Kansas City Star Tuesday editorial
One of the great tragedies of the murder of Wichita doctor George Tiller is that it enables public policy to be shaped by a bullet.
This is a horrible notion, and must be rejected by all.
Tiller was known throughout the United States, worldwide even, as one of the few remaining U.S. doctors willing to perform late-term abortions.
How few? Back in 1990, doctors in at least seven clinics would terminate late-term pregnancies. After a rash of abortion-related murders and other violence, the number had dwindled to three, with clinics in Kansas, Colorado and Nebraska.
If no physician steps forward to replace Tiller, there will now be two clinics, both run by aging doctors.
“If you’re a woman who needed the care he provided, there are few options,” said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation. “It’s a devastating loss.”
Criminals and extremists cannot be allowed to shut down a legal medical practice. The federal government must do a better job of enforcing laws and policies put in place to protect abortion providers.
The U.S. Justice Department should revive a task force that was created in 1998, after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. The task force coordinated information on extremist groups, helped train local police agencies and funded clinic safety measures.
Protecting abortion providers faded as a priority during the Bush administration, and the task force went largely dormant. Barack Obama’s justice department should get the effort back on track.
Tiller had survived assassination attempts in 1986 and in 1993. He spent years under guard, and always knew he was at risk.
The physician also fended off repeated legal challenges. But despite repeated investigations, grand jury inquiries and one trial, he was always found to have followed Kansas law.
Tiller’s history of threats, harassment and legal challenges does a lot to explain why his is a lonely profession. But as long as abortion is legal, Tiller told associates, women should be able to have the procedure done safely, even in the late stages of pregnancy.
Late-term abortions provoke the strongest reactions in an arena fraught with emotional debate.
Proponents note the desperate circumstances of women who seek them. The vast majority of Tiller’s patients were carrying fetuses with severe abnormalities, those familiar with the business said.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said Peggy Bowman, one of Tiller’s former employees. “Almost all of these families have set up the nursery. They’re ecstatic about being pregnant and then they get that awful news.”
Opponents note how infant-like a fetus appears as it nears full term.
With little common ground and the debate showing no signs of subsiding, it’s understandable that few physicians are volunteering to enter the field.
But the last thing this country needs in the abortion debate is for a radical with a gun to be able to create de-facto public policy.
After the killing, President Barack Obama said, “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”
That’s absolutely correct. But Obama must do more than talk. His administration must offer more protections for physicians to carry out the legal practice of abortion.









Delicious
Digg
There are many different
There are many different plans available to parents and grandparents when it comes to saving for a child's future. From high interest children's savings accounts and children's tax-exempt savings plans, to Unit Trusts and Investment Trusts for children, there are plenty of choices available. Learn all about children's savings and investments.
compare child trust funds with the best child trust funds and get more from your compare ctf
AIG/ACORN
I already said I thought the right to assembly might cross over into intimidation when it came to groups of people descending on private individuals' houses. It's kind of like Operation Rescue's intimidation of private individuals at abortion clinics.
It was going from the right to assembly to the bizarro world concept of the gov't protesting citizens that I thought was stupid.
Calling out the AIG execs was hardly the sole province of the gov't. The demonization of ACORN though is one of those Through The Looking Glass right wing paranoid fantasies.
Wonderland
Wonderland is reserved for you steve. There are plenty of examples where government intimidation leads to violence, but only in your world does this not happen. I am sure the families of the AIG execs who had the ACORN mob on the front door were positive no violence would erupt, but only in your wonderland was that for sure.
I feel like we're in Wonderland
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty [aka kenm] said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
First Amendment
The other way around would be the government protesting the citizens.
Now go read the first amendment again and show us where it says it only applies to speaking out against the government.
I'll wait.
Where in the first amendement does it give the government the right to protest citizens, to incite mobs against private citizens or to demonize private citizens who disagree with the government? The first amendment explicitly limits congress and its ability to restrict the rights stated in the amendment. Nowhere does the first amendment give the government the right to protest citizens of this country. What part of that is foreign to you.
Huh?
"The first amendment was designed for citizens to protest the government not the other way around."
The other way around would be the government protesting the citizens.
Now go read the first amendment again and show us where it says it only applies to speaking out against the government.
I'll wait.
kenny
who published the execs's addresses? I'm willing to bet that they are, indeed, a matter of public record.
If we were to search the phone books and tax records for Kenneth J. Miller, for example, it wouldn't be that hard to find his address, because it's a matter of public record.
First Amendment
[quote=apop
Remember it? It gives all of us the right to stand on public sidewalks and express our opinions. So if you don't like the idea of picketing or protesting in front of someone's house, get started on changing the first amendment.
Using the power of the government to rile up a mob to protest in front of peoples homes was not the intent of the 1st amendment. If you believe that to be so, then maybe we should get the president to demonize you APOP and have the mob pay you a visit to express their first amendment rights.
The first amendment was designed for citizens to protest the government not the other way around.