Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Identifying Abortion Doctors, Staff, Patients Online May Soon be Prohibited: California
LifeSiteNews ^ | 7/7/06 | Gudrun Schultz

Posted on 07/08/2006 11:29:17 AM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
Although the legislation is directed against abortion opponents who resort to violence, some are concerned that the bill has the potential to severely limit freedom of speech rights. Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyn’s.

As far as the left is concerned, they are the only one's who have free speech.

1 posted on 07/08/2006 11:29:21 AM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback

Pro-Life Ping.


2 posted on 07/08/2006 11:30:13 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I sense my freedom of speech rights being taken away--sounds like it this passes it is a very good case for the SCOTUS.


3 posted on 07/08/2006 11:32:15 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I'm sure that the NY and LA Times will immediately post all the forbidden information and the ACLU will defend them in court.

(Fit of hysterical laughter follows)


4 posted on 07/08/2006 11:34:27 AM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So it is against the law to identify Murderers ?

b'shem Y'shua

5 posted on 07/08/2006 11:34:30 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Isaiah 26:4 Trust in YHvH forever, because YHvH is the Rock eternal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Women must be prevented by force, from learning who performs abortion. And the Left claims all it wants is allow women "choice." We can see that in regards to abortion, what they really mean is you're allowed to obtain one but anything else is verboten. Its that "anything else" the abortion industry in California, with the help of the Democrats, seek to squash.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

6 posted on 07/08/2006 11:34:34 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Heck the NYT can publish national securtiy secrets, so I doubt they can bury this information. But if it becomes law and eventually is honored by the SCOTUS, what does this say about our country . . . ? Protect our citizens and soldiers, not baby killers.


7 posted on 07/08/2006 11:34:52 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyn’s.
Have there been cases of abortions forcibly or fraudulently performed on "pro-life women"? If not, then the rationale behind the bill passes the smell test.
8 posted on 07/08/2006 11:37:24 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

>>And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out<<

So will that make advertising of abortion services illegal?


9 posted on 07/08/2006 11:38:22 AM PDT by gondramB (And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

"Free speech" is only for ultra-leftists and baby murderers. There is no First Amendment for anyone else, say the "activist" (Stalinist totalitarian) judges.


10 posted on 07/08/2006 11:38:56 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (No program, no ideas, no clue: The democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

It's not just a matter of pro-life women not wanting abortions committed upon them by force or fraud. I, for one, don't want an abortionist to TOUCH me. Ever. I would not want ONE CENT my money to go to an abortionist, or to a hospital, clinic or group practice which had abortions on site.


11 posted on 07/08/2006 11:46:49 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Click.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet
I sense my freedom of speech rights being taken away--sounds like it this passes it is a very good case for the SCOTUS.

Then not posting the names of rape victims must infringe on you free speech also?

12 posted on 07/08/2006 11:47:17 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I have a theme song for planned parenthood and all people who perform abortions.

It is "The Money Rolls In" by Oscar Brand.

Part of the song goes like this:

My grandmum sells prophylactics.
She punctures the end with a pin.
My granddad does abortions.
Look how the money rolls in!
13 posted on 07/08/2006 11:48:21 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran ("Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MilspecRob

Abortionists, like exterminators, are commercial vendors of "services." Rape victims are not.


14 posted on 07/08/2006 11:55:12 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Click.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Well, if you end up in an emergency room with, say, a large burn [things happen - say, hot cooking oil could splash] the ER physician treating you in that [not abortion related] situation could pretty well turn out to be an abortionist. It would be interesting to see if your "I, for one, don't want an abortionist to TOUCH me. Ever." would be equally forceful then, especially its "Ever" part. For some reason I have a hunch that the pain from the large burn would be of more overriding concern.


15 posted on 07/08/2006 12:00:49 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
I, as a pro-life woman, don't want to fiscally support in any way, be it by my pap smear or mammogram or other procedure, a doctor, or a practice, who preforms abortions. I do not see how my wish to avoid medical practices that commit inficide, even if I have never been an unwitting partner in committing inficide, supports the rational behind the bill. Can you, please, explain your reasoning to me?
16 posted on 07/08/2006 12:01:44 PM PDT by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

some are concerned that the bill has the potential to severely limit freedom of speech rights. Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyn’s.

The Democrats want to take away the free choice of women to choose their ob/gyn's based on objective information?

Women seeking ob/gyn services can avoid abortion providers, based on the currently available information, and therefore decrease the market demand for people providing such services. With this bill, women will not be able to make an informed choice as easily.

17 posted on 07/08/2006 12:05:39 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talking_Mouse

see # 15. Sometimes you choose to have medical services, and sometimes you need them, even on emergency basis. And the need could constrain choice, and even override it. [See the proverb about beggars]. You have your doctor[s] whom you supposedly know and trust on whatever criteria you use - stick with them by all means. But providing the information for the use of the Eric Rudolfs [sp?] is another matter.


18 posted on 07/08/2006 12:11:07 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GSlob
Well, if you end up in an emergency room with, say, a large burn [things happen - say, hot cooking oil could splash] the ER physician treating you in that [not abortion related] situation could pretty well turn out to be an abortionist.

But, for non-emergency procedures, women should have the knowledge to help them choose which doctor offices to visit. It's not right for California to censor this information or advice.

If I wanted to have a baby, I would want to choose doctor who respects life for the nearly yearlong prenatal care and for the delivery. For one, I would prefer that the profits benefit someone of similar thinking. For another, I would be more comfortable if the doctor respected the unborn baby as more than a parasitic mass of cells.

19 posted on 07/08/2006 12:12:39 PM PDT by heleny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; MilspecRob
Abortionists, like exterminators, are commercial vendors of "services." Rape victims are not.

Exactly.

20 posted on 07/08/2006 12:24:12 PM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson