thanks! will do all of the above.

Thanks Risa! Please spread the word, too!

Lina, it's common for this particular issue to be fought using a tactic of making things too expensive and time-consuming. That's a very weak political argument (though still better than resorting to guns). I don't know the specific nature of the investigation to be done. It may well be that some investigation and then a clear publication of the result is in order. The same had to be done with Obama's birth certificate; you can't win that argument by saying he should not have to show proof. The trouble is that when proof is shown, others don't back down. Nonetheless, a thing can be harrassment even when it's within one's legal rights otherwise. A very tricky area. I do encourage telling the attorney general there are people who care, since I'm quite sure the other side is busy telling them no one with a conscience does.

I'll write another day on how one can have a conscience and still think late term abortion is ok. It's a complicated issue, but it's worth exploring.

Never............

Dr. Carhart has been subjected to plenty of scrutiny over the years, as was Dr. Tiller. This legal attack from Operation Rescue is a tactic they have employed many times before. In fact, only about a month before Dr. Tiller was murdered, he was completely cleared of all accusations of wrongdoing in Kansas after an exhausting, expensive ordeal (mainly for him; the state wastes plenty of money anyway, but defending yourself from the state is a huge expense for an individual) that dragged on for years.

O.R. loves this tactic because "where there's smoke there's fire" - ie they use the rumors and false allegations to build public opinion against the doctors and abortion, and create public support for assassinating these doctors. Bill O'Reilly did it too - flinging the term "Tiller the Baby Killer" at an individual for years and years has an effect!

Philos, I see that you commented with substance on Kent's post. I'll answer you there.

Kent asked me not to comment on his post and directed me here. I thought it unusual, but he said he wanted his post to be a referral post. All the more reason for me to want to post there, but after thinking it through, it was you who had the dialogue with sooo. I decided to post all of that dialogue here with my response. Hope you're ok with that? If not, delete the whole shootin' match. Here goes.
_____________________________________
From Philos777
Your article is chicken little politics. If you use such a horrible broad stroke to paint all people who oppose late term abortion, you are part of the problem. Although “fetal viability” is not a legal term, that doesn’t render it moot. The vast majority of Americans believe that a fetus that could survive outside the mother should not be aborted.

If you continue to refute the facts about who is getting late term abortions and more importantly “WHY” they are getting them, you being willfully blind to the truth.

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

Also, your desire to minimize how many women get them to “only 1 %” is another gross misrepresentation of the facts. There were 1.2 million abortions last year, and “only 1%” were late term, then TWELVE THOUSAND late term abortions happened. That is more casualties than occurred to our military for the last 8 in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. And that’s only last year.

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a Pro-abortion lobbying group) collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions. Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion. To even imply that convenience is not the primary motivation is beyond comprehension. Health is rarely, (virtually immeasurable), the reason.

You had better rethink your failed argument. Late term abortions are solely for the convenience of the mother and the viability of the fetus is a non factor. There is NO moral high ground to support your argument. None. If we can’t see the horror of this, we are morally bankrupt as a nation.

Radical reform and enforcement of late term abortion laws is vitally necessary. Period.

Philos777
December 12, 2009 03:18 AM
__________________________________
From Lina
Hi Philos. Your statistics do not sway me, nor should they sway anyone who cares about the humanity of women. Abortion is a procedure whereby an individual woman decides what happens to her body. It is about the woman; not the fetus, which is defined by its subordinate status to the woman. Fetuses are not babies, so abortions are not murder, not tragic, and cannot in any way be equated with the deaths of real human beings. Even after "viability" the fetus is still a fetus, and exists within, is biologically integrated into and dependent upon the woman's body. It is still the woman's body that we are talking about. Once born, breathing on its own, and biologically separated from the woman can we talk about a baby as a socially distinct being.

One note about the term "convenience." Are women's lives so insignificant to you that whether we are to risk our lives and health to become mothers against our will is termed a question of "convenience?" Are we not human beings?

Finally, I will highlight one story that was related by a doctor at the speak-out for Dr. Tiller in New York after he was murdered. This doctor had a pregnant woman patient who had developed a life-threatening condition and needed a late abortion immediately. The NY doctor called Dr. Tiller as the only one she could think of who could do the procedure and explained the situation. "Get her on a plane and send her to Wichita!" was Tiller's response. After discussing the situation in detail, though, it became clear that the woman would not survive long enough to make the trip. As the NY doctor had never done a late abortion before, Dr. Tiller walked her through the steps over the phone, and she was able to save her patient by performing this emergency abortion. This is just one of thousands of the stories about the women who were touched by Dr. Tiller's lifetime of work. With him gone, and with only a few other doctors left who even know how to perform these procedures, women are going to die.

Lina Thorne
____________________________
From Philos777
Hi Lena, nice story. Too bad that story is a statistical anomaly and means nothing in this argument.

Also, they are not “MY” statistics. They are YOUR statistics. They come from a pro-abortion lobby in D.C. The only way those stats don’t sway you is if you have the heart of a…...I can only imagine.

Your statement “even after “viability” the fetus is just a fetus” says it all. You are willing to reject and usurp simple scientific fact with other philosophical positions that serve what seems to be a cold inhuman perspective.

Then you use an argument that sounds like an even more inhuman and anti-maternal stance by saying “Are women's lives so insignificant to you that whether we are to risk our lives and health to become mothers against our will is termed a question of "convenience?" Are we not human beings?”

This, as the statistics show, has nothing to do with women risking their lives!!!!

It’s the “becoming mothers against our will” part that exposes your real position. Inconvenience!!!!

You are making an appeal to be human. You are asking “Are we not human beings?”

If adult women will take responsibility for their actions and not ask society to accept their wanton and reckless behavior and then pay for it with healthcare that funds abortion, then maybe those women would get the respect they have earned and take their rightful place in humanity. Otherwise, they should accept the scrutiny that rational, loving, caring, reasonable people require to support their argument and live with the results.

Instead, you play some BS moral “Are we not human beings?” crap and think that changes or reframes the argument. Actually, that really hurts your argument to reasonable people. To somehow suggest that people are persecuting pregnant women and treating them other than human is preposterous.

To human beings, viable fetuses deserve every bit of benefit of the doubt. To selfish, self serving, reckless women, (especially in the age of birth control available in every form) and profit driven amoral doctors it doesn’t matter.

To Philos777:

Your argument from the pro-life statistics is from abortions 16 weeks+. It does not specifically speak to the category of 22 to 28 week term abortions so this is not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. So, your conclusion that this is vastly a "convenience" used by women is a stretch at best and most likely one pole used to holy paint women's reproductive choices to meet your arguments needs. Additionally, these are very generic questions which were asked. It certainly does not speak to the economic background of these women or the circumstances they are in, to deem them "reckless" is completely willful on your part.

"If adult women will take responsibility for their actions and not ask society to accept their wanton and reckless behavior and then pay for it with healthcare that funds abortion, then maybe those women would get the respect they have earned and take their rightful place in humanity. Otherwise, they should accept the scrutiny that rational, loving, caring, reasonable people require to support their argument and live with the results."

I wonder, where do you think men's roles are in this? Where are the reckless MEN???

Do you think I, as a woman who doesn't want to be burdened by the cost of violent sex offenders (1.2 million in mandatory counseling in my state (WA) for the average sex offender through DSHS at Ellis Island) has the right to demand they receive castration in exchange for the funds they are taking from the pool of resources? If not, why not? Isn't this equally reckless behavior? Why doesn't my judgment have carry as much merit as yours - they certainly have caused ceaseless burdens upon victims often without any financial recourse for those victims? Why don't those victims get a say like the fetus' you talk about?

Oh, I know, except in cases of rape, incest, or in case of endangering the life of the mother....who is going to police that? If insurance companies don't like to pay, how will a woman prove she has been raped exactly? Can you ever imagine what this would be like?

The reason is because this is still a patriarchal society and as soon as it isn't a baby we're talking about, so called "pro-life" people and the GOP quit giving a shit. Children can go hungry, beaten women's funding gets cut while bankers pockets are being lined, and children are barely getting the basic requirements at school required under most state's constitutions let alone any of the abused children. It isn't politically interesting any longer. The abortion issue is nothing more than a carrot to ease back into having a certain level of control over women and our bodies. IT IS INSANE.

You can give me all the statistics you like - but until you have carried a child, seen a woman addicted to crack end up pregnant, been raped, gone through incest, held the hand of a woman who has been raped, or held the hand of a child who has been raped and watch the recovery process it takes to heal from that, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Period. Your philosophical high ground and angular statistics does nothing to sway people who have been in the trenches. Many of those fetuses you want to "save" (which would still have to exist by artificial means outside the mother) have been spared a deeply painful existence, and I can assure you I have never met one woman who has ever made that decision lightly.

Correction: McNeil Island (was a bit frustrated - must've been thinking about immigrant rights, too, when I typed Ellis Island. Sorry).

Kate Bishop,

Thanks for your revealing response. You asked “I wonder, where do you think men's roles are in this? Where are the reckless MEN???” I find this response disturbing.

As a divorced man, I have spent $190,000.00 in child support to a woman who has hidden and withheld my children from me for 16 years. Do not even begin to use any legal or ridiculous argument about reckless men. The system makes men, not women, pay, and then not enforce the woman’s obligation to allow the father to share in the wonder and miracle of his childrens lives.

Your hateful and over the top perspective regarding the “burdened by the cost of violent sex offenders” is beyond comprehension and I am sure won’t gather you much support even from the most ardent feminists. No one is suggesting that women be sterilized, just held responsible for their behavior. The fact that those perpetrators are incarcerated is what society deems just. To somehow suggest that society should see a women’s sexual responsibility and sex offenders penalty in the same light is sort of weird.

Do you really have such a twisted perspective on life and society that you really believe that society wants to penalize women?......with child birth? Where does a human being get that type of jaundice?

Your questions about insurance and rape victims are interesting. I am sure that this is question that deserves review. But it is far and away a minuscule % of the real issue and you know it. You can tout examples all day long and it will do little to impact the vast and majority amount of "convenience" abortions that a generation of irresponsible promiscuous woman with no moral boundaries deems a normal reproductive option.

You said “The reason is because this is still a patriarchal society and as soon as it isn't a baby we're talking about, so called "pro-life" people and the GOP quit giving a shit. Children can go hungry, beaten women's funding gets cut while bankers pockets are being lined, and children are barely getting the basic requirements at school required under most state's constitutions let alone any of the abused children. It isn't politically interesting any longer. The abortion issue is nothing more than a carrot to ease back into having a certain level of control over women and our bodies. IT IS INSANE.”

What country do you live in? Thanks for your honesty. At least in your emotional outburst you admit that it isn’t about the health or life of the mother, but about the shitty life you think you are sparing the baby. How compassionate. You really have this all thought out. I get it now. It's not about the baby. Ever. It's about the victimization of women. How tragic that you have this view of life.

Your emotional screed is hollow and will never be able to justify the taking of a viable human life.

Rape is an infinitesimal % of the whole and current law addresses that. Crack addicts are relieved of their children to foster care. Such a small amount of “crack addicts” are having babies “(which would still have to exist by artificial means outside the mother)” compared to the millions of abortions that are performed.

Somehow you like to use these tear jerker stories to justify the irresponsible negligent chick who won’t pay for birth control and manage her reproductive self, and makes men pay now or pay later. You see, I can quote extremes too. Would you suggest to me that these types of women are NOT the majority?

I would bet that 90% of all abortions fit that profile. And I will also wager that, yes, they DO take that decision lightly. If they did not, conscience would win.

Philos, I'm sorry, but anyone who cares about women as human beings (anyone who can see that we are not "irresponsible promiscuous wom[e]n with no moral boundaries" just because we've had sex) will only be repelled by the venom here. When I said that we risk our lives and health to bear children I was stating fact. Every single day that a woman is pregnant her life is threatened. Even late abortions are safer than continuing with the pregnancy. Besides which, bringing children into the world should be a joyful celebration - not something forced upon women against their will!

Everyone knows that abortions are easier and less expensive when done in the first trimester (I've said it before and I'll say it again, 90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester when the fetus is smaller than a quarter). Yelling "convenience" over and over again does not change the fact that women who need late abortions actually need them!

Actually, Philos, your emotions are the ones I am worried about. It is your persecution of these women from one pole, which isn't even an apples to apples comparison, in which you vilify their right to make their own personal choices which are already LEGAL. The fact is, you do not get to determine what "life" is for someone else - science and the law hasn't - and any woman is capable of making that decision for herself.

Your personal situation isn't relevant to this discussion. If you want to project a personal situation onto a broad discussion and persecute women because of that, I can't stop you, but I will be civil and not make remarks about you personally which is less than you did for me. Keep your remarks about my personal ethics to yourself - you don't have to agree, but it doesn't make me "anything" just because you disagree. When you go on the hunt trying to shame people it really shows badly on you.

I brought up the McNeil island situation with sex offenders as an analogy, one in which some people are disturbed by in my state - it isn't something I personally believe in. I would never suggest something so inhumane to anyone's reproductive life, even if they are a sex offender - no more than I would suggest telling someone how they MUST manage their pregnancy options. My point was - some people DO think this is reasonable - why does this suggestion get less merit than yours? Where do we stop? Where are the limits? Is it unreasonable because it is a man?

However, the analogy did something else, it shows the disproportionate spending going to help offenders (which are mostly men). Almost every bit of funding for abused women and children was cut while these men are housed by DSHS (not criminally) with the potential to be released and given 1.2 MILLION dollars in counseling. It is highly disproportionate, and shows how paternal this society has become in where its dollars go. The victimizers (men) get help but nothing for the victims (women and children) all still mostly voted on by men.

But, if it is a fetus - let's all jump up and protect it - who cares what it costs the woman who has to raise it or if she is fit to do so! Oh, and I love that you think there is a foster system to send these kids to. That is rich. CPS is so underfunded they can barely function to protect the kids in homes with supposedly functional situations.

Yes, I said it, it is not a viable child until it is outside the womb and breathing on its own without technological intervention. That does not make me inhumane, that makes me rational. I have a child whom I adore, and I also believe in the right to let women make their own reproductive choices. I believe in the power of a woman where you obviously see the need to babysit them.

And, again, your wager is wrong about 90% fitting that profile and it being out of convenience. I have proof.

"Before Roe v. Wade, it was predominantly the daughters of middle or upper-class families who could arrange and afford a sale illegal abortion...One study has shown that the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortion would have been 50 percent more likely than average to live in poverty; he would have also been 60 percent more likely to grow up with just one parent. These tow factors - childhood poverty and a single parent household - are among the strongest predictors that a home roughly doubles a child's propensity to commit crime...In the early 1990s, the years during which young men enter their criminal prime, the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals."

From Freakonomics, Steven J. Levitt, the greatest economist of our times, Blog at the WSJ. He has three chapters in his book dedicated to the statistics around abortion and how much it helped lower income women by empowering them with choices.

I do not know where you are getting your info, but you are wrong.

Additionally, I am talking about all first trimester abortions in my statements above.

When we are talking about late term and the extreme, 22-28 week abortions, it would need to be an ethical choice between what the law, doctor, and woman says. Again, I leave that choice between a woman and her doctor. In these circumstances, I can only imagine the choice becoming extremely more difficult, despite your judgment of women to the contrary.

Kate. Your sticks and stones approach to not answering the moral issues is typical of someone who changes the subject. And for the record, just because I don’t agree with you DOES make you “something” to me. As a free American, I am allowed to value judge you just as you do me. And, thanks for your compassion. My personal testimony affects my opinion, just the same as yours. To somehow allow your self that license and to deny me the right to have my opinion molded by my life experience is unfair. But that is normal for those on the left who use straw man arguments like crack babies to justify 45 million convenience birth control only abortions. Go figure?

You are correct. I do not get to determine what “life” is. The challenge is that science has been co-opted by the left because science s just that….science. It rejects faith based arguments that are the only moral parameters left in the world. Without them it all just cause and effect. You then stretch to try to breathe some miserable high ground moral lament about battered or raped women and their poor disenfranchised non-entity fetuses. Go figure. How can a non entity, non-viable blob even get that much consideration? Just the fact that you would bring that up exposes your denial. They are babies. How can you allow yourself to place women’s convenience over that fact and just reject that fact?

“Pregnancy options”. Nice term. How sterile, how easy.

Your argument about sterilization really wreaks of extreme anti-male militant feminism. You say “Is it unreasonable because it is a man?”. Where did you pull that whacky argument from? Man, what planet do you live on? The issues are soooo unrelated and can only possibly make sense when someone is trying to make the argument that denying a woman an abortion for her personal convenience sake is like some type of persecution or penalty. How preposterous.

Your argument about 1.2 mil for counseling is another stretch to justify 45 million abortions for convenience sake. Stay on topic for goodness sake. Funding for abused women and abortions shouldn’t even be in the same discussion. You then say “The victimizers (men) get help but nothing for the victims (women and children)”. What children? You want the money to be available to avoid and abort them.

Please excuse me for not taking your compassionate stance seriously.

You say “I believe in the power of a woman where you obviously see the need to babysit them.” You lie. No you don’t. You reject the fundamental premise of personal responsibility for women. You make them wards of the state and inject big brother all in one fell swoop. State funding for abortion is what you are after and you want social engineering and you want women to call all of the shots. You want men to have no say in how social order takes place and men can have no, none, nada, zip, zero opinion or cooperative voice in deciding what the moral parameters are for a healthy, moral and just society are. Nice. But make sure your child support payments are on time. You crack me up.

Your “Before Roe v. Wade” is useless info. You also said “the typical child who went unborn”. Did you hear yourself? Did you hear yourself call those fetuses children? I just wanted you to catch yourself agreeing with me that the inconvenience of raising a child because of the mothers financial capacity is not a good enough reason for extinguishing “the typical child who went unborn”. Nice.

I can quote social change parameters all day long. That was 36 years ago. Before Roe V. Wade, there were moral familial parameters. The divorce rate was half what it is now. Church attendance was double what it is now.

Great!!! We can lower crime by aborting those screwed up little bastards! Nice. Let’s not fix the moral parameters, that might infringe on someone’s convenience. (There’s that word again) Who cares if people don’t learn to take moral responsibility for their reproductive selves. Let’s just get the state to pay for it so we don’t have those little uneducated criminals walking the streets. Nice. Just abort them.

Your final statement about my judgment of women is based on the license that society places on them. If there were a collective pressure to demand women be responsible for their behavior, a moral stigma, rather than a legal, convenient, state funded “pregnancy option”, there would be far fewer convenience abortions. That is not conjecture. That is fact.

Until abortion becomes frowned upon by the majority of Americans and seen as only an option when the life of the mother is at stake, (from the moment of conception) there will be millions and millions of weak, immoral, undisciplined women who would rather abort a viable CHILD than take responsibility for their own reproductive responsibility. I will fight with every breath I have to insure that pro family, American tax dollars never ever support that antisocial family destroying behavior.

I have included some quotes from the founder of the most pro-abortion/pro-choice organization in the U.S., Margaret Sanger, (Planned Parenthood) that sound similar to your statements regarding the conditions whereby you deem abortion a “pregnancy option. Incidentally, she coined the term birth control. How ironic. Enjoy.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

My personal favorites…. On adultery: A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11

On abortion: "Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.

Planned Parenthood on Adoption: Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988)

PP has advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970)

Speaking for PP, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)

Yeah, yeah, yeah Philos....gloves are off then.

No one said anything about child support here, so why don't you stay on topic and quit bossing me around. This is the problem with pro-life people, you think you have the right to boss and judge people.

The sex offender was an ANALOGY - GET IT? A controversial analogy separate from the matter at hand doing nothing more than to show you some people may by equally upset over a SEPERATE matter which they may want $ spent differently. You don't get to decide what is important to everyone in a democratic society! Da!

And, don't pull one word out of a quote, which isn't my words, to find the word "convenience" when I was using that quote to disprove your guesses at what type of woman gets an abortion.

So, let me be more direct. When these reckless women get pregnant, what do you propose we do with the reckless men who got them this way? Oh, I know, we can't take them to court, that would be out of line, because your situation proves that all women are out to line their pockets and keep the kids away from their upstanding fathers. How about we ask for mandatory vasectomies (not my opinion, to be clear as you are so literal, but why isn't this an equally viable option since you are mandating a woman's choice)? Yes, I like that, since I am now a man-hater by your standards (my husband is laughing at that one).

You see, I sit in a loving wonderful relationship with access to my children and you do not. I don't hate men, I hate it when men behave like you are now, purporting to know what is best for women. My husband supports the right of women to decide for themselves and we are both deeply spiritual people. Neither of ask try to play "God" for anyone else. I am not feigning compassion for you, I sincerely feel it, you are angry and bitter and it shows. It's unfortunate.

Asking for reasonable funding for abortion options or social programs is not akin to asking to make a woman a ward of the state. Nice try.

But, I will not argue with you any longer. You will continue to irrationally pick words from my statements out of context to support your holy moral crusade. The thing is, not everyone sees things as black and white as you nor do we need to be subjected to it. Big brother is not the answer; proper funding for a woman to make reasonable and sound choices for the future for her health and that of her family planning is what is required. We live in a democratic republic designed to keep church and state seperated, in fact we were founded based on that choice, and I for one know what my country was built on. So, yes, I am an American through and through.

As the sign behind Dr. Carhart reads - TRUST WOMEN - I do.

Thanks Tiffany Campbell, Pro-Choice Oklahoma, Siby on Feministing, and the hundreds of people signing the petition!

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/12109

http://prochoiceoklahoma.blogspot.com/2009/12/thank-goodness-for-dr-carhart.html

http://community.feministing.com/2009/12/support-a-hero-support-dr-carh.html

Thank you. I'll be doing all of the above.

Thanks RenaissanceLady! And to everyone who is spreading the word on Facebook too...

I'm listening to interviews with Sunsara Taylor and Wendy Norris on KPFK, talking about Dr. Carhart right now:

http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kpfk_091211_100000bts_michael.MP3

I forgot to post the press release! 1,249 signatures were sent to the Nebraska Attorney General. Read about it here:
http://debra.worldcantwait.net/2009/12/supporters-of-abortion-doctor-leroy-carhart-petition-nebraska-attorney-general-to-reject-politically-motivated-complaints/