you were there “observing and tracking her behavior”? If you’re not law enforcement, and if you don’t have (a) justifiable probable cause and/or (b) a warrant, if you were there, you were stalking, which is a violation of privacy. Same as obtaining access to and disseminating information from someone else’s healthcare records are violations of privacy.

          • Margaret Sanger

            No, I wasn’t there, and no, standing on a public sidewalk and observing someone entering Carhart’s abortion clinic every day for four days and then being hauled off in an ambulance isn’t stalking. It is reporting the facts as seen.

          • goatini

            No, it’s stalking and harassment. If someone stood outside my primary physician’s office monitoring his/her every movement, s/he would have every right to report a stalking crime.

          • cjvg

            That would still not give you her name or her place of employment or her fetuss gestational age, pregnancy abnormalities, that this was her 3 pregnancy, the sex of the fetus, that she has 2 other children or her age etc.
            All these can only be obtained when you illegally access her private medical files.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Have you seen her facebook page?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:34 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            That would still not give you her name or her place of employment or her fetuss gestational age, pregnancy abnormalities, that this was her 3 pregnancy, the sex of the fetus, that she has 2 other children or her age etc. All these can only be obtained when you illegally access her private medical files.
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Why would I access the Facebook page of a woman I do not know, and who’s name I do not have?!
            For what reason?
            How would I even legally acquire her name?!
            I do not track down women I see in parking lots or clinics.

            It is not that easy to obtain the name of a woman who you do not know anything about and who is staying in a hotel.
            When you do not work in law enforcement it is almost impossible to do so legally when someone is not staying in their own home or at work.

            And no, a hotel does not disclose the name of their guests for privacy and safety reasons. If a hotel worker does that they will get fired on the spot.
            And were their female guests are concerned the rules are even more strict, for safety and liability reasons alone if anything.

            Illogical and absurd reasoning if we can even grace this nonsense with that term

          • SamMcCall

            YOU ARE ONE CRAZY BROAD. You need help.

          • goatini

            “She” is not female.

          • Origami_Isopod

            Don’t use misogynist language. And Buford is using the name “Margaret Sanger” because anti-choicers like to yawp on about Sanger being pro-eugenics… which many, many people were in her day. I never hear the same complaining about Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.… I wonder why?

          • Kathi J

            Don’t hear them being willing to give up their phones either – add Alexander Graham Bell to the list of people who were in favor of eugenics.

          • Kathi J

            She wasn’t “hauled off” in an ambulance from the clinic, she went to the hospital from her hotel room, so someone was either stalking her by following her from the clinic to her hotel and/or a hospital employee contacted OR and told them she had come to the hospital and died. Stalking + violation of patient privacy/confidentiality.

          • Margaret Sanger

            How do you know this?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:30 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kathi J wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            She wasn’t “hauled off” in an ambulance from the clinic, she went to the hospital from her hotel room, so someone was either stalking her by following her from the clinic to her hotel and/or a hospital employee contacted OR and told them she had come to the hospital and died. Stalking + violation of patient privacy/confidentiality.
            Link to comment

          • Kathi J

            I’ve read several reports about this , she went to the clinic 4 times and each time anti-choicers were outside watching, On the final day, after the abortion she left with her husband and an older woman, later she was admitted to Shady Grove Hospital where she died.

          • Margaret Sanger

            We’ll never know, but I honestly wonder if the woman would be alive today had she decided to carry this pregnancy to its natural end, even if the “baby” (what a controversial word!) died in the process. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:18 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kathi J wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I’ve read several reports about this , she went to the clinic 4 times and each time anti-choicers were outside watching, On the final day, after the abortion she left with her husband and an older woman, later she was admitted to Shady Grove Hospital where she died.
            Link to comment

          • Kathi J

            We will probably never know and it’s really not our business exactly what was wrong with the baby and whether or not she (a baby girl) would have survived delivery. All we know is that this was definitely a wanted baby and something went horribly wrong. All surgical procedures have risks and the woman made her choice.

          • cjvg

            The causes of death listed for her also occur during childbirth, and will cause death then too

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Observing and tracking behavior, sure. Let’s call it what it is–it’s stalking, which is something that “pro-lifers” love to do to doctors, clinic workers and even patients.

          • Margaret Sanger

            It’s also something that JOURNALISTS do, to get the scoop.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:43 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Observing and tracking behavior, sure. Let’s call it what it is–it’s stalking, which is something that “pro-lifers” love to do to doctors, clinic workers and even patients.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Journalists don’t protest in front of people’s homes, churches and send their neighbors nasty pamphlets. Journalists also don’t bomb clinics and shoot doctors.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Looks like you’ve won this round!
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:57 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Journalists don’t protest in front of people’s homes, churches and send their neighbors nasty pamphlets. Journalists also don’t bomb clinics and shoot doctors.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            And furthermore, a journalist would’ve attempted to contact the family before posting the information and invading the privacy of a woman who had done nothing wrong.

          • Margaret Sanger

            There are journalists, and then there are paparazzi!
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:59 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And furthermore, a journalist would’ve attempted to contact the family before posting the information and invading the privacy of a woman who had done nothing wrong.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Paparazzi take pics of celebrities and sell them to magazines. This woman was not a celebrity. And they also don’t protest in front of people’s private homes, churches, send their neighbors pamphlets or bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Let’s call it what it is, all right? Terrorism.

          • Margaret Sanger

            If it were terrorism, they would be prosecuted. Evidently, it ISN’T. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:18 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Paparazzi take pics of celebrities and sell them to magazines. This woman was not a celebrity. And they also don’t protest in front of people’s private homes, churches, send their neighbors pamphlets or bomb clinics and shoot doctors. Let’s call it what it is, all right? Terrorism.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Actually, quite a lot of them have been prosecuted. Scott Roeder, Paul Hill, Eric Rudolph, Michael Griffin, James Kopp–to name just a few. Your side always pretends to condemn these people while you pretend to be non-violent, while at the same time giving tacit approval and encouragement to these terrorists.

          • SamMcCall

            After Dr. Tiller was brutally murdered, I remember reading commentary on a news board from nutso antis about how “Carhart is next.” THEY ARE NUTS and THEY ARE TERRORISTS!

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            Let’s not call them nuts-that could imply that they aren’t fully competent. They are fanatics determined to impose their worldview on everyone and they’re willing to commit acts of violence and terror to do so.

          • SamMcCall

            Okay. Well I think we can call them terrorist because isn’t that the definition of terrorist? One who wants to elicit fear and terror from others? The fact that I chose not to take a job at an abortion clinic because my husband feared for my safety tells me that, yes, they are indeed terrorists.

          • SamMcCall

            Yep. I work in the medical field and my husband didn’t want me to take a job at an abortion clinic because he feared for my safety. He knows, as do most sane people, how crazy these rabid, misogynistic anti-choicers are. They are sinister.

          • cjvg

            And you believe that every single pregnant woman on the street is followed , tracked and has her behavior documented in case she might have an abortion?
            Even the nut cases do not have the man power to do that!
            Details about the gestational age of the fetus and what abnormality the fetus had is not available in the public sphere or from?tracking? a woman!
            Do you have any capacity for reason or logic at all ?
            Apparently any lie, no matter how blatantly false or untenable will do

          • Margaret Sanger

            1. No
            2. Some
            3. Said the pot to the kettle.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:28 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And you believe that every single pregnant woman on the street is followed , tracked and has her behavior documented in case she might have an abortion? Even the nut cases do not have the man power to do that!
            Details about the gestational age of the fetus and what abnormality the fetus had is not available in the public sphere or from?tracking? a woman! Do you have any capacity for reason or logic at all ?
            Apparently any lie, no matter how blatantly false or untenable will do
            Link to comment

          • Kathi J

            HIPPA and Maryland’s patient confidentiality laws were both violated by someone, probably a hospital employee, who notified Operation Rescue of the woman’s death, details of her abortion and statements given when she was admitted. I truly hope that person is discovered and prosecuted.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Some of that confidential info has been echoed here, even by Amanda, but then, it was already public knowledge by then, wasn’t it? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:27 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kathi J wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            HIPPA and Maryland’s patient confidentiality laws were both violated by someone, probably a hospital employee, who notified Operation Rescue of the woman’s death, details of her abortion and statements given when she was admitted. I truly hope that person is discovered and prosecuted.
            Link to comment

          • Origami_Isopod

            LOL, idiot keeps replying with their email address, which OF COURSE translates to “church law.” Which you and the pedo-coddling RCC want to impose of the rest of us, including those who wouldn’t spit on Ratzi the Nazi if he were on fire. I hope you’ve been getting lots of hatemail.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Your bile arrives by email, so that’s how I respond to it.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:21 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Origami_Isopod wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            LOL, idiot keeps replying with their email address, which OF COURSE translates to “church law.” Which you and the pedo-coddling RCC want to impose of the rest of us, including those who wouldn’t spit on Ratzi the Nazi if he were on fire. I hope you’ve been getting lots of hatemail.
            Link to comment

          • nettwench14

            How do you know this wasn’t done to save the woman’s life? You don’t so stop spamming with your ridiculous, outrageous judgemental posts!

          • Margaret Sanger

            nettwench,

            Have you read ANYWHERE that this abortion was procurred to save the woman’s life?
            I judge that those who insist that unborn human beings are DISPOSABLE PRIVATE PROPERTY are WRONG.

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:22 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            nettwench14 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            How do you know this wasn’t done to save the woman’s life? You don’t so stop spamming with your ridiculous, outrageous judgemental posts!
            Link to comment

          • athenap

            “I judge,” Margaret? Really? Isn’t that Someone Else’s job, hmmm? Or did that Someone step away and leave you in charge? You know what they say about pride, and hubris, and Judgement…or weren’t you paying attention that day?

          • HeilMary1

            You mistreat all women as disposable incubators for pedophile priests!

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            If fetuses are not private property, are they public property? If they are public property, are women then also public property? Are they public property only in case of pregnancy, or are all women pre-pregnant and, thus, public property as well?

          • Margaret Sanger

            Fetuses should be recognized in law as their own property, even if not free “persons.”

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            You seem to have overlooked the pesky detail that the fetus resides in the body of another–a person who is more than just an incubator.

          • Margaret Sanger

            And the father is also a person who is more than just a sperm donor, yet his say counts for zilch legally, which means that he has more in common with his baby -half of which is technically his, if we want to talk PROPERTY RIGHTS- than he does with the mother of his child.

          • goatini

            At the time that a pregnancy termination occurs, there is no “baby”. And since the woman takes ALL the risks in pregnancy, your specious concept of “property rights” is invalid.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Wow! Aren’t you the semantics freak! Tell me! Was it a “product of conception” that the “unnamed woman” ditched?

          • goatini

            Using accurate terminology has nothing to do with “semantics”, except to people who have an agenda to use inaccurate terminology as a method of intentional dissemination of deliberate disinformation.

          • SamMcCall

            Don’t you know by now how much fundie anti-choicers hate us explaining science and what is and what isn’t scientific fact? Hey, Maggie, ya troll, SCIENTIFIC FACTS: A zygote is a newly fertilized egg that travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus. An embryo is what the zygote becomes once it implants in the uterus. A fetus is what the embryo is called starting at week 8 and ending at birth. FACTS!!!!

          • HeilMary1

            Fathers don’t have the right to force deadly pregnancies on women. That’s MURDER! Using fetuses instead of fists to murder women should put fathers and priests in jail!

          • Kathi J

            And if a man had legal rights to prevent a woman from having an abortion wouldn’t he also have the same rights to force her to terminate a pregnancy?

          • cjvg

            Ownership of people is illegal in this country.

            A fetus is not a person and most certainly not equal to a living breathing woman.

            Also a fetus does not cross the clinical brain activity delineation that is routinely used to determine if someone is actually dead or alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation.
            Well after the point of viability that was set at 24 weeks.
            At that point no legal abortion can be obtained unless the life or health of the mother are endangered or the fetus is severely compromised.

            If a person is clinically brain dead, life support is routinely discontinued and organs for transplant are harvested.
            No murder charges are ever filed !
            Stands to reason that if we accept this marker as the end of life we should also accept it as the beginning of life?
            Abortion is not murder since no life is ended
            This case is slightly different but again the fetus suffered from severe encephalopathy which means that it had no real brain activity and would have died upon birth or sooner.
            Again no other life then the woman was involved

          • Margaret Sanger

            Ah, so the non-living indwelling entity “suffered from severe encephalopathy.” How did you obtain this information? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:42 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Ownership of people is illegal in this country.

            A fetus is not a person and most certainly not equal to a living breathing woman.
            Also a fetus does not cross the clinical brain activity delineation that is routinely used to determine if someone is actually dead or alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation. Well after the point of viability that was set at 24 weeks.
            At that point no legal abortion can be obtained unless the life or health of the mother are endangered or the fetus is severely compromised.
            If a person is clinically brain dead, life support is routinely discontinued and organs for transplant are harvested. No murder charges are ever filed !
            Stands to reason that if we accept this marker as the end of life we should also accept it as the beginning of life? Abortion is not murder since no life is ended
            This case is slightly different but again the fetus suffered from severe encephalopathy which means that it had no real brain activity and would have died upon birth or sooner. Again no other life then the woman was involved

            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Really, so you feel that strongly that a woman needs and should be forced to give donate her rights to hold her body sacrosanct for the benefit pf a third party. Even if it is against her will.

            In that case, is this only a valid stance when the body in question is female or is it the same for a male? (it better be the same, since there is no humane, legal or medical reason why it should not be unless you are just the garden variety sexist reasonless religion nut)

            So you then must be a live donor right?!
            You are registered to donate a kidney, some liver, skin, maybe a cornea since you do not need two, bone marrow etc
            After all you can save an already existing precious life by doing so.
            Just think of the children and adults you can save by donating the use of your body (i don’t really care if you want to or not)

            You also will bear all the health risk for that live donation as well as all the financial costs and the possibility that you might lose you job etc.
            Just leave me your address and we will be at your door with the transplant team tommorow

          • Margaret Sanger

            I’m a registered bone marrow donor and often give whole blood. I recently topped 3 gallons. When I die my body is going to the Human Gift Registry at West Virginia University Hospital. What exactly are you doing to advance the cause of LIFE? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:03 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Really, so you feel that strongly that a woman needs and should be forced to give donate her rights to hold her body sacrosanct for the benefit pf a third party. Even if it is against her will.
            In that case, is this only a valid stance when the body in question is female or is it the same for a male? (it better be the same, since there is no humane, legal or medical reason why it should not be unless you are just the garden variety sexist reasonless religion nut)
            So you then must be a live donor right?!
            You are registered to donate a kidney, some liver, skin, maybe a cornea since you do not need two, bone marrow etc After all you can save an already existing precious life by doing so. Just think of the children and adults you can save by donating the use of your body (i don’t really care if you want to or not)
            You also will bear all the health risk for that live donation as well as all the financial costs and the possi bility that you might lose you job etc. Just leave me your address and we will be at your door with the transplant team tommorow
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Giving blood is without risk and requires minimal effort, it will most certainly never results in death or permanent health impairments.

            Giving blood is not a 40 week (10 months) ordeal that will leave you feeling sick , nauseated, tired and will impair your bodily functions during and after for many months.
            It will not impair your ability to work or cost you heaps of money in medical care and additional clothes. Hardly comparable.

            Being a registered bone marrow donor is a positive step but you have never actually gone through with it, so were is the effort?!

            Live kidney or liver donations can be matched right now!!!!!!
            No waiting required!, people die everyday day on that list!!!

            Of course I do expect you to cover all expenses for the surgery and related health cost associated with that yourself, out of principal right.

          • Origami_Isopod

            When the father can carry the z/e/f for nine months himself and give birth to it, with all the medical risks that entails, he can have a “choice.”

          • Margaret Sanger

            Have you ever given birth to an “it?”
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:24 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Origami_Isopod wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            When the father can carry the z/e/f for nine months himself and give birth to it, with all the medical risks that entails, he can have a “choice.”
            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            We aren’t talking “property rights.” Only you are. We’re talking privacy and bodily autonomy rights, which do apply to women, since they are in fact persons.

          • HeilMary1

            Suppose your health, life, looks, marriage and job are threatened by the following “tumor”:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu
            Should men threatened by such “tumor” absorbed twins be arrested for abortions if they have their secret siblings surgically removed?

          • bj_survivor

            And even if they are there own property or legal persons, that still doesn’t given them any sort of right to commandeer another person’s body against their will.

          • Margaret Sanger

            It was the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to recognize the unborn as “legal persons” under the 14th Amendment that established the prevailing abortion-on-demand regime in this country.

          • cjvg

            You got that backwards.
            It was the supreme courts recognition of the fact that women have the same right to privacy, and the same right to own the use of their body just as any man, that finally established that women are people too with the same human and civil rights

          • Margaret Sanger

            For a time I had a bumper sticker on my car that read, “Equal rights for unborn women.” That is, until some born “person” peeled it off when I wasn’t looking. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:37 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You got that backwards.
            It was the supreme courts recognition of the fact that women have the same right to privacy, and the same right to own the use of their body just as any man, that finally established that women are people too with the same human and civil rights
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Since you freely admit that you do not know this woman or her circumstances and that you are not intimately familiar with her medical history and that you are not her treating physician and that you are not a family member, your judgment really is valueless and specious at best

          • Margaret Sanger

            As is yours.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:46 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Since you freely admit that you do not know this woman or her circumstances and that you are not intimately familiar with her medical history and that you are not her treating physician and that you are not a family member, your judgment really is valueless and specious at best
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            But I’m not the one judging them, or asserting that I have the right to(medical) information or the right to deny them choices

          • bj_survivor

            No one has to read that anywhere. In this country, abortions after 24 weeks are not legal for any reasons other than severe fetal deformity or severe threat to the health or life of the pregnant woman. Stop playing dumb. Stop lying. Neither Jesus nor Yahweh said word one against abortion, but there are lots and lots of biblical proscriptions against lying.

          • Margaret Sanger

            It’s called the Golden Rule. Both Jesus and Yahweh endorsed it. You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
            As for a “severe” threat to the health or life of the pregnant woman, Doe defines “health” in abortion law as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”
            Stop playing dumb. Stop lying.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:06 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bj_survivor wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            No one has to read that anywhere. In this country, abortions after 24 weeks are not legal for any reasons other than severe fetal deformity or severe threat to the health or life of the pregnant woman. Stop playing dumb. Stop lying. Neither Jesus nor Yahweh said word one against abortion, but there are lots and lots of biblical proscriptions against lying.
            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            I have neither lied nor played dumb. I am well aware that you and your ilk do not give a flying fuck about the health, well-being, or financial security of women (or actual children, for that matter, given your penchant for defunding WIC, SCHIP, Medicaid, TANF, public education, and any and all social programs that would help poor and middle-class women and families take care of the children they have or even to ensure they have safe, healthy pregnancies).

            As for the Golden Rule, I do not want to be a slave nor breeding livestock and I do not wish for anyone else to be treated as such, unlike you and your misogynist ilk. On the other hand, Yahweh orders and condones genocide, rape, incest, human sacrifice, child abuse, and even “ripping up pregnant women,”* et cetera, ad nauseum. Pray tell, how exactly does this jive with the Golden Rule? Yahweh is a hypocrite of the highest order.

            The bible also talks quite often about “honoring thy mother and thy father.” How, pray tell, is it honoring thy mother to force her to gestate and give birth against her will?

            * So much for the bible’s purported regard for fetal life.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Just let us know how you REALLY feel, why dontcha?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:36 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bj_survivor wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I have neither lied nor played dumb. I am well aware that you and your ilk do not give a flying fuck about the health, well-being, or financial security of women (or actual children, for that matter, given your penchant for defunding WIC, SCHIP, Medicaid, TANF, public education, and any and all social programs that would help poor and middle-class women and families take care of the children they have or even to ensure they have safe, healthy pregnancies).
            As for the Golden Rule, I do not want to be a slave nor breeding livestock and I do not wish for anyone else to be treated as such, unlike you and your misogynist ilk. On the other hand, Yahweh orders and condones genocide, rape, incest, human sacrifice, child abuse, and even “ripping up pregnant women,”* et cetera, ad nauseum. Pray tell, how exactly does this jive with the Golden Rule? Yahweh is a hypocrite of the highest order.
            The bible also talks quite often about “honoring thy mother and thy fath er.” How, pray tell, is it honoring thy mother to force her to gestate and give birth against her will?
            * So much for the bible’s purported regard for fetal life.

            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            So, answer the questions I posed, already.

          • Margaret Sanger

            My hate-speech alarm went off and my eyes glazed over. You’ll have to rephrase your questions. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:58 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bj_survivor wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            So, answer the questions I posed, already.

            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

            dodging the questions again because bj is right, and provided quotes from the bible and you know he/or she is right. why do you christians pick and choose the passages from the bible that fit your hateful agendas, but ignore the ones that totally contradict your statements?

          • Maryanna Price

            No reason needs to be given. Do women need to tell everyone how they got pregnant or where they plan to give birth? Absolutely not. Do men need to say why they went to the cardiologist? Don’t think so. You don’t know why this woman terminated and you shouldn’t. News agencies shouldn’t know it and shouldn’t be reporting it. Medical records used to be private in this country.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Buford, you don’t want to save anyone. What you and your ilk like to do is stalk, harass and terrorize. Your speculations about this woman don’t mean squat–you can say what ‘appears to you’, but that’s just your opinion and trust me–it’s not worth much. . And furthermore this woman’s family doesn’t owe you, me or the press any information about why she needed to terminate this pregnancy. They don’t even owe you their name. That’s their business. Not yours.

          • Wingdings

            “she didn’t want to give birth to a DEFECTIVE baby who
            would no doubt pose a severe FINANCIAL and EMOTIONAL BURDEN to her and hers, if the baby even survived delivery.”

            So? A person’s psychiatric/emotional well-being are components of their overall health, you know, though I’m sure you’d get some kind of sadistic pleasure in mandating that women carry anencephalic fetuses to term, only to watch it die within minutes of birth. Let’s be real here: your pseudo “disability rights” schtick is really only a cover for some horribly anti-woman sentiment.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

            Yep, very ill children can be a severe financial and emotional burden on their families. Not all families can afford it, financially or emotionally. So what?

          • Kathi J

            You don’t have to be given a reason, it’s frankly and flatly none of your business why she chose to have an abortion. It is never your business.

          • Margaret Sanger

            You would have made a fine slave owner back in the day.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:25 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kathi J wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You don’t have to be given a reason, it’s frankly and flatly none of your business why she chose to have an abortion. It is never your business.
            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            What does that even mean? You idiots certainly like to babble.

          • Kathi J

            Yeah, yeah. When all else fails and you have no argument accuse someone
            of being racist or supporting slavery. The whole crux of Roe was that a
            woman has rights of privacy when making a medical decision and no one ever has to be told why.

          • cjvg

            ? defending the right to choice, privacy and ownership of ones own body makes her a “fine slave owner”

            You are one severely uneducated confused mouthpiece.

          • Margaret Sanger

            It’s a question of treating other human lives as disposable private property, the only REAL difference being the place of residence, since slaves weren’t considered “persons” under the 14th Amendment, either. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:40 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            ? defending the right to choice, privacy and ownership of ones own body makes her a “fine slave owner”
            You are one severely uneducated confused mouthpiece.

            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            That is exactly the point you are missing, women are human and as such have first right to their own body.

            Rights that superseded those of cell matter that does not have the brain activity needed to be declared alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation!!!!!!!
            In this case this fetus will never achieve that mile stone but you are still advocating forcing a woman in that situation to go through with additional weeks of pregnancy and the dangers of child birth all because it satisfies your ideological needs.
            News flash, it is not your body, that fetus would not survive, this makes the woman’s life, the only life that needs to be protected.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/189217/when_does_human_life_begin/
            Excerpt:

            When, then, does human life begin?
            Human life begins when it first appears as a determined embodied process. This embodied process, from the outset, has an active capacity to be manifest in human ways. Thus, we speak not of a potential human, but of a human with potential.
            Fertilization is the usual event that gives rise to a human organism in nature. It is a moment when a distinct embodied process appears that has the active capacity to develop along a human trajectory. Not all fertilized ova, however, have such a capacity. Hydatidiform moles are a case in point. They have a genome made up of human material and a trajectory that is distinct from its parents. But moles have a genetic make-up that is so different from a diploid zygote that they do not, and will not ever, have the capacity to be manifest in human ways.
            Further, fertilization is not the only event that produces a human organism. Twinning, for example, is a natural event where an early embryo divides into two separate organisms. A new independent embodied process appears, which can develop along on its own distinct path. Twinning, an event like fertilization, defines the beginning of a new human life. Fertilization, then, is neither necessary nor sufficient to define the beginning of all human life.
            Implantation marks a significant point in the development of an embryo, since it demonstrates a particular stability of development. It is a clinical marker for the development of the primitive streak. This is significant because it is the point after which twinning does not occur. Implantation, then, is α defining moment of a human since it marks developmental individuality. But, it is not the moment when the embodied process first appears. The same process, which was initiated at some earlier time, only continues its development along a determined path. The embryo is, in essence, no different before or after the appearance of the primitive streak. Nothing is added, and nothing is taken away. The appearance of the primitive streak, or its clinical marker implantation, is not the beginning of human life. At best, it gives confirmation that an embodied process is developing along a human trajectory.
            To summarize, then, fertilization is the moment when most human life begins, but not all. Implantation cannot be the moment that human life begins. Systems biology, instead, provides a definition for the beginning of human life that is complete and applicable to natural or artificial processes. It also shows the continuity of an organism in early development with a mature organism. Human life begins at the moment when it first appears a distinct embodied process.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 5:50 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            That is exactly the point you are missing, women are human and as such have first right to their own body.
            Rights that superseded those of cell matter that does not have the brain activity needed to be declared alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation!!!!!!! In this case this fetus will never achieve that mile stone but you are still advocating forcing a woman in that situation to go through with additional weeks of pregnancy and the dangers of child birth all because it satisfies your ideological needs. News flash, it is not your body, that fetus would not survive, this makes the woman’s life, the only life that needs to be protected.
            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

            eisenmeiger syndrome can cause death in an expectant mother when there are fetal abnormalities, conjoined twins can cause death, cancers, epilepsy ( i have it and was considered a very high risk pregnancy and told i might have to abort) heart complications, diabetes…there are lots of health complications. you seem to know nothing about any of these conditions, but insist on pretending that you do.

        • maiathebeegrrl

          Perhaps you are confusing “ignorant speculation” with “educated, informed speculation”?

          • Margaret Sanger

            No. You need to re-read what Amanda posted.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:46 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            maiathebeegrrl wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Perhaps you are confusing “ignorant speculation” with “educated, informed speculation”?
            Link to comment

    • Baby_Raptor

      Wow, talk about hypocrisy. You call out people for saying “probably,” and then you turn around and definitively pin what you see as the worst possible motivation on her and insult people who disagree with you.

      I feel sorry for you. Really. I can’t imagine how unhappy you would have to be with yourself to be so spiteful and obsessed. But quit projecting yourself onto this poor woman. It’s sickening.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

        i feel more sorry for his kids! can you imagine having to grow up in a household ran by this moron?

    • Wingdings

      Ending a pregnancy–wanted, unwanted, wanted and then unwanted, etc.–was entirely her prerogative. Tough luck if you don’t like the decision she made–it was hers to make. Did you have anything else to say?

      • Margaret Sanger

        Yes. I wonder how long it will be before Dr. Peter Singer’s death ethic is enshrined in law, namely, that parents of “defective” newborns should be given a certain amount of time to decide if their “problem child” should be allowed to continue living.

        • HeilMary1

          My anti-abortion Munchausen by Proxy mom not only disfigured me but also tried to murder me more than once when I was in grade school, but no “pro-life” relatives, neighbors, nuns and priests ever tried to rescue ugly me.

          • Margaret Sanger

            You know, I suspected some form of abuse in your childhood, and no, I’m not going to patronize you by saying that I feel your pain, because I don’t, being unfamiliar with it. Nor do I expect you to feel my pain, and I’m not going to go into details.

          • cjvg

            Ah, your one of those who could not have children and now feels that it is her duty to force birth upon any woman who can

          • Margaret Sanger

            Damn, you guessed it!
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:08 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Ah, your one of those who could not have children and now feels that it is her duty to force birth upon any woman who can
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            It’s not a “she”.

        • goatini

          Peter Singer is an ethicist, not a physician. Ethicists deal with opinions and hypotheses, physicians deal with facts and reality.

          There are regressive Catholic “ethicists” who have no problem with letting women with compromised pregnancies DIE, when attempts can still be made to save their lives.

          There are also rational Catholic ethicists who believe that persons like LIARla Rose, and yourself, are unethical for lying to push your personal agendas.

          Ethicists are not (necessarily) physicians, and I suspect your post had a deliberate intent to obfuscate this distinction.

          • Margaret Sanger

            The Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who decided Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolton were lawyers, not physicians, yet their decrees about what constitutes a “person” established the regnant MEDICALLY administered abortion regime in this country. It’s not that they’d come to any kind of legal or philosophical consensus about what constitutes a “person.” They hadn’t. Instead, they deliberately left it up to the pregnant woman and her “concept of the mystery of human life.” (David Souter) In short, they declared open season on the unborn as a legal matter, and you’re fine with that?

            How have I lied? My personal agenda is this: when terminating a pregnancy is “medically indicated,” efforts should be made to save the baby’s life, if it is at all possible, because its life ALSO has value.

          • goatini

            The ONLY person in the equation with rights is the living, breathing WOMAN. HER rights are primary and inviolable.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Unless, of course, the WOMAN wants her “euphemism” to LIVE, and then “it” has rights!

          • goatini

            “Fetus” is not a euphemism. And if a woman makes a CHOICE to carry a highly compromised and potentially dangerous pregnancy to term, the rights of the WOMAN are honored. Rights accrue to a person at birth.

          • HeilMary1

            No woman deserves limb-amputating sepsis, face- and breast-rotting cancers caused by female fetuses, multiple organ failures, and smelly bladder and bowel incontinence just so pedophile priests will have enough victims!

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to a person at birth. This tenet of our civil law was determined long before SCOTUS in 1973.

          • lexcathedra
          • HeilMary1

            ALL abortions are performed in defense of women’s lives and health. Google obstetric fistulas and molar pregnancies to get a clue.

        • Dezzydez

          Bullshit. Once a fetus is born, it is a baby and protected by law just like the rest of us. Only in your messed up dreams will there be a law that allows someone to decide to murder their born baby.

        • cjvg

          Once a fetus is born it becomes a baby with the accompanying human and civil rights.
          It can even get a ss number and a passport.
          PS you can not sue for child support when you’re pregnant, you actually have to have a child

    • Clevelandchick

      You are an ass.

      • Margaret Sanger

        So are you.

        • Clevelandchick

          Well, let’s see…15 people agree with me, you agreed with yourself, lol. I win.

          • Margaret Sanger

            You won the choir.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:11 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Clevelandchick wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Well, let’s see…15 people agree with me, you agreed with yourself, lol. I win.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Go cry to your choir over on Stanek’s site.

          • HeilMary1

            A choir made up of whining pedophile priests!

    • Origami_Isopod

      Were YOU going to pay the medical bills? Were YOU going to step in and help with the child-raising? Would YOU be okay with taxes being raised to provide social services for parents with disabled children? Yeah, didn’t think so.

      • Margaret Sanger

        My, how you ENJOY playing your stupid “I’m better than you because I support killing disabled babies” game. —– Original Message —–
        From: Disqus
        To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
        Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 2:20 PM
        Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

        Origami_Isopod wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

        Were YOU going to pay the medical bills? Were YOU going to step in and help with the child-raising? Would YOU be okay with taxes being raised to provide social services for parents with disabled children? Yeah, didn’t think so.
        Link to comment

        • bj_survivor

          No babies are being killed, panty-sniffer. A non-viable pregnancy was terminated.

          • Margaret Sanger

            My, how you ENJOY playing semantics games.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:43 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bj_survivor wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            No babies are being killed, panty-sniffer. A non-viable pregnancy was terminated.
            Link to comment

          • Dezzydez

            No that’s reality

          • Margaret Sanger

            The reality is that you and yours look for any excuse at all to justify killing unborn human beings. Dr. Carhart specializes in killing unborn human beings who are viable, which makes him extraordinary. Hell, he may even be a saint in your book. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 6:42 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Dezzydez wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            No that’s reality

            Link to comment

          • Dezzydez

            Liar. The doctor provides third trimester abortions to women only in critical cases. Only a fucking moron thinks women wait until the last trimester to get an abortion when they could have easily had one in the first trimester if they could get through the hurdles people like you put in place. Yet you are perfectly okay with women dying from pregnancy. The only killer I see is people like you who could care less about women. Plus I am an atheist, I do not believe in that saint crap. Unlike you I respect women enough to trust they know what is best for their private medical isssues. You seem to think women are idiots and incapable of making choices regarding their health. Sorry to burst your bubble, but women are intelligent and we do not need your unsolicited advice, nor do we require it.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Guess what, you “fucking moron,” SOME “women (ACTUALLY) are idiots and incapable of making (INTELLIGENT) choices regarding their health.” You might have heard or read about them. For example, SOME of them do crack or other illegal drugs while pregnant, and their babies are born addicted and deformed, or they smoke and drink booze throughout their pregnancies, and their babies suffer lifelong deficits.
            Tell me, should idiotic women like this be prosecuted for child endangerment, assuming, of course, that these babies will be brought to term and not thrown out as first, second, or third trimester garbage?
            BTW: http://www.abortionno.org/abortion-facts/

          • cjvg

            And some men are reckless idiots incapable of making informed decisions and have unprotected sex with these women, thereby creating said pregnancies.
            Some men are violent and disgusting pieces of human filth who abuse, rape and torture children and women in the most inhumane and vile ways.

            Shall we create a group solely consisting out of women who will determine which males will not get castrated, since men are just incapable of controlling themselves?!

          • Margaret Sanger

            I think it’s an excellent idea, forming a group of women who will decide which males will NOT get castrated. Allow me to suggest that you use your own initials, “cjvg,” as an acronym for the name of the group, namely, Castrating Justifiably Vagina Guild. You can probably set it up on Facebook. I’m sure that it will be “Liked” instantly by scads of would-be Bobbitizers.
            Umm…would it be just the nuts or a complete dismemberment?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:54 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And some men are reckless idiots incapable of making informed decisions and have unprotected sex with these women, thereby creating said pregnancies. Some men are violent and disgusting pieces of human filth who abuse, rape and torture children and women in the most inhumane and vile ways.
            Shall we create a group solely consisting out of women who will determine which males will not get castrated, since men are just incapable of controlling themselves?!
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            I know you are trying desperately to look smart and be insulting, however for that to succeed you must at least try to make up a name that makes sense in some kind of universe!
            Randomly stringing words that are indicative of female gender with some loosely and marginally appropriate words to fit some preconceived framework of your “insult” is not working for you.
            You just do not have the mental capacity to pull it off

          • Margaret Sanger

            OK, cjvg, you don’t like Castrating Jusifiably Vagina Guild, even though you’re the one who proposed it as comprising women only, so how about Female Dickwhackers as a name for the group? Better yet, what would YOU call the group? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 5:58 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I know you are trying desperately to look smart and be insulting, however for that to succeed you must at least try to make up a name that makes sense in some kind of universe! Randomly stringing words that are indicative of female gender with some loosely and marginally appropriate words to fit some preconceived framework of your “insult” is not working for you. You just do not have the mental capacity to pull it off

            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Sad, and not even amusing

          • Margaret Sanger

            Shall we create a group solely consisting out of women who will determine which males will not get castrated, since men are just incapable of controlling themselves?! —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:08 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Sad, and not even amusing

            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            P.S. You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again: “Should idiotic (pregnant) women like this (crackheads, smokers/drinkers) be prosecuted for child endangerment, assuming, of course, that these babies will be brought to term and not thrown out as first, second, or third trimester garbage? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 2:54 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And some men are reckless idiots incapable of making informed decisions and have unprotected sex with these women, thereby creating said pregnancies. Some men are violent and disgusting pieces of human filth who abuse, rape and torture children and women in the most inhumane and vile ways.
            Shall we create a group solely consisting out of women who will determine which males will not get castrated, since men are just incapable of controlling themselves?!
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Ps, you did not answer my question so I will ask again?
            Shall we castrate all these careless impregnators who so mindlessly use their capacities to create life?!

          • Margaret Sanger

            I favor castration for male rapists, even statutory rapists, as an appropriate punishment that might even serve as a deterrent. As for men who get their girlfriends and/or wives pregnant and then abandon them to their own devices, they should be publicly shamed, for starters.

          • cjvg

            Well that is not even close to prosecution for child abuse etc as you proposed for they women.
            This despite the fact that they are just as guilty at creating a pregnancy that would be subjected to drugs during gestation.
            Double standard much

          • Margaret Sanger

            Wishful, even magical thinking on your part. The men who are “just as guilty at creating a pregnancy” should be prosecuted as Accessories After the Fact because they should have known and/or should have prevented the exposure of the baby to toxins. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:14 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Well that is not even close to prosecution for child abuse etc as you proposed for they women. This despite the fact that they are just as guilty at creating a pregnancy that would be subjected to drugs during gestation. Double standard much

            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            Dr Carhart is a hired killer. He did his “best” and then left town, but when his “patient” was dying -the only one who counts in your moral universe- he could not be reached by the physicians who were trying to save her life, not that Dr. Carhart’s input would have helped. I mean, the man knows a lot about killing, period. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:32 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Dezzydez wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Liar. The doctor provides third trimester abortions to women only in critical cases. Only a fucking moron thinks women wait until the last trimester to get an abortion when they could have easily had one in the first trimester if they could get through the hurdles people like you put in place. Yet you are perfectly okay with women dying from pregnancy. The only killer I see is people like you who could care less about women. Plus I am an atheist, I do not believe in that saint crap. Unlike you I respect women enough to trust they know what is best for their private medical isssues. You seem to think women are idiots and incapable of making choices regarding their health. Sorry to burst your bubble, but women are intelligent and we do not need your unsolicited advice, nor do we require it.
            Link to comment

  • Margaret Sanger

    Freedom of speech, hell yes!

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      I see. You don’t actually engage in conversation–you simply like to spout random gibberish.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_732V2LZRFSFTTGUDDQYJSSRE7M Maude

      I didn’t know Margaret Sanger trolled reproductive rights message boards.

      • Margaret Sanger

        Margaret Sanger gets around. You must not have gotten the memo.
        —– Original Message —–
        From: Disqus
        To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
        Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:42 PM
        Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

        Maude wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

        I didn’t know Margaret Sanger trolled reproductive rights message boards.
        User’s website

        Link to comment

        • cjvg

          Well since you are so in favor of having a third party judge who and what on peoples private medical history, lets hear it for yours!
          I want to know if you use birth control,
          what kind,
          how many boy friends/lovers, spouses
          previous “miscarriages” ,
          live births and if they were natural or you used drugs during these births,
          C- sections (very very bad, you should just die if you can’t even give birth)
          We will fully evaluate if you are qualified make judge on reproductive choices for others, we will let you know.

          • HeilMary1

            “Margaret” is probably a pedophile priest who goes on Viagra sprees in the Philippines!

          • goatini

            He’s definitely a male, that is certain.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ella.warnock.7 Ella Warnock

      Now you’re catching on. Freedom of bodily autonomy, hellz yeah!

  • Margaret Sanger

    Medically indicated abortions, hell yes!!!

    • bj_survivor

      Abortion on demand. No apologies!

    • bj_survivor

      Medically-indicated late-term abortions are a tragedy that I would wish on no one. The women and their partners certainly don’t deserve to run through a gauntlet of bible-babbling, abusive assholes on the very worst day of their lives. Or be told that they should have died along with their doomed fetuses if their bodies could not sustain a pregnancy.

  • Margaret Sanger

    No more “human weeds,” hell yes!

    • HeilMary1

      You’re just livid that pedophile priests don’t get a shot at molesting the poor woman’s unhealthy fetus!

      • Margaret Sanger

        Sieg Heil!

        • http://www.facebook.com/jessica.ham1 Jessica Ham

          Really? A Nazism reference? How exactly does that apply here? I’ll give you a hint…..not at all.

          • Margaret Sanger

            And HelMary1’s comments are are most apropo? Why don’t you take issue with that bombthrowing feminazi?

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            What issue would we take with her? We like her.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Of course you like her. That self-righteous hater and smear merchant does the dirty work so you don’t have to.

          • goatini

            I’m Catholic, and I stand with HeilMary1. The only “self-righteous hater and smear merchant” here is you.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Wow. And for a moment there I thought that you were an independent and careful thinker, but your endorsement of HeilMary1 and her venomous commentary tells me that you are at least as much of a “Catholic” as she once was… —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:01 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I’m Catholic, and I stand with HeilMary1. The only “self-righteous hater and smear merchant” here is you.
            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            You are a venomous MOTHER KILLER who worships a genocidal pedophile heresy cult!

          • Margaret Sanger

            You are very sick.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:37 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You are a venomous MOTHER KILLER who worships a genocidal pedophile heresy cult!
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            HM1 is not “very sick” for telling the truth.

          • HeilMary1

            Thank you! — messengers sure get a lot of blame! And the madder my accusers, the more I know I’m probably sadly right.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            She’s not sick. She is telling the truth.

          • goatini

            I was baptized and catechized over 50 years ago – I’m Catholic, and I observe that many of HM1’s comments are made from a very informed and very well qualified standpoint similar to my own. Why don’t you do a little reading on the monster Maciel, just for starters – are his victims “venomous” for telling the truth?

          • HeilMary1

            Excellent point! And Maciel is just the iceberg tip. And here’s another anti-choice Catholic scandal:

            http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ex-gop-senator-admits-to-fathering-son-outside

            I wouldn’t be complaining about the RCC if I were the only victim.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            Have I ever excused pedophilia? Your pal the abused one has levelled all sorts of vicious and unfounded accusations against me. Why? Because she is angry, VERY angry, because of what one or more evil people did to her a long time ago, and you defend her attacks on me, “Catholic” that you are, because I dare to defend the lives of the unborn for their own sake, which, to me, is an argument that needs to be made in a country where over 55 million elective abortions have been procurred since 1973.
            Pedophiliac priests have their own accounts to give to God and man.

            Do you pray for them, CATHOLIC that you are?

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:43 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I was baptized and catechized over 50 years ago – I’m Catholic, and I observe that many of HM1’s comments are made from a very informed and very well qualified standpoint similar to my own. Why don’t you do a little reading on the monster Maciel, just for starters – are his victims “venomous” for telling the truth?
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Maciel was Wojtyła’s specially favored friend. I dare you to defend his offenses against humanity.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            I get it. You can’t read anything that deviates from the preferred narrative. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:16 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Maciel was Wojtyła’s specially favored friend. I dare you to defend his offenses against humanity.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Oh, you mean the “question” about whether I “pray” for priests who have violated their vows, civil law, and the personal autonomy of minor children? I don’t waste my precious spiritual energy in “praying” for those who knowingly and intentionally abused their power in order to prey on children. They made their decisions in full knowledge of exactly how grievous their faults, sins and crimes were. They should have been excommunicated in disgrace post haste, not “prayed for”. Maybe they themselves should work on building up their own personal accounts of indulgences, if they themselves are concerned about their immortal souls.

            I pray for the Wojo/Ratzo Magisterium, that has aided and abetted these criminals, to be destroyed. This criminal Magisterium could have finally chosen to abide by the Scriptural command of Galatians 3:28, and could have ended their perpetuation of the unconscionable systematic millennia-old denigration of females, and they could have welcomed women as fully human, and as priests (and deacons) – which I believe would have gone a long way towards smoking out and exposing the criminal priests (at least those in latter-day litigation) far more efficiently and timely.

          • Margaret Sanger

            So, you want them to suffer, die, and then go to hell., because they deserve nothing less, right? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 3:44 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Oh, you mean the “question” about whether I “pray” for priests who have violated their vows, civil law, and the personal autonomy of minor children? I don’t waste my precious spiritual energy in “praying” for those who knowingly and intentionally abused their power in order to prey on children. They made their decisions in full knowledge of exactly how grievous their faults, sins and crimes were. They should have been excommunicated in disgrace post haste, not “prayed for”. Maybe they themselves should work on building up their own personal accounts of indulgences, if they themselves are concerned about their immortal souls.

            I pray for the Wojo/Ratzo Magisterium, that has aided and abetted these criminals, to be destroyed. This criminal Magisterium could have finally chosen to abide by the Scriptural command of Galatians 3:28, and could have ended their perpetuation of the unconscionable systematic millennia-old denigration of females, and they could h ave welcomed women as fully human, and as priests (and deacons) – which I believe would have gone a long way towards smoking out and exposing the criminal priests (at least those in latter-day litigation) far more efficiently and timely.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            It’s not up to me whether they “suffer, die, and then go to hell”. That’s entirely up to them.

            Since Ratzinger opened up the Indulgence Store for the Year Of Faith, I’m sure they can accumulate a few Get Out Of Hell Free cards if they think they might come in handy someday.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            When did you stop believing in prayer?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:55 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            It’s not up to me whether they “suffer, die, and then go to hell”. That’s entirely up to them.
            Since Ratzinger opened up the Indulgence Store for the Year Of Faith, I’m sure they can accumulate a few Get Out Of Hell Free cards if they think they might come in handy someday.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            When did you stop beating your wife?

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            You are merciless. I doubt that you pray at all.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:22 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            When did you stop beating your wife?

            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            We know YOU don’t!

          • bj_survivor

            I want the pedophile priests, along with the members of the Catholic hierarchy who were (and still are) instrumental in obstructing justice and shuffling those pedophiles about thus giving them opportunity to violate fresh, unsuspecting children to be brought to justice and thrown in prison. Whether they are forgiven by your imaginary sky daddy or not is of no consequence. They need to be held accountable for their crimes.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            You didn’t answer the question, so I’ll rephrase it: Do you pray AT ALL, ABOUT ANYTHING? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:16 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Maciel was Wojtyła’s specially favored friend. I dare you to defend his offenses against humanity.
            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            Do you only cry over the abortions that occurred since Roe v Wade, or do you also include the TRILLIONS that have occurred throughout human history? And do you also cry for the millions of already born kids that starve to death or are genocided every year, and for the 600,000 mothers who die in childbirth annually? Do you send money to the Addis Ababa fistula hospital to repair mothers with obstetric fistulas?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addis_Ababa_Fistula_Hospital

          • Margaret Sanger

            I’d never heard of the Addia Ababa Fistula Hospital, but I do support Catholic Relief Services, and it is involved in helping women who are recovering from obstetric fistula. See: http://crs.org/mali/delta-survie/ —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:41 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Do you only cry over the abortions that occurred since Roe v Wade, or do you also include the TRILLIONS that have occurred throughout human history? And do you also cry for the millions of already born kids that starve to death or are genocided every year, and for the 600,000 mothers who die in childbirth annually? Do you send money to the Addis Ababa fistula hospital to repair mothers with obstetric fistulas?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addis_Ababa_Fistula_Hospital

            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            You beat me too it!

          • HeilMary1

            You’re the only self-righteous hater and smear merchant here doing the dirty work of spoiled pedophile priests! Priests would burn you at the stake for being an aging incontinent brood mare if they could bring back the witch craze!

          • goatini

            That person is NOT a female, it’s obvious from his posts.

          • HeilMary1

            Hmmm… But I do come across many women-hating women on Catholic extremist blogs who sound like “her”.

          • bj_survivor

            True that. It really is difficult to distinguish the male and female Catholic extremists, as they all spout the same women-as-breeding-livestock gibberish.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Actually, Buford– with the things that you and other “pro-lifers” have been implying about the woman who is the subject of this article, I’d say that the only self-righteous hater and smear merchant here is you.

          • HeilMary1

            Thanks! Love you too!

          • HeilMary1

            I oppose abuse of the already born, but you, like the Nazis, view women as livestock and whistle blowing abuse survivors like me as “terrorists”.

          • cjvg

            Not quite, however she is not the one who stridently and most adamantly proposes to severely violate the human and civil rights of every female ever born.

            The most basic human right, is the right to own your own body and the right for you to decided who, what, and were, another can have access to your body.
            If that right is lost or violated no other rights hold any meaning at all.
            Due to this she is getting a pass on some minor infractions.
            in your case these are just cumulative and are just another sign of your complete disregard for others

          • Margaret Sanger

            The most basic human right, even God given, is the right to life, without which no other rights have meaning, but you don’t recognize the right to life as paramount because you are all about a court created right to use lethal force against those human beings who aren’t legally defined as “persons” under the 14th Amendment, which not all that long ago meant slaves. You might have heard of them. They mostly came from Africa, and worked the fields on southern plantations. Their heirs are with us even today! Of course, you would NEVER own another human being, would you?

          • goatini

            Coerced, forced gestation of an unwanted pregnancy, against the woman’s will and wishes, IS slavery.

          • Margaret Sanger

            I don’t disagree with you, but that’s not what is at issue here. At issue here is the death of a pregnant woman and her baby, which may or may not be ENTIRELY due to Dr. LeRoy Carhart’s putative “practice of medicine.” —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:28 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Coerced, forced gestation of an unwanted pregnancy, against the woman’s will and wishes, IS slavery.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Any physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, has had patients with negative outcomes. Dr Carhart’s record is actually quite excellent, as records of physicians go. And considering all of the crimes and violence that have been committed against him, I admire even more his reserve, his skill, and his commitment to women’s health.

            Show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record. A negative outcome does NOT mean that there is culpability on the part of the physician. And only an idiot would think this is the case. Surgery has risk. Medical treatment has risk. Medicine has risk. ASPIRIN has risk.

          • Margaret Sanger

            I understand that you are most willing to forgive the good man who makes the bad pregnancy go away. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:07 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Any physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, has had patients with negative outcomes. Dr Carhart’s record is actually quite excellent, as records of physicians go. And considering all of the crimes that have been committed against him, I admire even more his reserve, his skill, and his commitment to women’s health.
            Show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record. A negative outcome does NOT mean that there is culpability on the part of the physician. And only an idiot would think this is the case. Surgery has risk. Medical treatment has risk. Medicine has risk. ASPIRIN has risk.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            You are utterly bereft of logic, common sense, and morality, if you are comparing a negative outcome from a medical procedure – a medical procedure that has inherent risk, and a medical procedure that was signed off on by the patient – to the deliberate criminal violation of children, performed upon the victims with malice aforethought, by men who took vows to act In Persona Christi.

          • Margaret Sanger

            I honestly don’t know what in the hell you are talking about.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:25 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You are utterly bereft of logic, common sense, and morality, if you are comparing a negative outcome from a medical procedure – a medical procedure that has inherent risk, and a medical procedure that was signed off on by the patient – to the deliberate criminal violation of children, performed upon the victims with malice aforethought.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Ahem, you most certainly do know what I am talking about. I am responding to your post in which you were in high dudgeon because I would “forgive” a physician whose patient had a negative outcome – aside from the fact that no “forgiveness” is needed for a skilled, experienced, respected physician who did his best in a medical crisis – and the fact that I feel absolutely no need to “pray” to “forgive” a sex crime offender who took vows to stand In Persona Christi. Stop playing dumb.

          • Margaret Sanger

            The skilled, experienced, respected (in some quarters) physician who did his best in a medical crisis and then skips town and remains incommunicado, while his patient dies at a nearby hospital of abortion related complications as determined by the medical examiner, such as: “amniotic fluid embolism following termination of pregnancy,” and “disseminated intravascular coagulation,” or DIC, a condition where small blood clots form and absorb the clotting agents in the blood to the point where profuse bleeding can occur.
            As for praying for the HEALING of pedophiliac priests, it is the sick who need a physician, Jesus reportedly said. Wasn’t he the one who shared meals with “known sinners?”
            See: http://bible.cc/luke/18-11.htm
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:38 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Ahem, you most certainly do know what I am talking about. I am responding to your post in which you were in high dudgeon because I would “forgive” a physician whose patient had a negative outcome – aside from the fact that no “forgiveness” is needed for a skilled, experienced, respected physician who did his best in a medical crisis – and the fact that I feel absolutely no need to “pray” to “forgive” a sex crime offender who took vows to stand In Persona Christi. Stop playing dumb.
            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            Most cases of fatal amniotic fluid embolism occur from CHILDBIRTH. But you’re OK with all forced childbearing that maims and murders women.

          • goatini

            The medical examiner determined no such thing. The medical examiner’s determination was that the patient expired due to NATURAL CAUSES.

            As to the NATURAL CAUSES: (1) *FETAL ABNORMALITY*, which you keep avoiding the mention of in your smears, was one of the three causes of death; (2) *amniotic fluid embolisms* are extremely rare, and are considered to be the obstetric equivalent of being struck by lightning – statistically unexpected and sudden – and can occur during or after abortions, *natural deliveries*, or *C-sections*; and (3) *disseminated intravascular coagulation” can occur as a result of abruptio placentae, pre-eclampsia, amniotic fluid embolism, and/or retained intrauterine fetal demise – any or all of which may or may not have been the causes for this patient.

            And I don’t particularly care if a child abuse criminal is “healed”. I’m more concerned with them never being in contact with children again.

          • HeilMary1

            And you forgive pedophile priests who force MILLIONS of unwanted brood mares into early graves!

          • Margaret Sanger

            Are you sure that it isn’t TRILLIONS?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:50 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And you forgive pedophile priests who force MILLIONS of unwanted brood mares into early graves!
            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            Addendum,

            Even if he kills the mother in the process, no one else coulld have done it better than Dr. Carhart! —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:07 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Any physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, has had patients with negative outcomes. Dr Carhart’s record is actually quite excellent, as records of physicians go. And considering all of the crimes that have been committed against him, I admire even more his reserve, his skill, and his commitment to women’s health.
            Show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record. A negative outcome does NOT mean that there is culpability on the part of the physician. And only an idiot would think this is the case. Surgery has risk. Medical treatment has risk. Medicine has risk. ASPIRIN has risk.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Again, show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Excuses, excuses…
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:23 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Again, show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            So you can’t show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record. I knew you couldn’t.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Neither can you, I bet, but so what? What matters here is the Maryland Medical Examiners reoprt as to cause of death. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:30 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            So you can’t show me a physician who performs surgical procedures, who has practiced for 40 years, who does not have a single negative outcome on his/her record. I knew you couldn’t.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            A legal pregnancy termination is never a cause of fetal abnormality. The fetal abnormality was the cause for the legal pregnancy termination. All medical procedures have risk, and the patient signed off on the procedure.

          • HeilMary1

            “Maggie”, here’s the perfect ob/gyn for you:

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779673

          • Margaret Sanger

            Sieg Heil,

            I’d have to join Medscape to view the article. Give me the gist.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:49 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            “Maggie”, here’s the perfect ob/gyn for you:

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/779673

            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            Well we know YOU think YOU own all women’s wombs!

          • Margaret Sanger

            Since when did you start using the imperial “we?”
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:46 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Well we know YOU think YOU own all women’s wombs!

            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            You want to own the right to determine what every female human being can, or can not do with their own body.

            All according to your faith in some blood soaked religion that she might never even have heard off, or cared about.

            So spare me your hypocritical slave comparison, you could not care less.
            Women exist in all races and colors and you want to deny them the most basic right of all: The right to own their bodies, the right to determine who or what will have the use of them!

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/03/the-gender-equality-argument-for-legalized-abortion/#.UTFFvTdv7ng
            Excerpt:

            Abortion, because it takes the life of an innocent human person, is a deep violation of equal human dignity, not an affirmation of it. Legalized abortion excludes an entire class of human beings from the protection of the law by allowing them to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. And the practice of sex-selection abortion (the legality of which is supported by Obama) targets unborn baby girls specifically because of their gender. There is no equality in abortion.

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 3:25 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You want to own the right to determine what every female human being can, or can not do with their own body.
            All according to your faith in some blood soaked religion that she might never even have heard off, or cared about.
            So spare me your hypocritical slave comparison, you could not care less. Women exist in all races and colors and you want to deny them the most basic right of all: The right to own their bodies, the right to determine who or what will have the use of them!
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            No fetus shows the EEG waves needed to be declared alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation.
            I we accept this clinical marker as the point were we can disconnect life-support and harvest organs for transplant, then we most certainly can not deny that this clinical marker can be used to determine when fetuses are alive and sentient.

            Coincidentally that is a little after the point of viability (24 weeks) were an abortion is no longer available. So there is even some grace period in the fetuses favor.
            No life other then the womans is involved in an abortion, so you can just live your religion and your faith and stop trying to cram it down everyone else’s throat.

          • Margaret Sanger

            So, your definition of life -“declared alive”- necessitates brain waves/sentience, which has nothing to do with the biological fact that the embryo/fetus is a living thing.
            How far along in her pregnancy was the woman/victim of Dr. Carhart? It was past 24 weeks, no?

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 7:01 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            No fetus shows the EEG waves needed to be declared alive until 26-29 weeks of gestation. I we accept this clinical marker as the point were we can disconnect life-support and harvest organs for transplant, then we most certainly can not deny that this clinical marker can be used to determine when fetuses are alive and sentient.
            Coincidentally that is a little after the point of viability (24 weeks) were an abortion is no longer available. So there is even some grace period in the fetuses favor. No life other then the womans is involved in an abortion, so you can just live your religion and your faith and stop trying to cram it down everyone else’s throat.
            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Hamlin, H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.

            . Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

            EEG activity/fetal pain by K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM)

            However i sugest you take a science course or 50.
            Science clearly agrees were live begins but it is not at conception.

            all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of their brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?!
            Hamlin, H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.

            No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain waves,” associated with live despite extensive EEG studies that have been done on premature babies. the human neonate and fetus.
            J. Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564

            “Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.”
            (EEG activity/fetal pain by K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM)

            A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain-stem will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” (The organized activity in the cortex) that are characteristic of the higher cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

            Appearances is not truth or science, unless you believe everything you see on the SciFi channel too.

        • HeilMary1

          You’re the only Nazi here!

          • Margaret Sanger

            But I’m not pure Aryan.

          • HeilMary1

            Whoop-dee-doo! — And you missed my point: Hitler was a never-excommunicated anti-abortion, anti-contraception CATHOLIC whom the Vatican ordered all German Catholics to vote for! You don’t know history.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Wow. I knew that Hitler was an anti-smoking Nazi, and that he wanted pure German women to breed like rabbits, but that the Vatican ordered German Catholics to vote for Hitler is news to me. Do you have proof? (Yes, I could search it, but I expect that you have a link ready.) —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 6:39 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            HeilMary1 wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Whoop-dee-doo! — And you missed my point: Hitler was a never-excommunicated anti-abortion, anti-contraception CATHOLIC whom the Vatican ordered all German Catholics to vote for! You don’t know history.
            Link to comment

          • HeilMary1

            http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/paul_23_4.html

            “The Great Scandal: Christianity’s Role in the Rise of the Nazis”
            by Gregory S. Paul (Free Inquiry magazine)

            “Since Catholics had been instrumental in bringing Hitler to power and served in his cabinet, the bishops had little choice but to collaborate…..

            …The Catholic vote for the Nazis increased in the last multi-party elections after Hitler assumed control, doubling in some areas, inspiring a mass Catholic exodus from the Zentrum to the fascists.”

            These tiny excerpts don’t do justice to this complex scandal. I’ve collected several books on this subject.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Thanks,

            I’ve had my own issues with Rome, and its historical “regard” for the Jews. See: http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/. My belief is that Pius XII did what he could to save Italian Jews during WWII, and he was praised afterwards by the Jews, but overall, the Papal record is poor, to put it mildly. As for the Holocaust, I fault Luther primarily. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
            It’s hard to argue that if German Catholics had only known about Hitler’s anti-Jewish procilvities, they wouldn’t have voted for him, but Mein Kampf had been in publication for some time…
            We fault them for not respecting UNWANTED human life, namely, BORN JEWS.

          • goatini

            As the child of a survivor (and yes, there were Catholics in the camps who suffered and died), your equating of actual living breathing persons with products of conception that may, or may not, become persons and citizens upon a birth that has not occurred, is not guaranteed, and may not ever occur, is vile, disgusting and dehumanizing. It is the forced-birthers who dehumanize with their deceptions and their attacks on the civil, human and Constitutional rights of citizens to privacy and personal bodily autonomy. You know, the same rights every MALE citizen is endowed with at birth, and the same rights that every MALE citizen would fight in the streets for, were they threatened.

          • Margaret Sanger

            The dehumanizing ones have great difficulty recognizing that the “product of conception” is even human, but my, how they enjoy playing semantics games with nebulous concept words like “person” and “citizens!”

          • goatini

            Again, using accurate terminology is not “semantics”, except to those who seek to deliberately misinform and obfuscate.

            Actually, it is the forced-birthers who use “person” as a “nebulous concept word”, since a fertilized egg is obviously (to any logical, actual *person*) NOT a “person” by any stretch of the imagination.

            And the xenophobic anti-immigration yahoos would be quite incensed at any suggestion that the word “citizen” is a “nebulous concept word”.

            As the child of a survivor, the word “citizen” is taken very, very seriously in my family. And as a logical actual person, I find the quite nebulous concept of “personhood” for a fertilized egg to be very offensive, and highly dehumanizing.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            I expected nothing less from you, because you’ve ARRIVED! I mean, you’ve actually been BORN, which makes you both a PERSON and a CITIZEN, hot damn!
            Too bad that you won’t extend the courtesy…

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:18 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Again, using accurate terminology is not “semantics”, except to those who seek to deliberately misinform and obfuscate.
            Actually, it is the forced-birthers who use “person” as a “nebulous concept word”, since a fertilized egg is obviously (to any logical, actual *person*) NOT a “person” by any stretch of the imagination.
            And the xenophobic anti-immigration yahoos would be quite incensed at any suggestion that the word “citizen” is a “nebulous concept word”.
            As the child of a survivor, the word “citizen” is taken very, very seriously in my family. And as a logical actual person, I find the quite nebulous concept of “personhood” for a fertilized egg to be very offensive, and highly dehumanizing.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

          • Margaret Sanger
          • goatini

            You are wrong, and I am correct. Case against Bremer was dismissed, because it violated her Constitutional rights to privacy and due process.

            The court concluded that the Michigan delivery statute could not be interpreted to apply to a woman’s prenatal behavior, relying on Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees, the right to privacy, statutory construction rules, and the fact that an unborn fetus is not a person.

          • Margaret Sanger

            See: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx Fetal Homicide Laws
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:34 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You are wrong, and I am correct. Case against Bremer was dismissed, because it violated her Constitutional rights to privacy and due process.
            The court concluded that the Michigan delivery statute could not be interpreted to apply to a woman’s prenatal behavior, relying on Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees, the right to privacy, statutory construction rules, and the fact that an unborn fetus is not a person.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            You cited Bremer, and Bremer’s case was dismissed.

            As for “fetal homicide laws”, they are ALL just forced-birther dominionist wedges into the essential civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens. It is completely possible to levy appropriate judgment and sentence upon an assault criminal for the assault crime against the ONLY person and the ONLY entity with rights in the equation – the living, breathing WOMAN. Scott Peterson can’t be executed twice.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Idiot, when the pregnant woman WANTS her baby, then it has all sorts of rights when it is killed either accidentally or by malice and aforethought, in which case her baby is, for all intents and purposes, a PERSON under the law, as much AS THIS THOUGHT MUST PISS YOU OFF. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:16 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You cited Bremer, and Bremer’s case was dismissed.

            As for “fetal homicide laws”, they are ALL just forced-birther dominionist wedges into the essential civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens. It is completely possible to levy appropriate judgment and sentence upon an assault criminal for the assault crime against the ONLY person and the ONLY entity with rights in the equation – the living, breathing WOMAN. Scott Peterson can’t be executed twice.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            A fetus is NOT “for all intents and purposes a PERSON under the law”. People v. Bremer, the case YOU brought up to attempt a specious defense of your specious cause, asserted the fact that “an unborn fetus is not a person” in the case’s dismissal.

          • HeilMary1

            My anti-choice mom didn’t extend me any human rights courtesy after I was born.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Or at naturalization, which always occurs after birth. Those are the facts.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Idiot,

            The FACTS are that the unborn have rights if they are WANTED!
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:23 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Or at naturalization, which always occurs after birth. Those are the facts.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            No, that is not a “fact” at all. Rights accrue to a citizen at birth. Or, at naturalization, which has birth as a prerequisite.

          • bj_survivor

            And that is as it should be. And they aren’t exactly rights. They are allowed to use the body of the woman at her express permission, sometimes even to her own extreme detriment or even death, because that is what she desires. I know it rankles you, as a forced-birther, that women should have any sort of control over their own bodies, their own lives, but you just need to get over yourself and your disgusting, misogynistic superstitions and the supposed whims of your imaginary sky daddy.

            NO ONE has any sort of right to commandeer the body of another person, for any reason, at any time. Not even death row inmates may be compelled to donate their tissues and organs, not even if they caused the condition for which the prospective recipient now needs those tissues or organs. Not even corpses may be harvested for their usable tissues and organs without the express written consent of the formerly live person or his or her next of kin. It is only when it comes to pregnant females that others entertain a convenient notion of some massive, otherwise unheard of right to commandeer an unwilling person’s body for their own gain.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Do you feel better now? My argument is this. If it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy for health reasons, as Doe v. Bolton defines them, then if it is at all possible to save the baby’s life in the process, the effort should be made. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 11:28 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bj_survivor wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And that is as it should be. And they aren’t exactly rights. They are allowed to use the body of the woman at her express permission, sometimes even to her own extreme detriment or even death, because that is what she desires. I know it rankles you, as a forced-birther, that women should have any sort of control over their own bodies, their own lives, but you just need to get over yourself and your disgusting, misogynistic superstitions and the supposed whims of their imaginary sky daddy.

            NO ONE has any sort of right to commandeer the body of another person, for any reason, at any time. Not even death row inmates may be compelled to donate their tissues and organs, not even if they caused the condition for which the prospective recipient now needs those tissues or organs. Not even corpses may be harvested for their usable tissues and organs without the express written consent of the formerly live person or his or her next of kin. It is only when it co mes to p regnant females that others entertain some notion of some massive, otherwise unheard of right to commandeer an unwilling person’s body for their own gain.
            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            And what makes you think it isn’t? Late term abortions are typically very much wanted pregnancies. The late term procedure most often used is induction of labor, so long as the woman is able to endure a trial of labor. It’s apparent that you and your ilk consider women to be flighty, murderous skanks who cannot be trusted to make their own life an medical decisions, which speaks volumes about what vile human beings you all are, but that is simply not the case. I am aware that you and your ilk simply cannot stand that the woman is considered at all, but you will just have to get over yourselves.

          • Margaret Sanger

            The problem with your “ilk” is your inability or unwillingness to even consider the possibility that SOME women who abort their pregnancies may in fact be “flighty, murderous skanks who cannot be trusted to make their own life an medical decisions.” What we do know about this woman is that she hired Dr. Carhart to terminate her pregnancy EVEN IF it meant the death of her baby.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            One gets the feeling that this is the way you view most women, Buford, as evidenced by your ire whenever you’re challenged by one on this board. Though you probably give them a break if they’re the sweet submissive broodmares and helpmeets that you think they should be.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Gee, it sounds like you’re looking for a date…
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 10:10 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            One gets the feeling that this is the way you view most women, Buford, as evidenced by your ire whenever you’re challenged by one on this board. Though you probably give them a break if they’re the sweet submissive broodmares and helpmeets that you think they should be.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Sorry, but no–anti-choice trolls need not apply.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Pro-choice troll: http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Troll.jpg —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:17 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Sorry, but no–anti-choice trolls need not apply.

            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • bj_survivor

            And even if they are, their bodies are still THEIR bodies. Not yours. Not your blood-soaked, homophobic, misogynist church’s. Not the state’s. Not the embryo’s/fetus.’ I know that rankles you and your misogynist ilk, but that is simply too damned bad.

          • Margaret Sanger

            See: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx —- Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:23 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth. Or at naturalization, which always occurs after birth. Those are the facts.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            So-called “fetal homicide laws” are un-Constitutional. They exist only because of forced-birthers pushing them through at the State level as incremental attacks at Roe. As previously asserted, appropriate charges and sentencing is completely adequate for the violent assault crime against the only person and the only entity with rights – the woman.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/statechallenges.html

            Constitutional Challenges to
            State Unborn Victims (Fetal Homicide) Laws

            November 26, 2007

            (All challenges were unsuccessful. All challenges were based at least in part on Roe v. Wade and/or denial of equal protection, unless otherwise noted.)
            California

            In People v. Davis [872 P.2d 591 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld the legislature’s addition of the phrase “or a fetus” to the state murder law in 1970, but held that the term “fetus” applies “beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks.” (California Penal Code 187(a) says, “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”) In People v. Dennis [950 P.2d 1035 (Cal. 1994)], the California Supreme Court upheld inclusion of fetal homicide under Penal Code 190.2(3), which makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder. Georgia

            A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit unanimously upheld the conviction of Richard James Smith, Sr., under Georgia’s “feticide” statute. Smith argued that the law conflicted with Roe v. Wade, but the court rejected this assertion as “without merit.” The court held: “The proposition that Smith relies upon in Roe v. Wade — that an unborn child is not a “person” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment — is simply immaterial in the present context to whether a state can prohibit the destruction of a fetus.” Smith v. Newsome, 815 F.2d 1386 (11th Cir. 1987). Related state supreme court decision: Brinkley v. State, 322 S.E.2d 49 (Ga. 1984) (vagueness/due process challenge).
            Illinois

            U.S. ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow, 888 F.Supp. 909 (C.D.Ill. 1995), and lower court decision, People v. Ford, 581 N.E.2d 1189 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1991).
            People v. Campos, 592 N.E.2d 85 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1992). Subsequent history: appeal denied, 602 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 1992), habeas corpus denied, 827 F.Supp. 1359 (N.D. Ill. 1993), affirmed, 37 F.3d 1501 (7th Cir. 1994), certiorari denied, 514 U.S. 1024 (1995).
            Louisiana

            Re double jeopardy — State v. Smith, 676 So.2d 1068 (La. 1996), rehearing denied, 679 So.2d 380 (La. 1996).
            Minnesota

            State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 931 (1990).
            Re establishment clause — State v. Bauer, 471 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. App. 1991).
            Missouri

            In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490), the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1) that declares that “the life of each human being begins at conception,” that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” and that all state laws “shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,” to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri’s law “impermissibl[y]” adopted “a theory of when life begins,” but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, and held that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids.
            In State v. Knapp, 843 S.W. 2nd (Mo. en banc) (1992), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the definition of “person” in this law is applicable to other statutes, including at least the state’s involuntary manslaughter statute.
            Pennsylvania

  • http://www.facebook.com/jennifer.armstrong1 Jennifer Frances Armstrong

    America: home of the knave.

  • LisaC

    It has been widely reported in the pro-life blogosphere that the young woman’s husband and parents accompanied her to the clinic. And so with all due respect, I think it is inaccurate to say [Anti-choicers are] heartless, not caring how much they hurt this woman’s family in the eagerness to shame her for an abortion, even after she’s died. Rather, anti-choicers are spiteful and do not care how much they hurt this woman’s family in their eagerness to shame them for her abortion.

  • nettwench14

    So glad you now have Disqus and other ways to comment! This woman was probably going to die if she DID NOT have the abortion, so the dr. performed an abortion which ended badly. I can’t believe these anti-choice people, trying to pretend that this was a healthy normal pregnancy except for her choice to have an abortion. I’m sure she didn’t have much of a choice!

    • bitchybitchybitchy

      I think the anti-choice movement believes that this woman should have continued her pregnancy to term regardless of whether doing so would have killed her. They don’t consider the very real medical issues involved when women have late term abortions. It is a tragedy that this procedure ended in the woman’s death.

      • Margaret Sanger

        You don’t know that if “this woman” had continued her pregnancy “to term” it would have killed her. What IS known is that Carhart’s “procedure” IN FACT killed “this woman.”

        • Dezzydez

          You do not know the specific details of the woman’s pregnancy either. Here’s a great idea, maybe you should leave private medical choices to the person instead. No medical procedure is without some risk. The woman consented and that was her choice.

        • bitchybitchybitchy

          I suggest you check out the article in the Washington Post’s 2/21/13 local section concerning the preliminary finding by the state medical examiner. This woman died from a rare complication.

          • Margaret Sanger

            The medical examiner has listed two causes of death. The first cause listed is an “amniotic fluid embolism following termination of pregnancy.” That means amniotic fluid surrounding the pre-born baby entered the patient’s bloodstream, causing a life-threatening condition.
            The second cause of death was listed as “disseminated intravascular coagulation,” or DIC, a condition where small blood clots form and absorb the clotting agents in the blood to the point where profuse bleeding can occur.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:43 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            bitchybitchybitchy wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I suggest you check out the article in the Washington Post’s 2/21/13 local section concerning the preliminary finding by the state medical examiner. This woman died from a rare complication.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Wrong AGAIN. The medical examiner listed THREE causes of death, the third one being FETAL ABNORMALITY.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Clutching at straws, are we?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:58 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Wrong AGAIN. The medical examiner listed THREE causes of death, the third one being FETAL ABNORMALITY.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            No, I’m not. The medical examiner stated that the patient expired due to NATURAL CAUSES, and one of the causes that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge was FETAL ABNORMALITY. I’d say that you are the one who is desperately clutching at straws.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Idiot, I want particulars. FETAL ABNORMALITY tells me nothing.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:21 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            No, I’m not. The medical examiner stated that the patient expired due to NATURAL CAUSES, and one of the causes that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge was FETAL ABNORMALITY. I’d say that you are the one who is desperately clutching at straws.
            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            What the hell makes you think you’re entitled to particulars? You are a stranger and you are no one to this woman or her family. They owe you nothing.

          • Margaret Sanger

            An argument is being made about the causes of death of Ms. Morbelli, but you’re one of the herd who would excuse “Dr.” Carhart no matter what, so I say to you that I frankly don’t care what you think, because you are compromised by a pro-abortion mindset. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:42 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            What the hell makes you think you’re entitled to particulars? You are a stranger and you are no one to this woman or her family. They owe you nothing.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • goatini

            The medical examiner has performed his/her due diligence and has provided his/her findings. There is no “argument” being made, save by those who also have an “argument” to support the murder, by depraved indifference, of Savita Halappananvar.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Wow! Gee! I’m supposed to know about this “depraved indifference”regarding one Savita Halappananvar even as you provide no link, and as though this tragedy has any bearing whatsoever on the question of Dr. Carhart’s “depraved indifference” -as I see it- to the plight of one of his patients, who subsequently DIED as a consequence of his medical MALPRACTICE.

          • bj_survivor

            Look it up, cupcake. It’s been all over the ‘net. Google is your friend.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Speaking of Savita, I browsed one of the “pro-life” boards where people were talking about her death–with one woman insinuating that the woman’s husband had caused the miscarriage because the baby was a girl and then later saying that she thought the hospital staff might have deliberately neglected the woman because they suspected she had tried to abort. Not only that, but this woman implied that she would approve of the hospital staff doing something like that. The true face behind the facade of “pro-life”.

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            That’s a rather convenient way of dodging a question. I ask again, what makes you think you’re entitled to particulars?

          • Margaret Sanger

            If the medical examiner in this case had not thought that I was entitled to “particulars,” then I would not now know that the cause of death of the woman in question was “amniotic fluid embolism following termination of pregnancy,” which means amniotic fluid surrounding the pre-born baby entered the patient’s bloodstream, causing a life-threatening condition, and secondarily, “disseminated intravascular coagulation,” or DIC, a condition where small blood clots form and absorb the clotting agents in the blood to the point where profuse bleeding can occur. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:16 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            That’s a rather convenient way of dodging a question. I ask again, what makes you think you’re entitled to particulars?
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • goatini

            I wish the car dealers had never started referring to used cars as “pre-owned”, since this is where the forced-birthers got their ridiculous “pre-born” nonsense from. A baby is born.

          • Margaret Sanger

            And you remain a born “product of conception.”
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:30 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            I wish the car dealers had never started referring to used cars as “pre-owned”, since this is where the forced-birthers got their ridiculous “pre-born” nonsense from. A baby is born.
            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/ruthe.olmsted Ruthe Olmsted

            Margaret, I can’t decide if you are a ghoul digging into this woman’s death, or if you just need to get laid.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Probably a little of each.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 6:00 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Ruthe Olmsted wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Margaret, I can’t decide if you are a ghoul digging into this woman’s death, or if you just need to get laid.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Bit of both, I suspect :)

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            And don’t pretend that you actually care about this woman. You want complications and deaths to occur–it helps your cause.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Thanks for the insult.

            Eat shit and die, please.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:20 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Jennifer Starr wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And don’t pretend that you actually care about this woman. You want complications and deaths to occur–it helps your cause.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • goatini

            So “pro-life” of you.

          • Margaret Sanger

            It would be a death by a NATURAL CAUSE.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:40 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            So “pro-life” of you.

            Link to comment

          • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

            Oooh, threaty. Tell me, do you always get this testy when challenged?

          • phatkhat

            And you, sir, are compromised by magical thinking.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.livinglakecountry.com/blogs/communityblogs/45012302.html

            Magical Thinking – The Abortion Controversy
            By Al Neuhauser
            Oct. 25, 2008
            To begin with, a full disclosure. My wife and I have two daughters, both adopted. They are grown now, with children of their own. One grandchild, the oldest, is a fine horsewoman and a Registered Nurse at a local hospital, from all indications an exceptional one. She will undoubtedly at times in her career be instrumental in saving lives. We take pride in the knowledge that our family consists of decent, productive–or potentially so-members of society. The kicker is that when we look with loving eyes on our girls and their families, we cannot help but think that had it been a few decades later, these two wonderful kids might well have never been permitted to live.
            Magical thinking, simply defined, is the idea that the real world is what we want it to be, not what it is. The abortion controversy abounds with magical thinking. Prevailing pro-choice philosophy is that if a pregnant woman wants her unborn child, then it is a human being subject to the full protection of the law. However, if she does not want it, then it consists merely of “an undifferentiated mass of cells” that can legally be aborted. This is a perfect example of magical thinking.
            In fact, the philosophical guru of the pro-choice community, Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University, asserts that a child should be subject to killing after birth, should it prove to be defective. According to Singer, “… killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” (Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993)

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:50 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            phatkhat wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            And you, sir, are compromised by magical thinking.

            Link to comment

          • phatkhat

            “According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr.,
            magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the
            interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend
            both physical and spiritual connections.”

            “Zusne and Jones (1989: 13) define magical thinking as the
            belief that
            …’one’s thought, words, or actions can achieve
            specific physical effects in a manner not governed by the principles of
            ordinary transmission of energy or information.'”

            http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

            RELIGION abounds with magical thinking. Religion IS magical thinking.

            And forced birthers also indulge in magical thinking, by your definition, like, an embryo=a baby.

            As to Peter Singer, I don’t totally disagree with him. Again, think of the suffering of children like Santorum’s daughter. Unless you have some religious belief that suffering=some sort of transcendence, then suffering should be alleviated when possible. I also believe in assisted suicide when a patient is terminal and desires it.

          • Margaret Sanger

            You sound like a “forced deather” to me.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 12:22 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            phatkhat wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            “According to anthropologist Dr. Phillips Stevens Jr.,
            magical thinking involves several elements, including a belief in the interconnectedness of all things through forces and powers that transcend both physical and spiritual connections.”

            “Zusne and Jones (1989: 13) define magical thinking as the
            belief that
            …’one’s thought, words, or actions can achieve
            specific physical effects in a manner not governed by the principles of ordinary transmission of energy or information.'”

            http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

            RELIGION abounds with magical thinking. Religion IS magical thinking.

            And forced birthers also indulge in magical thinking, by your definition, like, an embryo=a baby.

            As to Peter Singer, I don’t totally disagree with him. Again, think of the suffering of children like Santorum’s daughter. Unless you have some religious belief that suffering=some sort of transcendence, then suffering should be alleviated when possible. I also believe in assisted suicide when a patient is terminal and desires it.
            Link to comment

          • phatkhat

            Not at all. I even oppose capital punishment.

            However, in some cases, allowing someone to die is the kindest thing you can do. Why is it that when our animals are old and sick, we help them slip away peacefully, but we insist on making humans suffer until the end?

            I worked in a nursing home when I was young, and one of my patients was a very old lady with leukemia. She was a sweet old soul, but she suffered horribly. You couldn’t touch her without bruising her, no matter how gentle you were. She had places where her flesh was literally coming off. She begged to be released, but no one could do it legally. I can see her to this day. We were all so happy for her when she finally passed, though it wasn’t an easy crossing for her. Why should she have had to suffer so?

            Why was it so hard for the religious folk to let Terri Schiavo go on? When the mind is gone, why keep the body alive?

            When a little baby is going to suffer horribly, and have no ability to understand it, is it kind to force that suffering upon it? Your Mother Teresa seemed to relish the suffering of her “patients”, since she had no use for analgesia for them. Was she really a saint, or was she a monster masquerading as one?

            Maybe you are younger than I am, and therefore still in the wanting to live forever mode. But the older you get, the less horrible the prospect of death becomes. Since I don’t believe in an afterlife, at least not in the usual sense, I relish this life, but I no longer want to live past my ability to enjoy living.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1.shtml

            Active and passive euthanasia
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 12:48 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            phatkhat wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Not at all. I even oppose capital punishment.

            However, in some cases, allowing someone to die is the kindest thing you can do. Why is it that when our animals are old and sick, we help them slip away peacefully, but we insist on making humans suffer until the end?

            I worked in a nursing home when I was young, and one of my patients was a very old lady with leukemia. She was a sweet old soul, but she suffered horribly. You couldn’t touch her without bruising her, no matter how gentle you were. She had places where her flesh was literally coming off. She begged to be released, but no one could do it legally. I can see her to this day. We were all so happy for her when she finally passed, though it wasn’t an easy crossing for her. Why should she have had to suffer so?

            Why was it so hard for the religious folk to let Terri Schiavo go on? When the mind is gone, why keep the body alive?

            When a little baby is going to suffer horribly, and have no ability to understand it, is it kind to force that suffering upon it? Your Mother Teresa seemed to relish the suffering of her “patients”, since she had no use for analgesia for them. Was she really a saint, or was she a monster masquerading as one?

            Maybe you are younger than I am, and therefore still in the wanting to live forever mode. But the older you get, the less horrible the prospect of death becomes. Since I don’t believe in an afterlife, at least not in the usual sense, I relish this life, but I no longer want to live past my ability to enjoy living.
            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/ruthe.olmsted Ruthe Olmsted

            Excellent reply, Jennifer.

          • goatini

            Ask the medical examiner.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ruthe.olmsted Ruthe Olmsted

            Don’t you have a life of your own, it seems not since you are so super-absorbed in this dead ladies life, or her death really. Frankly, it is none of your damn business, and it is not politicians’ business what people do medically. You are very annoying, you seem completely unaware of that fact.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me, for that child is thereby connected to that head which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me. All mankind is of one author and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language, and every chapter must be so translated. God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness. There was a contention as far as a suit (in which piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? But who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. . . .

            from Meditation 17
            by John Donne
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Ruthe Olmsted wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Don’t you have a life of your own, it seems not since you are so super-absorbed in this dead ladies life, or her death really. Frankly, it is none of your damn business, and it is not politicians’ business what people do medically. You are very annoying, you seem completely unaware of that fact.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • phatkhat

            Very interesting that the “forced birthers” are so concerned about the rights and “life” of the fetus, and justice for it and all, and yet so unconcerned about that fetus after it is born and actually becomes a baby. All this interconnectedness cited by Donne is pretty much ignored when it applies to brown people, poor people, people of different faiths. Why should I care what some religious fanatics think about one or two culture issues when they are such hypocrites on stuff that really matters – like poverty.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-difference-between-a-baby-and-a-fetus
            Q. What is the difference between a baby and a fetus?

            A. A fetus refers to the unborn baby in a mother’s womb. Once born, it is called a baby. From 32 weeks, behaviorally, they are the same.
            See also: http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/17942083/s_o_fetus_alive_What_is_the_difference_between_a_baby_and_a_fetus
            Speaking of poverty…

            “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
            so that you may live as you wish.”

            Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu,
            a.k.a., Mother Teresa

            What is the difference between a baby and a fetus? – See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-difference-between-a-baby-and-a-fetus#sthash.T6y6DlLz.dpufWhat is the difference between a baby and a fetus? – See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-difference-between-a-baby-and-a-fetus#sthash.T6y6DlLz.dpuf—– Original Message —– From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 9:58 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            phatkhat wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Very interesting that the “forced birthers” are so concerned about the rights and “life” of the fetus, and justice for it and all, and yet so unconcerned about that fetus after it is born and actually becomes a baby. All this interconnectedness cited by Donne is pretty much ignored when it applies to brown people, poor people, people of different faiths. Why should I care what some religious fanatics think about one or two culture issues when they are such hypocrites on stuff that really matters – like poverty.
            Link to comment

          • phatkhat

            Like all forced-birthers, you use the “broken record” technique to try to downshout your opponents, but never really address their actual points.

            Do you believe that this “Marie” deserved to die, then? Do you believe the lady in Ireland deserved to die? You people also don’t address the point that in what are deemed medically necessary abortions, BOTH the mother and fetus will die. Is that, like the Catholic Church proclaims, god’s will? If that’s the case, why do we treat cancer? Or appendicitis?

            What if a fetus is so deformed that it either cannot survive past birth – i.e., on its own – or will suffer, perhaps years, before it dies, like Rick Santorum’s pathetic daughter? (I use “it” as a non-gender pronoun.) The child cannot understand why it is suffering, but endures horrific pain, because its parents were too cowed by the church/religion to prevent it. There ARE things in the world worse than death.

          • Cassandra2011

            Nor do they give a ‘rat’s ass’ about the rights of the girl or woman, as though she is nothing but a Petrie dish or a ‘filthy vessel (“St. Thomas Aquinas).
            The misogyny is blatant, and women who just go along with it, and never confront it (as in the ‘mother church’ or congress or their own homes) have no respect for themselves or other women.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

            how did i know you would be some old religious fanatic that will never understand pregnancy and complications because you can’t get pregnant? you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, and are dumbing down this whole debate. please do everyone, including yourself a favor and stfu.

          • Margaret Sanger

            How did I know you would be some old anti-religious bigot? I didn’t, but it kind of goes with the territory. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:25 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kristen Adkins wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            how did i know you would be some old religious fanatic that will never understand pregnancy and complications because you can’t get pregnant? you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, and are dumbing down this whole debate. please do everyone, including yourself a favor and stfu.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            Goat,

            How exactly would FETAL ABNORMALITY cause death?
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:58 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Wrong AGAIN. The medical examiner listed THREE causes of death, the third one being FETAL ABNORMALITY.
            Link to comment

          • goatini

            Ask the medical examiner. S/he has conclusively determined the patient expired from NATURAL CAUSES, and that one of the causes of the patient’s death was fetal abnormality.

          • Margaret Sanger

            Idiot,

            You erred by noting that ONE of the causes of the patient’s death was “fetal abnormality.” Tell us about the others, please.

          • goatini

            You already did, quite notably omitting the third cause. And I already provided technical, medically accurate information about the other two causes. And I already advised you that the top-level cause, as determined by the medical examiner, was NATURAL CAUSES.

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_death

            Unnatural death is a category used by coroners and vital statistics specialists for classifying all human deaths not properly describable as death by natural causes. Hence it would include events such as:
            a.. accident
            b.. execution
            c.. homicide
            d.. misadventure
            a.. being attacked by insects, reptiles, fish, carnivorans, or other wildlife b.. adverse outcome of surgery (note that this is not failure of surgery) e.. suicide
            f.. terrorism
            g.. war
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:28 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            goatini wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You already did, quite notably omitting the third cause. And I already provided technical, medically accurate information about the other two causes. And I already advised you that the top-level cause, as determined by the medical examiner, was NATURAL CAUSES.
            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1042389310 Sapphron Grace

            You conduct yourself obnoxiously and appear to be a very ignorant person based on the tone and content of your posts, Margaret. Clearly your mother failed in teaching you how to have respectful civil discourse.

          • Margaret Sanger

            My mother didn’t suffer fools gladly, but she was “pro-choice” like you, so does that makes her OK in your book? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:39 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Sapphron Grace wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            You conduct yourself obnoxiously and appear to be a very ignorant person based on the tone and content of your posts, Margaret. Clearly your mother failed in teaching you how to have respectful civil discourse.
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

            here is a link that provides examples as to why late term abortions are sometimes necessary.

            http://amplifyyourvoice.org/u/vanessaaishacoleman/2009/06/01/late-term-abortions

            ” Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical
            disorders aggravated by pregnancy.17 Conditions such as Eisenmenger
            syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in
            pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%.18 In recent years, I have
            performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus
            conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic
            aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes
            late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or
            radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves
            abortion.”

          • Margaret Sanger

            I never said that late term abortions are never necessary, even under the broad definition of health that Doe v. Bolton spelled out. My argument is that if an adavanced pregnancy must be terminated, and it is at all possible to save the baby’s life in the process, for its own sake, then the effort should be made. —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:17 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kristen Adkins wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            here is a link that provides examples as to why late term abortions are sometimes necessary. http://amplifyyourvoice.org/u/vanessaaishacoleman/2009/06/01/late-term-abortions
            ” Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical
            disorders aggravated by pregnancy.17 Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%.18 In recent years, I have performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.”

            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
            ~Margaret Sanger, Woman and the New Race, ch. 6: “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families.”
            [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
            ~ Margaret Sanger, “Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)
            “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
            Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 3:17 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kristen Adkins wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            here is a link that provides examples as to why late term abortions are sometimes necessary. http://amplifyyourvoice.org/u/vanessaaishacoleman/2009/06/01/late-term-abortions
            ” Late abortion can be lifesaving for women with medical
            disorders aggravated by pregnancy.17 Conditions such as Eisenmenger syndrome carry a high risk of maternal morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, the latter ranging from 20% to 30%.18 In recent years, I have performed late abortions for a Kampuchean refugee with craniopagus conjoined twins and a 25-year-old woman with a 9 x 15-cm thoracic aortic aneurysm from newly diagnosed Marfan syndrome. Cancer sometimes makes late abortion necessary. For example, either radical hysterectomy or radiation therapy for cervical cancer before fetal viability involves abortion.”

            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509270298 Kristen Adkins

            and how does an article from 1932 about racism and eugenics apply to this?

          • Margaret Sanger

            That you DON’T grasp the significance of Sanger’s thoughts about lives that are considered “worthy” of life is precisely the problem. Of course, you’re one of the survivors… —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:29 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kristen Adkins wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            and how does an article from 1932 about racism and eugenics apply to this?
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • Margaret Sanger

            http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/despite-licensing-carharts-late-term-abortion-clinic-not-inspected-prior-to-patient-death/
            Despite Licensing, Carhart’s Late-term Abortion Clinic Not Inspected Prior to Patient Death Germantown, Maryland – Germantown Reproductive Health Services, (GRHS) where late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart gave a patient a fatal 33-week abortion, was licensed by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality last July, but was never inspected prior to licensing nor was it inspected as of the time of the patient death on February 7, 2013.
            “It is a wonder how the Office of Health Care Quality verified that Carhart’s high risk late-term abortion clinic met the qualifications for licensure if it never bothered to conduct an inspection,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “It is unbelievable that the State of Maryland would be so reckless after all the trouble it has had with illegal late-term abortion businesses being operated by the likes of Steven Brigham and James Pendergraft. It’s clear that the office dropped the ball.”
            It was Brigham’s case that prompted Maryland to require abortion clinic licensing.
            Brigham, a troubled New Jersey abortionist, was caught operating a secret and illegal late-term abortion mill in Elkton, Maryland in September, 2010. He and his associate, Nicola I. Riley of Utah were later charged with murder after a police raid of the facility discovered the remains of 35 late-term aborted babies, many viable, in a freezer.

            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:29 PM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            Kristen Adkins wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            and how does an article from 1932 about racism and eugenics apply to this?
            User’s website

            Link to comment

          • cjvg

            Both of which also occur during childbirth, want to ban that too?!

          • Margaret Sanger

            Where was Dr. Carhart when his one surviving patient was dying of these two abortion related complications? —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: lexcathedra@suddenlink.net
            Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 1:55 AM
            Subject: [rhrealitycheck] Re: Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery

            cjvg wrote, in response to Margaret Sanger:

            Both of which also occur during childbirth, want to ban that too?!

            Link to comment

      • Kathi J

        I know one of the leaders of the group that brought this to the public eye and on his FB page many of his friends have commented and a few of them have said she deserved to die because she was willing to “murder her baby”. Lovely pro-life and very Christian of them isn’t it?

        • bitchybitchybitchy

          I’m at a loss as to how people can make statements such as those and call themselves Christians. This woman made a difficult decision based on information that is known to her, her immediate family and her medical providers. At least people could have the kindness to allow her husband and family to mourn her death, and the end of a much desired pregnancy.

        • bj_survivor

          This pervasive attitude amongst abortion rights opponents, as well as their opposition to contraception and universal healthcare is why I refuse to call them “pro-life.” “Forced-birth” is far more accurate.

          • Cassandra2011

            Yes, these ‘pro-BIRTH’ hypocrites are only interested in forcing girls and women (frequently raped, incested or sick) to bear fetuses to term , but not at all willing to help support or protect the resultant ‘babies’ and work to defeat any bill that might do so. Nor do they show genuine propensities toward so-called ‘pro-life’ when they support incessant wars, capital punishment and the NRA free-for-all on guns.

  • nettwench14

    Please please allow this site to flag trolls and not permit them to hatefully spam and attempt to hijack and intimidate people from discussing these important issues! Margaret Sanger needs to be banned!

    • Margaret Sanger

      How typical.

    • bj_survivor

      If you scroll over with your mouse to the end of the gray line above the post in question, a minus sign and a down arrow will appear. Click on the down arrow and you can flag the post.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=599181133 Chelsea Frost

    FUCK these people. FUCK them. They are a menace to our society.

  • yooper1

    I guess the right-to-lifers didn’t learn anything from the Terry Schaivo circus. Their attitude dates back to the Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic hierarchy persecuted healers because disease was “God’s Will.” Once they figured out that they, themselves could benefit from thwarting god’s will, they quit persecuting healers and moved on to persecuting others. Of course, women exist for the purpose of perpetuating the species and any attempts to thwart their function as reproductive vessels thwarts god’s will to this day so providers of reproductive care get persecuted like the healers of old.
    In the U.S. hospitals did do elective abortions. Some still do but they don’t generally make it known.
    As we have seen with the election of an Afro-American for President, the backlash against Civil Rights is still going on. With the recent conflict over insurance coverage of abortion and prescription contraception, the backlash against women’s rights is still going on as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/darinfate Darin Lynch

    Seems to be a lot of speculation on this board. Does anyone know why she went to have this procedure?

    • athenap

      Does it matter? What were the results of your last sperm count? The rights of Fetal Americans depend on busybodies in the anti-choice movement knowing these things! Their facebook groups would be leached of their outrage without it.

    • Clevelandchick

      There are many reasons for a late term abortion, fetus viability (horrible deformed, missing eyes, brain formed outside of skull etc) that natal surgery can’t fix or a medical condition of the mother’s like cancer, heart problems etc. Pregnancy hormones will accelerate the growth of cancer cells It is not uncommon for women to have heart attacks during childbirth or shortly after even if they don’t have heart disease.

      That said, HER DOCTORS RECOMMENDED THE PROCEDURE to safeguard her health. It is illegal to perform one unless her health is in danger. It’s the epitome of misogyny to doubt her and her family.

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      There are some other people you need to be asking about that–namely, the ones who invaded this woman’s privacy and released her name and medical information without her family’s permission.

    • Margaret Sanger

      From http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-11/local/37040544_1_abortion-clinic-leroy-carhart-late-term

      The circumstances leading to the woman’s death remained unclear Monday.
      State and county officials confirmed that she had visited the abortion
      clinic and that she died Thursday morning at Shady Grove Adventist
      Hospital, but they offered no details.

      Still unclear was whether the woman was as far along in her pregnancy as
      the demonstrators say and, if so, why she sought an abortion so late.
      The gift registry indicated a due date of March 20. Also unknown was the
      nature of the fetus’s medical condition and whether the health or life
      of either mother or child was at risk.

      • cjvg

        State and county officials did not offer detail since they are not allowed to do so by law.
        It is called the right to privacy! and in the case of medical information we have HIPPA laws against the dissemination of that knowledge, without the patients consent!!!

        The only ones who were releasing detailed information on the woman, her name her work place/profession, her marital status, photo of her,how many other children she had, length of gestation, fetal complications, indication for abortion etc were the anti- choice crowd.

        The only way they have gotten that information is by stealing her medical records, a highly illegal, amoral, criminal and plain disrespectful act.
        These anti-choice groups have no moral higher ground left, if they ever had one.

      • Dezzydez

        How the hell is it any of your business the details of a strangers medical condition? Why do you stick your nose in others private lives?

        • goatini

          Especially since violating the privacy of medical records is a Federal offense.

  • Pingback: Reproductive Rights News | Everblog

  • Brady Test

    test

  • Pingback: » Wednesday Links Alison Blogs Here

  • knottymama

    Easy on the “surgery is safer than birth” comparisons! Women in America
    actually ARE forced by their OB’s to get unnecessary and unwanted
    Caesarians every day because they are more convenient and profitable for
    doc. Don’t get me wrong, I’m completely prochoice whether that choice
    is abortion, adoption, keeping the baby, natural, or medicated birth.
    But by playing birth up as a dangerous endeavor (in general, obviously she was the rare exception) you actually aid in the mistreatment of thousands of other women.

    • HeilMary1

      Actually, c-sections help women avoid bladder and bowel incontinence.

      • Arachne646

        But you get higher rates of other complications of birth to offset that.

  • cmarie

    It’s certainly true that you can die from any surgery but any responsible surgeon is going to make him or herself available to consult with patients who have complications. Dr. Carhart couldn’t be reached by the patient, her family or the Dr’s at the emergency room she eventually went to. Also, there was a considerable delay in getting her to the hospital at all, apparently because she was directed by the Dr to consult only with him at his clinic and by the time anyone was able to reach him, she was dead. If you went to get your wisdom teeth pulled and the Dr. said not to consult with anyone but him and not to go to the emergency room in any case a red flag would certainly go up. If, you later couldn’t reach him and were left with no option but to disregard his directions and go to the ER and even they couldn’t reach him, you would clearly be the victim of medical neglect at the very least.

    • HeilMary1

      Carhart was probably on a plane since he doesn’t live in Maryland!

    • Arachne646

      With what was on that autopsy certificate, it doesn’t matter if Dr. Carhart had babysat her all day long. She would still be just as dead now.

    • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

      It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if Carhart was able to operate his business in the open, without having to deal with stalkers, death threats and arson? If he didn’t have to worry about his patients being stalked and harassed by the so-called “pro-life” faction–their names and medical histories being spread all over the internet? It would probably be safer for his patients as well–you think?

      • goatini

        Nothing “peaceful” about Schiedler.

        • http://twitter.com/JenGStarr Jennifer Starr

          Very true. There’s a violent history there.

    • crowepps

      Since I sincerely doubt you or any other anti-abortion fanatic actually has any firsthand information from the patient, her family or the doctors at the emergency room, you might want to consider just how outrageous it is that you/they are asserting you are privy to the doctor’s instructions to the patient. I can’t think anything other than that you guys feel any means at all are justified because your goal is *so* important — you all just make stuff up and lie and lie and lie. Fortunately, that’s obvious.

    • cjvg

      And how would you know that?
      This information would only be known to her or her husband (who is not giving interviews)

      So you are making up crap that is not even true and has no basis in reality (unless you are going to claim the protesters could hear their conversations all the way out there on the street)

      No doctor has ever made those statements as long as abortion has been legal!
      You so desperately want to return to the time were women had to hide their abortion and could not go to an ER, that you are already imagining these conversations taking place again.

      No doctor is on call 24/7, if you call the their office with complications the first instruction is to go to the ER.

  • keefers42

    their are people on both sides that go to far these pro lifers are wrong

  • Pingback: Unethical, Cruel, and Likely Illegal: Anti-Choicers Make Family's Tragedy Public Without Their Consent | RH Reality Check