USA Today falsely suggested Tiller indiscriminately aborted viable fetuses
SUMMARY: A USA Today article about George Tiller's murder reported that Tiller's clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable" -- without noting that Kansas law permits such abortions in certain cases.
In a June 1 article about the murder of abortion provider George Tiller, USA Today reported that Tiller was a "controversial figure" whose clinic "performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable." But USA Today did not report that Kansas law permits the abortion of viable fetuses when the doctor performing the abortion and another doctor agree that the "abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman" or that the pregnant woman would be irreparably harmed -- physically or mentally -- by giving birth.
By contrast, in its account of the Tiller slaying, CNN.com reported that Kansas law permits a doctor to abort a viable fetus only "if that physician and another determine the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman":
Kansas law generally allows abortions even into the third trimester so long as the physician determines the fetus isn't viable. A doctor who makes such a determination after 21 weeks gestation must report the reasons why the determination was made.
"Third trimester abortion is simply a part of abortion," Tiller told Wichita TV station KAKE in 1999. "We have constructed our clinic and our philosophy along the lines that until you have natural survivalhood [of the fetus], the woman is the patient, not the fetus.
"When does natural survivalhood come on? ... Sometime after the end of the second trimester."
But even if a fetus is determined to be viable after 21 weeks, Kansas law still permits a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician and another determine the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
Tiller was the only Kansas doctor still performing late-term abortions in Kansas, the Wichita Eagle reported.
Nor did USA Today report that Tiller was recently acquitted of charges that he had performed 19 illegal late-term abortions. Whereas prosecutors charged that Tiller had aborted viable fetuses without having a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with him, jurors found Tiller not guilty on all counts.
From Kansas' prohibition against partial birth abortion on viable fetus (statute 65-6721):
(a) No person shall perform or induce a partial birth abortion on a viable fetus unless such person is a physician and has a documented referral from another physician not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing or inducing the abortion and both physicians determine: (1) The abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman; or (2) a continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major physical or mental function of the pregnant woman.
(b) As used in this section:
(1) "Partial birth abortion" means an abortion procedure which includes the deliberate and intentional evacuation of all or a part of the intracranial contents of a viable fetus prior to removal of such otherwise intact fetus from the body of the pregnant woman.
(2) "Partial birth abortion" shall not include the: (A) Suction curettage abortion procedure; (B) suction aspiration abortion procedure; or (C) dilation and evacuation abortion procedure involving dismemberment of the fetus prior to removal from the body of the pregnant woman.
(c) If a physician determines in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) that a partial birth abortion is necessary and performs a partial birth abortion on the woman, the physician shall report such determination and the reasons for such determination in writing to the medical care facility in which the abortion is performed for inclusion in the report of the medical care facility to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto or if the abortion is not performed in a medical care facility, the physician shall report the reasons for such determination in writing to the secretary of health and environment as part of the written report made by the physician to the secretary of health and environment under K.S.A. 65-445 and amendments thereto. The physician shall retain a copy of the written reports required under this subsection for not less than five years.
(d) A woman upon whom an abortion is performed shall not be prosecuted under this section for a conspiracy to violate this section pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3302, and amendments thereto.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a right to an abortion. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, a person shall not perform an abortion that is prohibited by law.
(f) Upon conviction of a violation of this section, a person shall be guilty of a severity level 10 person felony.
From the June 1 USA Today article:
Police have a suspect in custody, a 51-year-old man from Merriam, Kan. Johnson County sheriff's spokesman Tom Erickson identified the man as Scott Roeder, the Associated Press reported. Murder charges are expected to be filed against him today, Wichita Deputy Chief Tom Stolz said.
Tiller, who has been providing abortions since 1973, was a controversial figure in the debate over abortion rights -- a catalyst for opponents who galvanized against him and a role model for supporters who praised his work. His clinic performs abortions after the point when a fetus is considered viable.
Abortion rights opponents denounced the killing Sunday, saying they support peaceful, legal avenues to stop doctors who perform abortions. Troy Newman, director of Operation Rescue, said his organization had been working through the Kansas board that licenses physicians to have Tiller's medical license revoked.
Stupid half witted people who are so easily swayed to an opinion are listening to these right wing ideologues and killing people!!!!! Does the "liberal" media care? Yeah right. The sad reality is that it is going to take more loss of life before the majority of the public really turn on the sponsors of this hateful propoganda. When will it end?
(But come on guys... If there are any truly principaled liberals out there, you really should be taking me to task for my desire to see this man executed! LOL. Please proove to me that at leats SOME of us are better than them, even if I'm not!)
"what you do to them is not a function of who THEY are but rather of who YOU are"
I really like this. And yes, I WILL admit that my support of the death IS essentially a vice (Wrath.) It IS a shortcoming, but not one that I'm ready to overcome just yet.
So I accept your judgement. :) And I happily admit that I am a lesser man for wanting this man executed. (Assuming he's convicted, of course. That goes w/o saying.) I does make me a lesser man, but I say "Fry the bastard" anyway.
I do not however support the death penalty appliying to ANYONE who has not actually taken a life, themselves. To do so goes BEYOND "an eye for an eye" and that's too far.
"The maximum sentence that the law allows is that you be BURNED TO DEATH! But in light of your previous GOOD behavior, this court in inclined to be lenient. Therefore it is our decision that you should be BURNED ALIVE." ~ Prince Harry, in The Black Adder
Tiller's murder may be a terrible thing to those who consider human life valuable, but to draw support for the death penalty (by many liberals) because of his death seems a bit hypocritical considering what he did for a living.
After all, this article starts out by stating what Tiller did was legal because the law allowed it. I remember that slavery was legal at one time and the courts allowed that too. Hasn't it been said that some laws need to change because they are simply morally wrong? Perhaps it's time to change this immoral law. Unless there is someone who can explain how killing a viable human being is ok while mental stability is the only reason.
(And you guys really need to quit trying to make 'hyposcarsy' arguments. You really suck at them!) There's no hypocrisy here, at all, unless the calls for his execution come from liberals that have previously opposed the death penalty. I don't, and never have. What's more, NOTHING Tiller did comes close to him derserving execution. NOTHING. Not. Even. Close. My opinion? Nope. That's the opinion of the LAW, the COURTS and the DUELY ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Those same bodies will likey seriously consider the DP for Tiller's killer.
But ultimately, I think there are too many arguments against it. Such as errors, cost and the fact that the law isn't applied equally to minority populations.
Plus I don't think it ultimately gives anybody peace of mind or helps them with closure. I don't believe retribution is a good reason to kill anybody. And if it's wrong for the killer to kill, then it's equally wrong for the state to kill.
As far as punishment, I don't see that it's a particular deterent and I'd rather have somebody live with their crime rather than their concscience be exonerated by allowing them to die. To me that seems to be letting them off the hook.
I'm not calling you out, I'm genuinley curious and would like to read more about it.
Prosecutorial misconduct or incompetence, in addition to indifference by the state is ONE THING that might make me re-think my stance.
(Although not really... I've ALWAYS said that it should be taken right off the table, automatically, if there is ANY DOUBT, AT ALL, that we have the right guy.)
But I'm still interested in reading mroe about that case.
Randy
If someone hurt my family and I had the opportunity, I will kill the perpetrator without batting one of my liberal eyelashes. I would also accept the consequences of such an act, after all vigilantism can be more disruptive to a society than the actual crimes themselves. However, I still wouldn't think it's the government's place to make that ultimate fateful decision. It's the line that should never be crossed and the power over us we should never cede.
I'll reiterate. I don't think the government should sanction individual retribution. It can't. It has to look out for the greater ends of society as a whole. This need is often at odds with the rights of individuals.
Since the government is not the one wronged, then it's attempt at "justice" can only be hollow and wanting. It should not be in the "justice" business. It should be in the law and order business. Let's drop the illusion once and for all.
What great values you have, "No they don't. (deserve protection) They are fetuses". But you admit you would commit murder.
No one uses the Guillotine anymore either, although that would probably be the most humane method, assuming a well-mainatined mahcine, and despite it's gruesome appearance. If I had to be put to death, I would proably take that over lethal injection or any other method (given the choice.) I've heard too many horror stories about LI gone wrong.
Not Texas though... oddly enough. Considering we have the highest rate of putting inmates to death than nearly all the other D.P. states combined, I'm suprised we don't offer those three methods, plus a few more.
I have some very strong opinions about the D.P. and propbably always will, but one thing keeps coming back to me everytime I discuss it. In this world, there are some crimes that cannot be forgiven and there are some people who just deserve to die.
The death penalty is worthless in all cases. It is revenge and not justice. I do not even see the value of it as punishment since I would rather be put to death than spend life in prison without the possibility of parole. It also does not deter any future crimes. And most importantly, our judicial system is based on the idea that sometimes we get it wrong. As long as human beings are fallible the death penalty is a waste of time in my opinion.
I lot of people say this (including myself) but everyone actually facing this fate keeps on filing those appeals, and keeps on asking for commutaion or clemency. It soudns nice in theory, but I think that scant few among us would REALLY make that choice, were we ever really faced with it.
I did not read the link, as arguing abortion is useless, but it looks like what the clinic did was legal, but that they did perform an abortion when the fetus was considered viable.
Well, yes, that's exactly what he did. "Mental health"? Come on, how is that NOT simplistic? That could be as simple as "I don't want it or I'll go crazy" and voila ... it's gone.
I want to know something from all the right-wing "pro-life" wackos out there. If you really think that abortion is murder, why are you sitting on your butts letting it happen millions of times a year? Why aren't you rioting in the streets? If millions of actual born people were being legally killed, I would certainly not be content to sit in my recliner and do nothing about it. Could it be that deep down, even these nuts know that a fetus is not the same as a born human? I think the answer is obvious.
Right wingers fight violence with law, left wingers fight law with violence.
You realize, of course, that you're posting this ridiculous statement (Tim McVeigh was a right winger, for instance, as were the Freemen in Montana) regarding an article about a right-winger murdering somebody who did things he didn't like.
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.
Besides the above being a total and complete LIE, I'll play along. The Republicans were in control of ALL 3 branches of government for 6 years. And guess what? NOTHING happened regarding abortion. I'd direct my anger at the Republicans if I were you for not at least trying to end abortion when they had the CHANCE.
And please provide an example of a "rogue" judge. The only ones I can think of are in California who upheld the gay marriage ban.
But even if a fetus is determined to be viable after 21 weeks, Kansas law still permits a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician and another determine the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
The problem for Tiller seems to be that he had trouble finding anyone who would do the referal - due to security concerns apparently. When Tiller found someone with the help of the state, that doctor had to go on-site with Tiller which made it look like the second doctor among other reasons mentioned was not an honest and independent opinion.
But even if a fetus is determined to be viable after 21 weeks, Kansas law still permits a doctor to perform an abortion if that physician and another determine the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.
I know you're just quoting the name the anti-choice zealots decided to slap on the bill, but using their rhetoric only strenghtens it.
Randy
It's not my part to sanction vengence for an act against someone else. There's a few folks who I wouldn't mind seeing the wheel of karma roll over a few times, but I don't wish for that day to hurry on my account.
I agree that no person, or group of persons, or an entity representing a group of persons should kill another (defenseless) person.
But (and, in personal thoughts, a very big but), how do you prevent a future Scott Roeder (or Bin Laden) and how do you make Scott Roeder responsible for his actions?
BTW, executions cost more than housing a prisoner for life. Look it up.
There have been some good programs that work with violent teens. I know the one in Tacoma Wa. has returned excellent results. Can't say that would prevent a future Scott Roeder, but it would make a serious kink in the possible population of future Scott Roaders.
I have a real question for you. What do you think of the domestic terrorism that runs rampant in this country from the right-wing anti-choice movement? What do you make of the terroristic acts of Operation Rescue and Eric Rudolph? By your rationale should not these people be held without legal representation and tortured until they give us the answers we want? Should not Roeder be water-boarded until we find out whether or not he was incited by Bill O'Reilly and his "Tiller the Baby Killer" that "kills babies because the mother has a headache" remarks? Isn't that how we should deal with terrorists and those that incite them in this country?
Also, do you still think Janet Napolitano owes you and the rest of the far-right an apology because the DHS thought there may be right-wing extremist groups that would commit acts of terrorism? Do you still associate yourself and Hannity and O'Reilly with Operation Rescue and Scott Roeder and the other terrorists? Do you stand with the terrorists (and those who incite and defend them) and against the DHS and Napolitano?
Personally, I support waterboarding any terrorist in order to stop potentially life taking incidents. Including the terrorists who take human lives before they are born. Do you include those lives in your short list of who is important enough to defend, or only those who kill babies for mental health reasons?
I do not favor torture in any situation.
Floyd, you are nothing more than another un-patriotic person with a Jack Bauer fantasy complex.
Torture is illegal. Waterboarding is torture (ask Mancow).
Apologists for torture like you, Floyd, are un-American. Your support of torture is disguting. And calling abortion providers "terrorists" is demeaning to professionals providing a LEGAL procedure.
Are you suggesting that Muslim terrorists are "left wing"? I hope you realize that the average run of the mill Muslim extremist terrorist is probably much more conservative than anybody you or I have ever met in our lifetime. Funny that you seem to conflate them with "left wing" above. I don't think you could use a term that is any further off target.
In regard to the death penalty discussion that's going on in this thread I can only say this. While my visceral reaction is to execute this assassin, and I wouldn't have any hesitation in pulling the lever myself, I am still vehemently opposed to the death penalty.
I'm opposed not out of some moral belief that we should never kill another human being. No, in cases such as this, or in the case of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer, I wouldn't bat an eye, and I'm a staunch Liberal Democrat. I'm opposed to it, because as a SYSTEM it simply doesn't work.
Some have noted, and as quickly dismissed as relatively unimportant, that there have been, or even might have been innocent people who have been executed. The truth is, despite what those people might want to fool themselves into believing in order to justify their support of the Death Penalty, there have been HUNDREDS of people who have been wrongly executed in this nation.
Anyone who believes otherwise is simply a naive fool. And even if it wasn't hundreds; even if it was just one, it would be too many. English Jurist William Blackstone once said, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." This idea has been repeated in one form or another by numerous people throughout the centuries since he said it, including by Benjamin Franklin who actually upped the ante by saying, "...that it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer." In fact, there are some who claim the idea was formed thousands of years before Blackstone said it.
Whatever you believe about its origins, it's a very poignant maxim, and one I believe in wholeheartedly. The simple fact is, our system of justice is very flawed. Yes, it's one of the best in the world, but that being said it is still very, very flawed. Anyone who would purport they believe our American system of justice is perfect might as well profess immediately afterward that they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, for all three are about as believable.
Thurgood Marshall once wrote, ""No matter how careful the courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain that there were some." Again, this ends the debate in my view, for if we have a system that is so flawed that innocent men are being executed, we should either amend the system to make absolutely certain that can't ever possibly happen again, or simply abolish that system in regard to capital punishment.
Since no one will ever convince me we could contrive a system of capital punishment that would guarantee 100% that we will NEVER put to death another innocent man, I am forced to believe that we should NOT have a system of capital punishment. Those who disagree with this, by simple logic, are saying they couldn't care less that innocent men may be executed. To me, that is a very heinous and callous attitude, and one they likely would abandon in an instant if they were that innocent man.
The Marquis de Lafayette is quoted as saying, "I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings." On this I couldn't agree more.
I would suggest all go and read the following page. It's enlightening.
http://www.answers.com/topic/capital-punishment
And to me the true blame lies with our federal government, since they are derelict and negligent once again in doing their primary duty. Roe is now 30 years old, and with technology the way we have it today, there should be none of these "late term" abortions carried out unless there is a true, verifiable health risk to the mother, and if that is the case, then a clinic is not where they should be carried out at all, but in a hospital. And otherwise, it is actually a premature delivery and not an abortion whatsoever.
And if our Congress would simply do the hard job of defining for Constitutional purposes when "life" begins under our Constitution and delineating an "elective" abortion from a true "medically necessary" one, then we wouldn't be having this problem, since in the Bible belt states then the local citizens can start addressing parental consent laws, and the like in further limiting them if need be, and the "liberal" pro abortion states can forego such measures - although partial birth abortions are a health risk to women in and of themselves since there have been many incidences where complications have arisen, and women's uteruses have also been punctured due to that horrific measure, which is no more than the coat hanger method of old - which is what the loony liberals fail to grasp.
The entire procedure is an abuse against women, and needs to be halted for that reason, not some ridiculous notion of "freedom" and "choice." These abortion mills are out for bucks, not women's safety - otherwise such procedures, again, would be done in hospital environments, and not these strip mall and stand alone "clinics."
Think religion is going to be inserted into the definition of when life begins?
WHAT?
Republicans don't want Congress to fix the health-care crisis but YOU want them to define when life begins?