More Problems Surface At Granite City, IL Abortion Mill

St. Louis, MO — The recent story about the arrest of a rapist who forced his underage victim to abort at a Granite City, IL abortion mill has struck a chord with pro-life advocate Melanie Mills, a registered nurse who has had personal tragic experiences at that same clinic.

Melanie’s frustration at the cover-ups of abortion clinic wrong-doing and lack of interest by Illinois state authorities in enforcing the laws when it comes to abortion businesses is understandable, especially in light of recent stories of abortion mills that have been closed by other states such as Alabama, Ohio, and Florida, for doing less than what apparently occurs at the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, on a regular basis.

We are reprinting an editorial article by Mrs. Mills and recommend that you visit her web site at

-Operation Rescue Staff

Hope Clinic statutory rape case-
When will the lies end?

by Melanie Mills, RN

This week on two St. Louis local news channels, KMOV and KSDK, the story of an underage teen that was brought to Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Illinois, by her step father that had been raping her for a 2-year period, came to light. The teen was brought to the Hope Clinic where he forced the minor to have an abortion to eliminate evidence of the crime. The teen was brought to the clinic on March 23, 2006, by her step-father and rapist Jeffery Cheshier, age 41. A link to the story from local station KSDK is at-

To say the least, this brings up the question of why didn’t Hope Clinic staff call the police to turn in this obvious case of statutory rape? By law ALL ADULTS, (no matter their occupation, age or circumstance), that suspect a crime has taken place against a minor are responsible and are required by law to report it to the police. Failing to do so can actually bring charges against an adult that fails to comply with these state laws.

So now I ask this, will the State Attorney’s office in Illinois or Attorney General Lisa Madigan investigate this case? Will she or other authorities step up to the plate and go to Hope Clinic and ask the questions and launch an investigation? The answer I’m afraid to say is, No.

Hope Clinic has a list of dirty laundry, impropriety and wrong doings a mile wide and long. I don’t just say this to “whistle Dixie.” It’s the truth, and the facts are in the Madison County Court House just sitting there for the public and the authorities to investigate and start asking questions anytime now. I have been doing so for the last seven years.

As listed on my website,, from Court House documents, one abortionist has lawsuits against him that date back to 1985 that include bad debts, malpractice, negligence and wrongful death. Yet somehow this place stays open.

In 2003, a woman we will call “Linda” had an abortion and was kept in the back of the clinic bleeding to death for 3 hours. She was stuffed full of gauze and IV fluids were pumped into her until protesters in front of the clinic left. They left, but the truth still came out. This woman “coded” and was saved by Granite City ObGyn Dr. Mark Wasserman. The abortionists severed major arteries and veins in her uterus, and an emergency hysterectomy was performed to save the woman’s life. She stayed in the hospital for 3 days and received blood transfusions to replace nearly all her blood she lost. “Linda” will never be able to have a child now thanks to Hope Clinic and the spineless abortionists that did this to her.

Then there is the case of a woman we will call “Rita”. Rita was a patient in the private OB practice of abortionist Yogendra Shah. This woman, (who I spoke with) was diagnosed with cancer after Shah failed to take samples and make appropriate tests following a surgery he performed on her. When I spoke with Rita she was suffering from the effects of chemo & radiation. There was a monetary settlement in this case, which is undisclosed.

Then there is my story.

I had an abortion at Hope Clinic March 26th, 1998, and later discovered through review of my medical records that there were no baby body parts found during the pathology testing after the abortion. I became suspicious after I was sent a letter 2 weeks after my abortion asking me to come back because a “missed abortion” or “ectopic pregnancy” might have happened. Well, since I was a nursing student, I knew they had some kind of evidence of this, or the letter would not have been sent to me. I was right. After looking at the pathology report and consulting with my ObGyn, I learned I had a “blighted ovum” and an abortion should not have been performed. Neither the clinic nor Mr. Shah ever reviewed my ultrasound prior to the abortion, and therefore I never knew that I could have gone home and miscarried naturally or had a D&C. I was never carrying a viable pregnancy, but instead of telling me the TRUTH, they covered the real story up.

Why does this clinic continually lie to patients? They are violating patient rights, HIPPA, and the trust that a patient puts in their health care provider. All of this led me to start my site I believe the public and women deserve to know the truth. I was not given that honesty, but maybe and hopefully I can help spare women from becoming future victims of this dishonest place called Hope Clinic.

It is so upsetting to see women lied to time after time and to know that no one in authority in Illinois is doing anything to stop it. My prayer is that this case will get somebody to take notice at what’s going on at Hope Clinic and put and end to the atrocities taking place there. We all know the babies are dying, but the women are the ones left to go home and do the crying and suffering when the abortion is over. This needs to stop. This needs to be the last case that Hope clinic gets to “cover up”. My prayer is that now the cover-ups will end.


  1. For Melanie, You are a nurse Please use your God given gifts to heal people not to help harm. Goa called you to his side-He doesnt want you on the other team. God Bless

  2. Sounds to me that a more apprropriate name for this clinic would be HOPELESS

  3. Interesting list of lawsuits gathered from public records on this abortuary. Two of these are wrongful deaths suits.

    Pressure needs to continue on the DA and other officials of Illinios over these cases, and the CHILD RAPE cover up case!!!

  4. The only patient death I know of at “Hope” is Barbaralee Davis in 1977. Are these for patient deaths, or wrongful death of the baby?

    Are there write-ups of these cases, or are they just listed? We ned copies of the complaints.

  5. You do great work in regards to women who die at the hands of abortionists. Thank you for this.

    Does it really matter if a wrongful death lawsuit is for a woman or a baby?

    I know you have shown that you like to propagate the abortion bound mothers as victims, but we should be focused more on the REAL victims of abortion- the babies.

    Since you have only one dead woman listed for Hope(less) abortuary. You might check on wrongful death lawsuits for Shaw- the abortionist at Hope(less) abortuary. He is the HEAD of SURGERY for a CATHOLIC HOSPITAL and is listed in these wrongful death lawsuits.

    These wrongful lawsuits are listed for Shaw that do not bear the same name as the one you have listed.

    Choice is choice. It has consequences. Mostly these consequences are a dead baby alone- but sometimes a dead woman as well.

    The murderous minded women are not victims of abortion in the same sense the babies are- therefore the first agenda should not be to focus on them such as you do.

    Case # 1994L 000923

    Year 2002 SHAH YOGENDRA MD
    Case number# 1994L 000923

    I hope that you find these wrongful death lawsuits beneficial to exposing abortion and helping to stop them.

    But if these wrongful death lawsuits turn out to be babies will you still list them?

    Will you make little grave stone markers for them like you do the murderous mothers on your website? Or will discriminate against these victims of abortion and not treat the most vulnerable the way that you do the women who make their choice to risk death.

  6. Such hypocricy in the pro-abort camp. They claim to be “for” women, and yet they cover up for predatory men, oppose oversite of clinics that treat women worse than a vet would a dog, and take away a mother’s right to protect their daughter by simply being notified their daughter is going to kill a grandchild. How about the right to live of a preborn woman? All I can say about women’s rights, is yah right.

  7. To Robert-
    Of course I feel tremendous sorrow for the unborn that are murdered at Hopeless Clinic. It is very hard to stand there and watch the endless number of women and men that go in to murder their children and then see the look of regret or shock when they come out and realize what they just did. I focused on the women in what I wrote because the case was about a teen. She was not only raped and victimized by her own step-father, but she was also victimized by the clinic. They should have had the sense to call the police and they didn’t. They let this girl down horribly. As Rick pointed out, if they really cared about womens rights they would have called the police that day. They didn’t and it’s just one more blatant example of their hypocricy.
    As far as the wrongful death cases, I don’t know if that is the baby or the woman. One states it was filled for the victim “on behalf of the parents” which makes me think this could have been a baby that was injured in either an abortion or a birth. At that time Shah delivered babies and killed them too. ALL these cases can be read and copied like I said at the Madison county court house in Edwardsville Illinois. All these cases are open for public inspection due to the Freedom of Information act. I haven’t copied all of them due to the financial cost. Believe me if I had the means, I would be there researching everyday. I plan to dig deeper, but it will take some time. BTW, Shah is no longer head of St. Elizabeth’s. The Hospital changed ownership and is now called Gateway Hospital and a new Chief of staff was instated after it was learned that Shah was an abortionist, just right across the street at Hopeless.

  8. I understand the need to focus on the deaths and injuries to women. Woman in this country are being lied to by abortionists so that they don’t have the truth about the horrors of abortion. I’m convinced that if they knew these truths and were required to learn about them, 99 percent would not go through with the abortion. Abortionists take advantage of the desperate and hopeless state of mind of a woman dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. This hopelessness and lack of faith is the work of Satan, who feeds on and promotes hopelessness and despair. Once the woman gives in to Satan’s mockery of the beauty of the gift of a child, she is then mocked again by the Devil and made to feel tremendous guilt, therefore again rejecting the love and forgiveness of God.

    Also, it is my firm belief that, because of the outright REFUSAL of our pro-abortion government and activists to admit that an unborn baby is even a PERSON, we must use any method necessary to change laws and hearts and minds, even if it means turning our attention to the health and well-being of the mother, which is all these people seem to care about. The end justifies the means.

    I had an abortion in 1989, and have in the seventeen years since, experienced ever-increasing guilt and personal torment, especially since having my little boys, ages 4 and 1. The aspects of my feelings range from self-hatred, to anger, to feelings of being used, to feelings of irresponsibility, to viewing myself as a murderer, which I was. But God entered my heart and is just now allowing me to heal my wounds and seek forgiveness from my precious child. I know my child is in heaven, sitting at the foot of God. My only goal now is to warn women of the consequences of their rejection of their womanly instincts and the embracing of hopelessness.

    Sorry for the long letter, but I wanted to tell you that I am doing all I can from home with two small children to get the word out to those in the dark about the horrors of abortion. I am getting on any and every chat room that I can and putting the horrible truth in front of the faces of those women (and men) who are most vulnerable to the lies of the abortion industry and our government.

  9. Michelle:

    “…we must use any method necessary to change laws and hearts and minds, even if it means turning our attention to the health and well-being of the mother, which is all these people seem to care about. The end justifies the means.”

    –The ends justifies the means? No, I most strongly disagree. Although I emphathize with your situation, saying “the ends justifies the means” may (and I say “may”), or even most likely, lead to essentially allowing any behavior in the name of ending abortion, including the killing of abortion providers. Wrong behavior is wrong behavior, period. Killing is killing, period, and the ends, in my opinion, most certainly do not justify all means to get there.

    Besides, your post references changing “laws and hearts and minds.” Those are pretty diverse. In my opinion, hearts are changed with love, and minds are changed with reason. However, laws can be changed with guns, and I respectfully don’t want to live in a country where the ends justify the means to change laws.

  10. I am taking your standard and applying it to these two seperate issues. That is a valid basis of comparison, and will help to verify its validity. IT IS THE STANDARD we are evaluating by analyzing each of these two occurances.

    Frank says “I respectfully don’t want to live in a country where the ends justify the means to change laws.”

    You DO live in a country where guns and violence were used to establish laws in fact the entire nation.

    The entire Case #1 The American Revolution:

    A) King George’s governing authority established taxation and duty for Colonial trade
    B) The Revolutionists suffered until they made a Declaration of Independance from King George’s rule
    C) King George declared the Colonial rebels and all who participated with them were treasonous and acting unlawful
    D) The war was fought and the Revolutionists won their freedom

    **According to the standard (above) the Revolutionists violated laws of the ruling authority and in the ongoing refusal to cease rebellion they destroyed property, killed people and generally created suffering***

    I ask: how is this not violative of the standard by which you judge Paul Hill to be unjustified in his defensive actions for the preborn?

    BTW I would love to take these questions to the ORWest prolife forum, however, I have registered many times and the moderators have not seen fit to allow me to do what OR has asked of me/us, so I continue to bring these to examples of hypocracy to openness here according to Eph 5 to expose such.

  11. Frog:

    The basic thrust of your post seems to be that a) the ends DO justify the means; and b) sure enough, as I suspected someone would, you appear to defend Paul Hill, who was executed for the crime of shooting an abortionist.

    Some thoughts by way of reply:

    A. Paul Hill was judged by a jury of his peers after a fair trial conducted under the auspices of established law. Like it or not, we have a highly structured legal system which, whether it is occasionally unfair, is probably the best in the world, bar none. Leaving aside my personal opposition to the death penalty, he could not really have asked for more than he received.

    B. By killing a man as he did, Paul Hill nonetheless violated the most basic precepts of the religion he supposedlly championed. As to the reasons why shooting abortionists is wrong, particulalrly in the eyes of Christians, I respectfully refer you to the fine writings of Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who I cite herein. The following is lifted verbatim from a link to Priests for Life available through OR’s own site:

    “As a pro-life leader at the national level, I oppose the shooting of abortion providers as happened for the third time on July 29, 1994. Why? It bears too much resemblance to abortion itself. The abortion mentality says that death is a solution. It sees killing a child as a way to solve a pregnant woman’s problems. The shooting of abortionists also puts forth death as a solution to the problem of abortion. Neither assertion is correct. Neither the solution to a woman’s problems nor the solution to abortion comes from a deadly weapon. Furthermore, even if problems were solved by killing people, such killing would still be wrong. We may never do evil that good may come about (see Romans 3:8). The end does not justify the means. That applies to both pro-life and pro-abortion people. The abortion mentality also holds that some lives are less valuable than others. Thus they say that if it is too burdensome for a woman to bring a child to term, that child’s life and rights are less weighty than those of the woman.
    This same mentality fuels violence against abortionists. Some may think that the abortionist’s life is less valuable because he/she does abortions. It is not. What the abortionist does is evil; his/her life is still precious. We do not eliminate the evil by eliminating people, but rather by calling them to conversion.”

    Thanks, Fr. Pavone. I could not have said it any better.

    * * *

    Finally, I note your own historical errors:

    “You DO live in a country where guns and violence were used to establish laws in fact the entire nation.”

    –Actually, you’re wrong. Independence was declared peacefully. The war of independence was fought because the English Crown wouldn’t accept the declaration. The war came after independence, not before it, as with many other countries.

    “According to the standard (above) the Revolutionists violated laws of the ruling authority and in the ongoing refusal to cease rebellion they destroyed property, killed people and generally created suffering”

    –They did all of those things. Some of the foulest crimes were committed against loyalists, simply because they were loyalists. Having one’s land and property stolen by force of arms was the least that happened to many loyallists. What they did was wrong then and it would be equally wrong now, and the fact that we live in the nation they created does not excuse it. Equally, however, we have no culpabilty for it. We are, however, culpable for our own actions, and what Paul Hill did was wrong, and he received the results of those actions. The fact that some select few approve of it does not mitigate it in any way. A “select few,” in this age of the internet, can be found to approve of literally any action imaginable.

    Everyone should be sickened, repulsed, and appalled at any murder, and that includes the one committed by Paul Hill. Sometimes it may be hard not to be, given what abortionists do. But as I’ve observed elsewhere, if the murder of abortionists is allowable, soon someone will kill the abortionist’s secretary…or his landscaper…or the landscapers’ daugher…or me, just because I don’t approve of the other killings.

  12. Michelle,You said it best. Remember the devil comes to rob,kill,steal,and DESTROY. Im glad God blessed you with more children.Im glad you have turned against abortion. I sure pray for you to heal. Remember the devil loves to see us in despair!Ill pray for you.Thanks for getting the truth out!

  13. Here is the falacy of Frank’s post. The defence of inocent life is not the same as abortion. Abortion takes inocent life. Our legal system in the case of Paul Hill was high jack by a pro-abort judge who denied the constitutional right of Hill to councle of his choice, and though on trial for his life, was refused to put on his defence. All 50 states have laws that allow lethal force to be used in the defence of life and property. We now have laws on the books that say if one kills a womb child in the commission of a crime, then they can be charged with murder. Again, it is totally justifiable, and no grand jury would indite anyone who killed an evil aggressor who presented themselves as an eminant threat to mother and womb child.

    Also the pre-born were declared to be persons, and many peaceful actions were taken to end the slaughter. Hill took it seriously, that a womb child is a person and deserved just as much protection as aborn child. He did not run, but laid down his weapon, hoping to present his case to a jury of his peers. A right he was denied. The jury never got to here his case because of a black robed pro-abort tyrant on the bench.

    I have very little trust in Mr. Pravone, as he and his group would give hard to come by pro-life dollars to a pro-abort justice system, to bring folk in front of these judicial despots. This could very well end up as blood money, for as we see in the case of Hill, the pro-abort government makes no qualms about killing those who make a stand for the womb child.

    Instead of paying $50,000 dollars to snitch out fellow pro-lifers, they could print up literature, make posters, and fuel up the truth trucks.

    SSSSSOOOOO it is wrong to kill abortionist, but it is OK to spend $50,000 to have the government kill those you don’t agree with? Sounds a bit like 30 pieces of silver to me.

    If what Hill did was wrong, then we must quit calling abortion murder, protest the laws that protect born children by lethal force, disban all police and military units, and take away every citizens right to bare arms and protect their homes and families.

    We must just lay down and surender our government of “WE THE PEOPLE” to the secular humanist pro-abort high jackers.

    People like frank don’t care if we lose, just as long as we look good doing it.

    With all my heart I hope and pray for a peaceful end to the slaughter. But while we are waiting for that, another 3 or 4 thousand dies every day. Some folk simply believe that to be unexceptible. I may not agree with everyones methodology, but 3 to 4 thousand…….

  14. To the extent anyone actually buys the previous post, it could not be a more inaccurate synopsis of the Paul Hill case. The most glaring error is the claim that Paul Hill was somehow denied a defense – the most basic reason being because all cases in this country wherein a defendant is sentenced to death are essentially subject to automatic appellate review (generally multiple reviews by succeedingly higher courts), even those wherein the defendant asks to be put to death. If a defense is denied at trial the appellate courts remedy that. A judge who is openly corrupt, fails to follow the established law, etc., simply gets reversed on appeal. For what it’s worth, the defense of “ineffective assistance of counsel” is statistically (if I’m correct) the most common argument raised in criminal appeals and the one least likely to succeed. Every defendant says “I would have gotten off if not for my lousy lawyer.” Sorry, nice try. The Courts can make errors (see Roe v. Wade) but on whole they are a far sight better than anywhere else. Would you rather by tried by a US Court? Or, say, a Sharia Court in Iran?

    Mr. Ellis is free to distrust “Mr. Pravone.” Personally, I would rather place my “trust” in those who don’t advocate kiling, than in those who do. I respectfully posit that the head of “Priests for Life,” who follows established Catholic doctrine, and who is held up as a model by many non-Catholic (or at least non-sectarian) groups, is far more worthy of our respect than many others, such as advocates for the “select few” I wrote of above. I note, for example, OR’s own links to his site as evidence of his credibility within the pro-life movement. In fact, I am hugely flattered that at different times 2 different posters on this board have actually thought that I am he (I am not).

    As to anyone who claims that I “don’t care if we lose,” the only “winning” I care about is, with all due respect, getting to heaven one day and helping as many people I can to get there too. That’s what Christians should be all about. That’s “winning.”

    Killing is not the way there. Killing is killing. Period. Anyone who can’t figure that out is likely beyond further reasoned discourse, and there’s probably not more to say anyway.

  15. To Michelle,
    I wrote the piece because I know there are thousands if not millions of women that have suffered like you. I suffered for a long time too. If we don’t reach the woman after the abortion she could go on to drugs and alcohol, depression and maybe suicide. We have so many women hurting. There is 2 victims in abortion, one dies and one lives with the guilt. Until America understands that abortion undermines the very fabric and foundations of our society, we will continue to see our country spiral into complete chaos. More women like Michelle must be encouraged to stand up and speak out and tell the world abortion is no good for women and it certainly doesn’t “liberate” them from anything, but their happiness and normal life they had before the abortion.

  16. Contary to what Frank claims the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the justness of defense of self or another.

    here is just one example:

    2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

  17. To all: As usual, Robert may selectively quote one or 2 lines from the Catechism (as he often qoutes from the Bible) to support his beliefs. However, that is not “contrary” to anything I have claimed. He says that the Catholic Church “teaches the justness of defense of self OR ANOTHER” buth then cites a passage dealing only with dealing a lethal blow to “an aggressor” (one posing an active threat) against ONESELF.

    This is all academic since Paul Hill was NOT “defending his own life” when he pulled the trigger and shot an abortionist (who obviously was unarmed). That is particularly true since the Catholic Church absolutly did not condone what Hill did, far from it. Hill was a murderer, plain and simple. The fact that he shot an abortionist doesn’t change that fact. What I said above is true: Some small few will defend it because the liked the result. But as I keep saying, the ends do NOT justify the means, particularly just because you hapen to like the ends.

    Since I already engaged Robert & some others in a spirited colloquy some months ago regarding the death penalty – and wherein the “pro-execution” side advocated the execution of everyone from those who work on the Sabath to those who have relations with a woman during her period, and which ended with me being called names — I have nothing more to add, other than to say that quoting a passage from the Cathechism does not make one an authority on the Catholic Church, far from it.

  18. Paul Hill did defend his own life from a trained body gaurd who was known to usually be armed at the abortuary.

    Abortionists are armed with their weapons of destruction.

    The rest of your representations of how projustice people believe is also a misrepresentation.

    ORWest, I would love to take these discussions to your forum as you have suggested many times, and have registered to do so, but failure on the part of administration to conform the registration has stopped your requests.

  19. Living by the ten comandments specifically the sixth in Exodus (or the 5th in the Catholic recap of the original ten) means that not only does one not murder, (unjustly killing an innocent person) but also one does not refuse assistance to a person in danger.

    Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

    Since we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, we must therefore not refuse to defend the preborn child in danger- even if that means dealing a lethal blow to the unjust agreessor, as a “good Catholic” Frank, how could you disagree with what the Catachism and Bible says?

  20. The following facts are uncontroverted:

    1. The Catholic Church has repeatedly opposed the killing of abortionists. John Cardinal O’Connor of N.Y., when he was alive, once said, “if anyone would shoot an abortionist, let him shoot me instead.” No one can credibly even suggest that the Church’s position is somehow indefensible (although some always try). Instead, the Church has stated that “at the root of every act of violence against one’s neighbour there is a concession to the “thinking” of the evil one, the one who “was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).'” I am citing Pope John Paul II’s 3/25/95 “Evangelium Vitae.'” The Church’s position is a natural outgrowth of its consistent position that ALL human life is sacred.

    2. It is also beyond dispute that some few people will excuse any actions just because they like the result. That, however, does not excuse the actions. In other words, the ends do not justify the means — as I keep saying. I stand by my statements as to Paul Hill. I understand I will not win over Robert to correct thinking. Hey, it’s a free country (provided you don;t break the law, as Paul Hill did). But to anyone sitting on the fence, please note that his position can apparently be boiled down to “the ends justify the means…when I like the ends.” Scary, no?

  21. It is not the “ends justifies the means”… Frank is a repetative bearer of false witness. The “means” has never been shown to be unjust or ungodly.

    As to the TRUTHFUL position of those who believe the preborn child is worthy of an equal defense to the born child- Frank has yet to prove that the Lord sees defense as murder.

    Clearly God did not condemn Moses for killing in defense of the Jewish slave. In His wisodom, God inspired men to use a different word than what is used in the 6th commandement.

    I know it’s all confusing to Frank, these comandments and numbers and all… but the 6th commandent of the original 10 in Exodus written 300-400 years before the the 5th for you Frank, in your Catholic recap of the original 10. I personally like to go to the original source and not to recaps… but either one has the commnadment about not bearing a false witness….. THAT one is not added or substracted in the Catholic version… so Frank should know it.

    [still trying to take these important discussions in the forum, OR. The last few attempts resulted in timed out or a claim that my own name and email is already registered- yet won’t allow the log in.]

  22. Robert:

    Your comments are degenerating to Catholic-bashing, suggesting somehow that Catholics don’t know some sort of “true 10 commandments” which others know (your claim, of course, is preposterous). To the extent you want to go to “original sources,” please advise the University/Seminary, etc. where you studied the various ancient languages these “original sources” were written in (seeing as how the Israelites did not speak or write in King James English).

    What you are doing does not help the pro-life cause one wit. Nothing is served by further discourse in this respect.

  23. Expectation was not extended that Frank would actually address any points in the post, such as Moses’ lethal defense, the fact that the Exodus ten coomandments was written 400 years earlier that the recapping used by catholics..

    Probably if you attack the messenger you can side step your need to repent of your bearing of false witness that the ends justifies the means is the montra of those who do not discriminate against the preborn like a pacifist.

    Some are still wonder how you end up with ten after elliminating one commandment?

  24. You do this all the time, Robert: if someone disagrees with you, you just say “you’re bearing false witness against me!” and demand that they also “repent.”

    The Catholic Church’s Cathechism states at 2078 that “In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with Jesus’ example, the tradition of the Church has always acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue,” meaning the 10 Commandments right out of Ex. 20:1-17 and Deut. 5:6-22. The Cathechism also reminds us that Jesus unfolded all the demands of the Commandments, saying, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill.’ . . . But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”…which by the way, is a nice seamless transition to John Paul II’s consistent quote I cited above, “at the root of every act of violence against one’s neighbour there is a concession to the “thinking” of the evil one, the one who “was a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).’”

    When you say “how YOU end up with ten after elliminating one commandment,” you are baselessly attacking all Catholics, as if Catholics have eliminated some commandments. The Catholic Church has not done so. It is true that Protestants and Catholics combine and number certain commandments differently, but if you accuse Catholics of renumbering them, remember that the Catholic version has been around a whole lot longer, and that Protestants renumber them too.

    None of this gets around a central fact: Paul Hill walked up to an abortionist and shot him. That abortinist was not in the act of performing an abortion, nor did the abortionist present any present threat to Hill’s own life. You like the result, so it’s justified in your opinion. In other words, the ends (the death of an abortion provider) justified the means (shooting him). Period.

    I say again: “What you are doing does not help the pro-life cause one wit. Nothing is served by further discourse in this respect.” Repeat, please.

  25. Who would know better what the belief of defenders of preborn than one who holds to that belief, Frank? Common sense Frank, Common sense.

    You claim our belief is that the “ends justifies the means”… I refute that and hold you accountable before God and man. Common sense tells the reader that I would know what I believe before your clairvoyant deception.

    You claim Hill was given a fair trial, but everyone who studied the trial knows this to not be true, Frank. One does not have a fair trial when they are refused their attorney or thier defense. The trial of Paul Hill is such a trial.

    You claim Hill was not in any danger, but this too is a falsehood from the pit of hell. Paul Hil shot the body guard in self defense, as this man was known to carry a weapon and was in th eprocess of reaching for it. You are a repetative bearer of false witness.

    Perhaps God would accept a plea of ignorance fom you had you not been givent he truth so many times on these matters. The Bible says to give honour where honour is due. I honour paul Hill for laying down his life for another. When you attack a martyer of faith, you may as well attack God, Himself. God is not to be mocked.

    When one bears a false witness the Bible says that the just punihsment for that offense before God is the exact punishent that the one who is damaged recieved. In the case of Paul Hill that unjust punishment was death by execution. I do hope that you repent from your apparent cryptesthesia, as you ae not good at it, and such is witchcraft.

    The “means” in the case of Paul Hill defending the preborn child equally has never been shown to be unjust or ungodly. I take offense to your false testimony along with the others, that put a good man like Hill to death.

  26. I respectfully suggest that ALL posters should please consider that this is a board acessible by the internet community as a whole. Some could read the above posts and speculate that, based on a few odd ducks, prolifers must be uneducated, judgmental, cruel, and/or heartless. Worse, they might conclude that prolifers advocate kiling abortionists. Fortunately, the prolifers I know, and those at OR, are and do none of those things.

    Finally, I also note the number of times some on this board level scandalous accusations at those who at least try to be prolife. That serves no purpose, other than to harm the prolife image and undermine confidence on the part of the truly prolife who feel they are trapped in the tent.

  27. Operation Rescue says

    We are closing the comments on this story. Long discussions are better suited to our forum and we invite you to move debates orongoing-discussions there.