Which is why I'm an advocate of televising an abortion, particularly a partial-birth abortion. Let America see. It's just a "medical procedure" so nobody should object. From the left's point of view, it's no different than the facelifts they show on TV.
With all due respect, Tonto, I see no where in the article where it's been proven that this man lied about anything. What I see are charges from an attorney for the 'Center for Reproductive Rights'.
I'm inclined to believe one of our own before I believe 'Suzanne Novak, hired gun for baby-killers'.
George Bush lies all the time also, so I hear from this same crowd.
Giving advise is not the same thing as lying. The only person I hear using the term lying is 'Suzanne Novak, attorney for Center for Reproductive Rights'.
....and making misleading statements aimed at delaying women until it was too late for them to get legal abortions.
I notice there is only one example of what they are construing as a misleading statement. I suppose if he counseled women that RU-486 was loaded with vitamins and minerals, he wouldn't have this problem.
Suzanne Novak, attorney for Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit, said the judge's ruling would set a precedent for similar situations in which abortion opponents mislead women.
Knowing the language of the left, I'm sure 'misleading women' will encompass any statement that runs counter to their agenda.
One plaintiff said Graham told her that if an abortion were "performed too early, it could be harmful to her health," according to the lawsuit.
So sayeth she.
Would you make it mandatory viewing?