Comments on: Grand Jury Source: Abortionists Tiller and Carhart Dodged Grand Jury

By: Brittney

Brittney — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 16:24:07 +0000

Tiller and Carhart both look like sexual perverts to me.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:30:08 +0000

Why wasn’t the Grand Jury extended for another term? It sounds like they were LAZY. The Grand Jurors themselves voted to stop the investigation instead of extending it for the 18 months which would have forced LeRoy and Tiller to testify at some point.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 05:29:50 +0000

This is exactly what the pro aborts resort to when they can’t think of any other way to defend their pro killing philosophy.

Third grade mentality indeed.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:48:04 +0000

Gee, Jersey, I see you put a lot of research and insight into your post — which was cut & pasted from your pathetic and narcissistic “blog,” wherein you basically just call people names and use a lot of four-letter words while talking about yourself [as if we care, as we talk about real-world problems here]. Haven’t you figured out that swearing stopped being interesting in about third grade?

By: Jersey McJones

Jersey McJones — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:17:05 +0000

I think, personally, and I mean this, the anti-choice crowd is scared to death of the MAP (Plan B – Morning After Pill) because if this medication becomes mainstream and easily available, abortion, as an issue, will cease to exist.

1: The numbers of these “abortions” will become impossible to track (which, ironically, always worked in the anti-choice arguments, as there was no way to show what the numbers were prior to RvW because people kept quiet).

2: The alleged detrimental psychological effects will be negated (women won’t ever know if they were even ever pregnant or not).

3: The stigmatizing of abortion providers, pro-choice politicians, and patients will be gone (no target enemy/victim to unite the anti-choice constituency).

4: It’s no more “abortion” than taking the Pill regularly. So, to argue that Plan B should not be available is exactly to argue that the Pill should not be available. I wonder how many women (and men) would be okay with that?

I’m tellin’ ya’ – this will be the end of the issue of abortion.

Good riddance.

JMJ

By: Happy Wonderer

Happy Wonderer — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:35:10 +0000

Look, folks. It really comes down to this: The DA didn’t want to indict anyone.

No immunity for Tiller, good. But how about for some of the lower-level lowlifes?

The grand jury could have been extended for another term and Carhardt really would have had a problem. Or the abortuary would have had a problem without him.

The grand jury had to consult an expert on the meaning of the word “and”? That sounds a lot like “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.”

Nola didn’t think enough about this case to even handle it herself! Oh, she sure loved the TV cameras for BTK. Who kills more?

Get rid of that evil DA. The blood of Christin, her baby, and all the other dead babies is on her hands.

By: All_Life_IS_Precious

All_Life_IS_Precious — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:39:21 +0000

They did not “intend” to kill Christin? Yea RIGHT. Margaret Sanger (founder of Banned Parenthood), the one that all abortionists and population control advocates worship, would want all imperfect people GONE. She would have grinned wickedly at the death of poor Christin.

Why are 90% of downsyndrome babies aborted before they are born? Because they are not perfect!

Why was Tiller not Indicted? Because he killed an imperfect disabled teenager AND her baby.

Hitler would be proud, Tiller & Carhart!

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:19:05 +0000

I am also troubled by 2 other facets of the case. I am not an expert in criminal law, but some basic questions/thoughts spring to mind:

1. Witnesses are (presumably) subpoenaed because they are believed to possess relevant and admissible evidence If you need a witness and they are evading service, or even if you suspect evasion, seek court relief/a continuance of the proceedings/etc. The law has a long arm, and Courts don’t like those that flee their obligations. The concept that key witnesses hid out-of-state should guide the prosecution: Find them. Alternatively, delay the hearing so you can.

2. This is a homicide, not a traffic ticket. There is no reason less than a 100% effort should be made to present the strongest possible case. The DA failed IMHO to do so, and that is a disgrace to the justice system and to the victims.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:41:33 +0000

I whole heartedly agree with what you are saying Frank. I just don’t see how something like this can be taken so lightly. A girl’s traumatic and sad death, which it seems as no one cares that was supposed to be caring for her at the time of her procedure. Like OR said, there is something definately fishy going on here, it’s plain faced, total truth, in your face facts and evidence of what happened to Christin was no “accident”. They failed miserably to cover it up, and to save that innocent girl’s life and the life of her child. I can’t believe how the law works in Kansas. If this was in California, I know that the law would have pushed harder to try to get the evidence they needed or made those clinic workers talk. Here in this case, it seems as if they asked them a question, they refused to answer, shrugged their shoulders and left it at that. This should be an embarassment to thos people working that jurisdiction.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:19:42 +0000

The issue of the DA has intrigued me for some time. It does not sound as of the DA was the advocate of the people, and/or pressed for an indictment. She may have presented the facts, but it sounds as if she did not take the facts to their conclusion. It sounds as if she did just enought to fulfill her legal responsibilities, but couldn’t have cared less than aboutr actually obtaining an indictment.

One can “fix” a legal proceeding by handpicking those involved, just as surely as if payoffs are offered. One wonders: How does Ms. Swegle feel about legal abortion? Do her superiors know of her feelings? What are their feelings? [we know that]. How did she get assigned to this case?

IMHO Ms. Swegle was NOT Christin’s advocate, and never was supposed to be. That was not her role. But she was the advocate of the people of the State of Kansas, not a mere neutral presenter of the law in the abstract. “Advocate” implies just that, the active advocacy of a position that the laws were broken, and in that respect, it sounds that Ms. Swegle failed completely.