PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Blue Lights Not So Special To Pedestrian, Samaritans

Posted: February 10, 2013 at 1:58 a.m.

I have a big problem with the police: Benton County, to point fingers.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 12 on 02/10/2013

In response to Dominance Re-established letter by Richard Drake:

I am the sixty year old mother of two adopted children(our two older children), one birth child(our surprise) and grandmother of three. So, my husband and I are a part of the answer for unplanned and perhaps unwanted pregnancies. I also believe in mercy and compassion for persons who may have made decisions they now regret. God is merciful and loving and able to bring comfort and healing to those whose emotions may be hurting.
I am challenging/encouraging any who may be pro choice to watch this short video (web link at the end of the letter) on the products of abortion up to 12 weeks. It will be as appalling and heartbreaking as any pictures of the victims of the Holocost. As those were finally seen by the world at the end of World War II, anyone with a conscience was mortified and overwhelmed that one human could inflict those inhumane acts against another. Yet, we, as a nation, have committed over 5 times as many violent, deadly acts against tiny victims unable to protect themselves.
I have been in nursing as a student and nurse practitioner for 43 years. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, there are some occasions where a pregnancy has to be terminated or the mother and baby will die, such as a tubal pregnancy or an abruptio placenta(the placenta releases from the uterine lining before birth causing hemorrhage). In those situations both will die if nothing is done. This has never been illegal. For those who would argue that these bills would require a woman to carry an already dead baby still in her womb until she went into labor, that is not an abortion. The baby has already died from natural causes.
I have never met a woman who was glad she had an abortion and wasn't haunted by it. I have also emailed a letter similar to this to Governor Beebe encouraging him to sign any and all bills which would help protect unborn babies.
Watch the video "This Is Abortion"

Respectfully yours,
Joan McDonald, APN

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 10, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The fact that you have never met a woman who was glad she had an abortion is irrelevant to the issue, as is the fact that I have met women who were glad to have had an abortion. It is apparently not our place to write laws merely to prevent people from possibly having a regret in the future, otherwise gun control legislation would be more popular among conservatives.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 10, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan, I've got something to say to you ---------------- that pause in my writing was the standing ovation I was giving you.

Posted by: JailBird

February 10, 2013 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A few notches up the food chain from you, Joan:

"Dr. Curtis Lowery, chairman of the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, expanded on his testimony yesterday before the House public health committee on what Sen. Jason Rapert's bill to prevent abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected would mean for women.

-If a woman with a congenital heart problem is told she has a 50-50 chance of surviving delivery and choses to terminate the pregnancy, is that covered under the bill? Or will a court later declare that because she had a 50 percent chance of surviving, the doctor is guilty of a felony?
(yes, it does criminalize a woman's choice).

-The bill also would require women who present with a rupture of the membrane protecting the fetus, thus causing its lungs to stop developing, from choosing to abort what is medically known as an inevitable miscarriage. The physical danger to the pregnant woman in this situation — not to mention the psychological damage — is that she will develop a uterine infection. Unless she is less than 12 weeks pregnant (under Rapert’s bill) or less than 20 weeks pregnant (under Mayberry’s), her doctor will have to wait until that infection becomes systemic and threatens her life to intervene.

-UAMS' genetic counselors and physicians now offer counseling to women on the kinds of anomalies their fetuses have so they can make an informed choice on whether to carry the infant to term. Under these [anti-abortion] bills, a woman may discover the fetus has abnormalities of the sort described in the letter published here yesterday about why a surgical nurse decided to terminate — “encephalocele” and “holoprosencephaly" — and be required to carry the fetus until it dies in utero or is born.

-Accreditation of UoA Medical School at risk:
UAMS offers the largest prenatal diagnosis program in the state. State law prohibits the medical center from performing elective abortions, so its students do not get training in the procedure. Students who want to learn the procedure must be trained elsewhere. Under the new abortion bills, UAMS would be further restricted in its ability to perform what the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as non-elective, legal abortions, and its accreditation by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education could be withdrawn


Posted by: cdawg

February 10, 2013 at 4:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

One bill's sponsor, Sen Jason Rapert lies:

"Constitutionality of abortion measures in doubt"
“The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to prohibit abortions before viability,” Rapert told the [legislative] panel.

He said his bill was “vetted by legal scholars” but did not name them.

Beiner, who teaches constitutional law at UALR, said the court has never issued such a ruling.

“This all comes from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where viability became the touchstone of when you could begin to prohibit abortions,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you can’t regulate abortions before viability, but it’s going to be regulation, it’s not going to be prohibition.”

In that 1992 decision, the high court said a woman has a right “to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman’s effective right to elect the procedure.”

rest of Stephens Media article is on link:

So, what these Shiite Republicans are doing is setting up a needless, long and expensive legal fight. Wish they personally had to pay for it.

Posted by: cdawg

February 10, 2013 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And I also agree with you cdawg with the same enthusiasm. The simple fact is the the Government fueled by religion or non, should not have their male noses up any women's (I can't say it here). The decision is between a women and her doctor. The Legislature, Planed Parenthood, and the Church should stay out of private medical decisions. This should not be politicalized, but I'm sorry to say, it is.

Posted by: JailBird

February 10, 2013 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In response to cdawg and moneymyst, there was never a law against terminating a pregnancy when the mother's life was in danger, that is called self defense, It has never been illegal, even prior to Roe v. Wade. I will not debate the a few steps up the food chain reference from cdawg, not going there. I will say that I was helping to deliver babies 43 years ago and yes the delivery room is either the happiest or saddest room in the hospital, I have helped deliver babies who were born with birth defects incompatible with life. Each mother was glad to hold her baby even for a few moments or hours. It has always been accepted and standard medical practice to deliver a baby at whatever stage of pregnancy within 24 hours of the rupture of the membranes to prevent infection to the mother, even prior to Roe v. Wade. I still ask, have either one of you viewed the video I referenced? Watch it and then be brave enough to respond.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 10, 2013 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, prior to Roe v Wade the medical decision was between a woman and her doctor and it was a medical decision. Everything that was possible was done to save both lives. In an abortion one person always dies. Sad statistic.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 10, 2013 at 6:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Richard Drake's letter was not responding to

" It has always been accepted and standard medical practice to deliver a baby at whatever stage of pregnancy within 24 hours of the rupture of the membranes to prevent infection to the mother, even prior to Roe v. Wade."

Drake's letter and my commentary is responding to WHAT IS CONTAINED in the TWO Abortion Laws now before the Arkansas legislature.
It is not about what used to be common sense or decency but about the two bills in front of the Ark Legislature.

I don't need to wallow in your gore and blood justan for you to make a point. We're talking about RIGHTS, the freedom to exercise a choice and sullying up an issue with your carefully selected abortion video is not going to change those issues. Nice attempt to charge the issues with emotionalism but good ends are accomplished by rational people,not emotionally charged people.

I've seen a abortion up close and personal. My wife went into spontaneous abortion years ago, late one evening as we retired to bed. I can spare readers all the gore and details but if it could be used to further a cause let's say she was not happy and neither was I. She should have had an abortion by choice but she wanted to take the chance at 36 yrs of age.

There are other medical procedures which give people remorse. Having a gall bladder removed, losing a kidney, breaking a leg or hip or chemotherapy. None of them make people joyous so your point about people being sad or regretful about having an abortion needs perspective without the emotionalism.


Posted by: cdawg

February 10, 2013 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

i am truly sorry for the loss of your baby. None of us have walked the same path, But the truth is most people do not know the truth of abortion, Losing a gallbladder, kidney or breaking a leg or a hip, having chemotherapy are all painful sad events, but not at all comparable to losing a baby as I am sure you know. I have had numerous women tell me they wish they had not had therapeutic abortions. The sides on this issue are as fierce as the issue of slavery once was. All human life has value. There do need to be safeguards in those bills to protect the life of the mother. I hope you noted that I did say there were circumstances in which there are no choices but to terminate a pregnancy. Those safeguards must be included in any bill which is passed.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 10, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Justan: "In an abortion one person always dies.">>

No, because a fetus is not a person, and it's important to not confuse the two by using loaded, question begging language.

Just because a fetus/zygote/embryo has the potential to become a person (just as a sperm does), it doesn't mean a fetus/zygote/embryo is a person. A seed is not a tree and in a discussion of values and rights of seeds and tress, it's not useful to use incorrect terms and refer to seeds as trees.

Here's know nothing Rapert telling more whoppers here:

"Modern-Day Know-Nothings Take Control In The South" by Gene Lyons

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 10, 2013 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The perspective of the view of a baby in utero is whether or not you want it. A women who has a spontaneous abortion loses her 'baby', those who have an abortion for convenience or perform those abortions call it a 'fetus'. Ever wonder why there is a fine for destroying the egg of a bald eagle? Is it an eagle before it is hatched? Seems its worth is established as soon as it is laid, long before it is viable outside the shell.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 10, 2013 at 10:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The perspective of the view of a baby in utero..."
There you go again. A fetus is not a baby, either.

RE "Ever wonder why there is a fine for destroying the egg of a bald eagle?"
Not at all. It was written because where symbols of this nation are concerned, Americans are idolators. That doesn't mean the law is good; it means that, however good the intention, the law was written with emotion rather than reason.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 10, 2013 at 11:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>> It was written because where symbols of this nation are concerned, Americans are idolators.<

I think Alpha takes to a related level about "idolaters."

Want to lower abortion rates in the U.S.? Then follow the Euro-Swedish model and provide for unwed mothers. Sweden has very liberal abortion laws yet has half the abortion rate as USA.

So-called "pro-life" social conservatives are rarely pro-life. It would mean providing free pre-natal care for mothers who cannot afford it. Free good birthing facilities for mothers who cannot afford it. Providing post-birth support for mothers with no means and continuing family support while the mother improves her lot in life.

Pro-life social conservatives too often insist on women carrying fetus to term as a means of punishment for having had sex outside of marriage. I've done internet debate with many of them. The same punishment theme comes thru. What a horrible idea for the human race, women as forced incubators because of a mistake, incest or rape with many of the "women" merely children with no parenting or work skills whatsoever.
In 1987 I was visiting my mother in Hot Springs. She had rented out one of her rent houses to a government agency to use for housing handicapped people while they underwent training and learning independent living skills.

The woman the government had placed in my mother's rental house was mentally handicapped. She had two children, a six yr old boy and a 12 year old girl.

The 12 year old girl was pregnant. The girl herself was a product of incest. At age 11 she was enticed by some teens to venture with them to a nearby corner store where they would treat her to candy and soda pop. All three 14 yr old boys took their turn with the 11 year old who became pregnant. Under Ark law the boys couldn't be criminally prosecuted for rape.
Under Ark's new abortion laws the 12 yr old could not have an abortion because government money could not be used to pay for abortion.

So, here was child about to give birth to a child and another cycle of dependency would begin. As you say the 11 yr old girl would have been saddened to experience an abortion. At 12 she could hardly believe what was happening to her. She was bright, outgoing and playful. I checked on her a year later. The state had taken her baby and she had been placed in a mental institution.

Posted by: cdawg

February 11, 2013 at 2:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We all know true stories where mentally handicapped girls/women are raped, taken advantage of and are placed in terrible situations. This has been true since the beginning of time.
Our church supports single parents, has multiple foster families and adoptive families. I am ending this discussion on my part, as I've said earlier the division on this issue is as fierce as was the division in our country on slavery.

Posted by: justanArkansan

February 11, 2013 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

That's quite a story Cdawg. Wow.

JustanArk complains about fierce division on this issue, and this after passing along links to grotesque videos meant to shock (I've seen this stuff before and didn't watch them). It's not too much to ask that a person talking about this begin by using language accurately.

Justan: "...perspective of the view of a baby in utero...">>


Justan: "A women who has a spontaneous abortion loses her 'baby','>>

You are using language informally and inaccurately. The term is "fetus."

Justan: "those who have an abortion for convenience or perform those abortions call it a 'fetus'.">>

Those who use language accurately and honestly call it a fetus, because that is the correct term. Consistently, I have found that those who have religious/emotional feelings against a woman's right to have an abortion and resort to nasty pictures instead of arguments, purposely use language incorrectly.

Justan: "Ever wonder why there is a fine for destroying the egg of a bald eagle?">>

I notice you used the correct term here. Good. An egg is not a bird, but it has the potential to become a bird. Don't confuse the potential with the actual.

Justan: "Is it an eagle before it is hatched?">>

No. That's why you didn't call it an eagle, you called it "an egg of a bald eagle." There is a difference. Both eagles and eagle eggs (which aren't yet eagles), are protected, as are their nests and many other aspects of their habitat:

Justan: "Seems its worth is established as soon as it is laid, long before it is viable outside the shell.">>

A fetus has potential worth too. It's just that its worth doesn't trump the worth and rights of the womb owner who unquestionably has full rights of personhood.


Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 11, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Justan: "...the division on this issue is as fierce as was the division in our country on slavery.">>

An interesting comparison. On slavery, the religious people were correctly following their book in that it implicitly endorses slavery. This time, if they would read their book more carefully they would notice that the Bible does not consider a fetus a person, does not have rights of personhood and at no time says a word against abortion. In fact at Numbers 5:17 it gives a priest instructions on how to do an adultery test and cause an abortion. See:

"Does the Bible consider the fetus a person?"

"The methods of the priest and the parson have been very curious; their history is very entertaining. In all ages the Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers. If any could know, to absolute certainty, and according to God's will and desire, surely it was she since she was God's specially appointed representative in the earth and sole authorized and infallible expounder of the Bible. There were the texts; there was no mistaking their meaning; she was right, she was doing in all this what the Bible had mapped out for her to do. So unassailable was her position that in all the centuries she had no word to say against human slavery." --Mark Twain

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 11, 2013 at 11:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freeby, murder a mother who is with child and the child dies also. Guess who is getting charged with a double murder? I guess you can cry all the way to the death chamber; "A fetus is not a child, but an egg!" Murder of egg, that's funny.

"Law enforcement with guns, speaks louder and longer than a criminal with a mouth."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

February 11, 2013 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "murder a mother who is with child and the child dies also. Guess who is getting charged with a double murder?"
That is another example of a law written emotionally rather than rationally, but in any case, its primary reason for being is that killing the fetus is an additional abrogation of the rights of the mother and her family-- not that the fetus is a person. And charges and convictions of double murder do not mean that such laws are valid. So far, the validity of such laws has not been fully tested; results in various appeals courts are mixed, and the U.S. Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled on the underlying validity of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act or of similar state laws.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 11, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Law of the Land is the law of the land. A fetus is a child not an egg. Ever had a fetus for breakfast, Cat? What ya having for breakfast this morning, Cat? "Oh, I'm having a fetus over easy, bacon, hash browns, and coffee."

Are you and Freeby interchangable. Address a question to Freeby and Kitty answers. Well thats OK, Freeby is helpless, can only quote others.

What does a fetus taste like? MiniMe?

Posted by: JailBird

February 11, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The Law of the Land is the law of the land"
And the law of the land is Roe v Wade, OK?
There are several different translations and interpretations of Exodus 21:22 but by many readings, the Bible does not regard a fetus as a person. If fighting men cause a pregnant woman to lose her baby, it is cause for a fine, not capital punishment as with a murder.
I wonder if all these men who are so stridently against abortion are so pure that they have never placed a woman in a position where she had to consider it.

Posted by: Coralie

February 11, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Ever had a fetus for breakfast, Cat?"
No. By far, most of the eggs that we consume for breakfast are unfertilized, so they are just eggs. The relatively few fertilized eggs that make it to the table are at the embryonic stage. "Fetus" applies to later stages of development. In our part of the world, keeping an eye on the hens and proper candling pretty much eliminate the possibility of having a fetus for breakfast. On the other hand:

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 11, 2013 at 5:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I thought so, is that name actually "Alphonse Donner"? Now we all know.

Posted by: JailBird

February 11, 2013 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )