Abortion Protesters Use Cameras, Raise New Legal Issues, Lawsuits

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | YOCHI J. DREAZEN

[TroutStalker]

DENVER -- As soon as he saw the blue minivan turning into the parking lot of Planned Parenthood's small abortion clinic here, Kenneth Scott grabbed his digital camera, clambered up his rickety metal ladder and started snapping pictures.

"You'll have nightmares about this day the rest of your life," he bellowed, photographing the blond woman gingerly leaving the minivan. Then he turned his camera to her escort. "Your sin won't be hidden or forgotten," he screamed.

[weegee]

Well said but the actions of these photographers isn't disuading them and posting them after the fact is an added cruelty.

Do you also feel this way about cities that post photos on the web of criminals (johns and prostitutes arrested by vice squads among other crimes)?

At least law enforcement is prohibited from "cruel" and "unusual" punishment. The posters of the abortion clinic photos are private citizens posting images shot from the public street. I agree that they shouldn't make any presumption that they are getting an operation I don't see that they are violating the law or "privacy" by photographing the people.

I question how they may be getting medical records but driver's license information is a matter of public record that anyone can obtain. Maybe we should be able to know the names/contact of all people/organizations/companies that obtain our DL information and such purchasers should be prohibited from selling this data but we all know that marketing firms (junk mail, telemarketers, and more) buy up this data and then sell in bulk to others.

Tracking down everyone that has "pinged" your driver's license data (to obtain DOB, home address, etc.) is impossible.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

More power to these guys i hope they shame people into turning around and not aborting an inocent life

[weegee]

Anyone know of a website from the health food lobby showing photos of people leaving the dentist after getting a filling (from sugar abuse and lacking personal hygeine)?

I've always let those in my circle of friends and those at the office always know, I'm going to the dentist this afternoon.

Wouldn't be a "big thing" to have my photo on the web for being "caught" leaving the dentist.

Those who are complaining that this is harassment must not believe those little lies that they tell themselves that it is just like going to the dentist and that there is nothing shameful about it.

[weegee]

Also, drug use only takes one to tango, whereas sex takes two.

You mean that Paul "Pee Wee Herman" Rubens was doing it "wrong"? Is that why he was arrested?

[RooRoobird14]

"Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions..... Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years."

From abortionfacts.com

Sorry, the "emotional suffering" that women allegedly go through from abortion isn't enough to motivate them to keep their knees together and/or use birth control. I happen to think that women who abort their babies don't suffer enough. Abortion is all too convenient, inexpensive, and consequence-free.

[RooRoobird14]

"Women who have had abortions are more likely to become pregnant again and undergo additional abortions. Nearly 50% of all abortions are repeat abortions..... Compared to their peers, teenagers who have had one abortion are 4 times more likely to have a subsequent abortion. Almost 20% of teen aborters have a second abortion within a year, and 38% have a second abortion within 5 years."

From abortionfacts.com

Sorry, the "emotional suffering" that women allegedly go through from abortion isn't enough to motivate them to keep their knees together and/or use birth control. I happen to think that women who abort their babies don't suffer enough. Abortion is all too convenient, inexpensive, and consequence-free.

[Zeroisanumber]

If it weren't a liberal issue, it wouldn't be.

Abortion is different, and it's not just a liberal issue.

[Zeroisanumber]

Jerking off in a porno flick joint is not likely to result in many pregnancies. At least I hope it won't! :)

[Zeroisanumber]

Just remember - abstinence works 100% of the time in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

You're right, but studies have also shown that it's on the minds of 0% of today's drunk, horny teenagers.

[stands2reason]

Well, when does life begin?

[Zeroisanumber]

Why should you. Just because she was once a successfull abortionist who stoped when she was revolted by what she was doing, why should you pay any attention to her? Just because she has reason to know what she is talking about? Just because her data might conflict with what you want to believe? Carol isn't making more money now than when she was running the clinic, she's making less. Unless you have some reson to suggest that she's making up what she says, some reason other than the suggestion that her experience has driven her to take up a cause, you might want to read it.

She has an agenda ArGee, a reason to lie or otherwise distort. Her objective is not to provide unbiased facts about the day-to-day operation of an abortion clinic, but to see that those places are shut down. Taking her word at face value would be foolish.

[ArGee]

She has an agenda ArGee, a reason to lie or otherwise distort. Her objective is not to provide unbiased facts about the day-to-day operation of an abortion clinic, but to see that those places are shut down. Taking her word at face value would be foolish.

Non-starter, Zero. Her knowledge may be what is driving her agenda. The fact that she cares passionately about something is not a valid basis for ignoring what she says. The information she provides may very well be (is, in this case) the reason she has the agenda.

In other words, her agenda may be based on the truth.

On what is your agenda based?

Shalom.

[Zeroisanumber]

In other words, her agenda may be based on the truth.

Possibly, but I'd need cooberation from an unbiased source before I took her word at face value. Part of the reason that I don't watch network news (FOX, CNN, etc.) is that I don't like my sources to have a bias. CNN has a centrist bias and won't report some stories, FOX has a right-leaning bias and while they might tell me what I want to hear, it's not always the whole story.

I think that you might be taking this woman's words at face value because she tells you what you want to hear, a little of the truth mixed with a little fabrication. An omission here, an addition there, all in the name of the cause; it's an easy trap to fall in to.

On what is your agenda based?

As much objective information as I can get my hands on. It's not easy, but I do the best that I can.

[jlogajan]

You want to change the definition

You don't own the "original." Nobody has to change any definition. You have yours, they have theirs. It is a perfectly reasonable position that a lump of cells is not yet a human in any meaningful sense -- no matter how high you crank your religion-based hate machines.

[litany_of_lies]

From World Net Daily; August 26, 2000:

Excerpt from "Abortion-Breast Cancer Lawsuit Goes to Trial":" It is widely held among physicians and scientists acknowledging an abortion-breast cancer link that 26 out of 32 published studies on the subject worldwide and 12 out of 13 studies in the United States support the notion.

Contrary to your uninformed claim, the abortion-breast cancer link has the science on its side so far, though the issue is far from settled.

Unfortunately, in this age of PC science, where the conclusion is too often pre-ordained and the evidence is gathered/altered to fit the pre-ordained conclusion, I have to question anything coming out of Denmark without a great deal of further review, especially considering the following comments on the study from a California doctor (April 9, 2002):

This study was so full of holes that reputable medical journals are reluctant to run it any more, without some kind of a disclaimer. Dr. Joel Brind the author of the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis of scientificstudies concerning the link between induced abortion and breast cancer risk exposed the many flaws in it. When the flaws were removed, the study did show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. When he shredded the Danish study to pieces, he pointed out the specific flaws. He showed where the math did not add up. He showed what was left

For more info go to HERE and HERE.

[JMJ333]

Hate? Trying to keep people alive is hateful? Don't get so angry with me for trying to initiate debate with you.

I will ask you again--What happens at conception if not life?

[litany_of_lies]

I understand the goal of shame. If that's what you want, pictures and names are shame enough.

Publishing addresses and Drivers' License numbers is unwarranted harrassment in and of itself, and invites those with a screw loose to engage in further harrassment--all of which serves to hurt the pro-life movement in the long-run.

[jlogajan]

This study was so full of holes that reputable medical journals are reluctant to run it any more

What an inane claim. Periodicals only published studies once.

[litany_of_lies]

That's the best you can do? How about responding to the substance of my post--the fact that far more studies are showing an abortion-breast cancer link than aren't?

[JMJ333]

Oh sure...answer them and not me! ;)