Tiller The baby Killer
Kansas Abortionist May Find Himself Behind Bars.
by Richard Okelberry
|
January 3rd, 2007 - On March 24, 2006, I wrote an essay entitled “Are Abortion Clinics Destroying Evidence?” In this essay I argued that law enforcement should seize as evidence every aborted fetus from underage patients of abortion clinics. It was obvious to me at the time that the very fact that an underage girl was pregnant was evidence of either Statutory Rape or First Degree Unlawful Sexual Assault of a Minor Child. After penning my essay, I sent copies to both the Nebraska State Attorney General Jon Bruning and Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman. Both not only refused to respond to my concerns about rapists and child molesters using abortion clinics to cover up their crimes, but both have also failed to take any steps to seize records and evidence associated with such crimes. Fortunately, the Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline is not so timid. He has successfully subpoenaed the records of a notorious abortion doctor in Kansas, Dr. George Tiller. It also appears that he will likely bring charges against this doctor for failing to report suspected rape and molestation of children. Every state in the Union requires that when a doctor finds evidence of a crime, that they report that crime to the authorities. Failure to do so may be just a misdemeanor in most states but usually carries with it a maximum sentence that includes jail time for each offense. Also, these types of assault generally do not have a statutory limitation. This means that cases going back 20 years could still be prosecuted today. Besides contacting Nebraska’s Attorney General and Governor, I also sent copies to Planned Parenthood, the areas premier abortion provider, as well as several state representatives and a few nationally syndicated radio talk show hosts. While I was certain that Planned Parenthood would not respond, I was surprised that there was little or no interest on the part of some of Nebraska’s more conservative representatives. One of those copied was Mr. Bill O’Reilly from the Fox News Channel and the Bill O’Reilly Show. While I have no idea whether or not my correspondence had any effect, I can tell you with all certainty that Bill O’Reilly has now picked up the ball and is running for the ”in-zone.” In fact he has launched an all out campaign against the infamous Kansas doctor that he calls, “Tiller the baby killer.” With this sort of national exposure for this issue it will be hard for local law enforcement to ignore the massive cover-up being carried out by |
Late term abortionist may end up with this room with a view if the Attorney General in Kansas gets his way. abortionists across the country. While I have already seen pro-abortion supporters coming to the defense of these abortion clinics on the issue, they do so at the risk of slipping even further into moral depravity. Any argument against such prosecution would require that we accept rape and molestation as necessary evil in order to keep abortion easy and accessible. However, as I argued in my first essay, this argument holds no water when we discover that the identities of rape victims are routinely protected and therefore there is no privacy issue to argue. In essence, Roe v. Wade just doesn’t apply here. Of course the die-hard abortionists will also try to throw up the idea that we will be simply prosecuting teens for having consensual sex. Well, I agree with O’Reilly on this point. The law is clear and it is up to prosecutors to decide which laws have been broken and which should be prosecuted, not abortion doctors that are trying to protect their bottom line. Also, remember, we are not talking about denying any girl her privilege to have an abortion. We only want to ensure that steps are taken to bring rapists and molesters, who might use abortion as a cover for their crimes, to justice. The first step in doing this is preserving the gruesome genetic evidence from these terrible crimes. - Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor |
Virginia from San Diego CA, USA responded on January 29th 2007:
Dear Mr. Okelberry, I called a few adult entertainers to find their reaction to your article condemning the babykiller performing late term abortions. The consensus was "so...". They found nothing immoral about the doctor's late term abortions. On further questioning, I realize that the issue of lta's can only be judged moral or immoral on a case by case study. No single black or white blanket covers all here. More women than admit have had abortions. The roster cuts across the lines of fame and anonymity, rich and poor, married and unmarried. There seems not to be a great degree of difference in whether you snuff out an embryos life earlier or later. Most of the women questioned have come to terms with their situations. To take the stance that lta's are like picking out a designer bag by rich women is rediculous. There was a tremendous amount of angst and decision making, albeit after the fact of pregnancy. To hear Mr. O'Reilly on Fox News defend the unborn is noble. However, he is immediately followed by Greta Van Sustern with her list of missing and abused children, including the children whose mothers have killed them. Lta's might eliminate the later torchering and killing of born babies. Both are ugly. Until the US or state governments give women a hand in need, and require men to tote the line, i.e. pay for their role in the pregnancy, there will never be a Pleasantville for women who want to undo unwanted pregnancies.
The Author responded on January 29th, 2007:
Thank you Virginia for your observations. It seems however that you have made my point for me. While the essay was about abortion being used to cover up crimes of sexual assault, you chose to deal with the issue of whether abortion was moral or not. This illustrates a point that I made in my essay, some individuals are so entrench in their belief that abortion should be safe and legal that they will defend it no matter the cost to society, even when that cost is the repeated rape and molestation of children. If you look at statistics regarding sex offenders you will find that they rarely have just one victim and will most likely repeat their offenses until caught. Your argument requires us to except that some evils are necessary to keep abortion legal. Unfortunately, I wasn't arguing for the abolishment of abortion and I illustrated that the victims of these crimes would have their identities protected by current statutes. Since I believe that my original argument is iron clad and since you made no effort to discredit it, I will try to deal with your argument. I'll begin with the last first. You said, "Until the US or state governments give women a hand in need, and require men to tote the line, i.e. pay for their role in the pregnancy, there will never be a Pleasantville for women who want to undo unwanted pregnancies." If we want men to tow the line we must first be willing to give them a say over both the pregnancy and the rearing of the child. Pro-abortionists have long denied men any say in what happens to an unborn child. In fact men are taught at a very young age that it is a woman's choice alone and that they need to keep their mouths shut. Now to talk about whether abortions might, "eliminate the later torchering and killing of born babies." I want to assume for argument sake that you are right and abortion is an acceptable way to stop the eventual abuse and death of children. Logic would dictate that we could then apply this argument to a much wider group. Why not then use abortion as a way to control the number of murderers and rapists in society. Say that statistically 1% of all people will eventually murder a fellow human. This means that if we abort 1000 fetus' we will save 10 lives. This sounds like an awesome deal since a fetus, even at 8 months isn't really alive, right? Just think of all the injustices we could eliminate if we just made abortion mandatory. Everyone knows that a back man is 10 times more likely to go to prison during his lifetime than a white man. Why don't we just start aborting all the black male babies and save the country not only the cost of the crimes but also the cost of incarceration. In the long run it is much more compassionate to spare those poor black men a life behind bars right? Living in a world of "GRAY" morality is great. In fact if we can just perform enough abortions we can create a perfect world where only the strong and genetically perfect survive. I would even propose long rail lines that end at abortion camps. That way we can ship young girls off to a central location, harvest the desired materials from society's unwanted pregnancies and burn the rest in large furnaces that will make electricity for our cities. I'm sure by now your morality has grown a little less gray and has begun to become more black and white. We even have several models created by Stalin and Hitler from which we can fashion this agenda after. I can't imagine you made it very far into my suggestions before some deeper sense or morality took over. Everyone has that line between what they find acceptable and what they find unacceptable. When we find that line is when things become black and white. When it comes to abortion, most people believe that an 8 month old fetus in the womb is a child and should be protected as such. You would argue that somehow a mothers life in more valuable than that of an unborn child. So I want to give you a moral dilemma to chew on. You are a costumer in a bank that is held up by gun men. The police arrive and the gunmen take everyone hostage. The gunmen decide to kill a hostage and toss the body out the door to let the police know they are serious. They grab a woman with her 2 month old baby and tell you that you must decide whether the mother dies or the baby dies. If you don't choose, they both lose their lives. The mother then pleads for her life saying, "please don't kill me, I want to live!" What do you do? Who do you chose? Sometimes morality is not as "gray" as you might think.
