The truth needs to be told... Crimes & Incidents, posted by D, a resident of the Laguna Oaks neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 9:51 am
The ugly truth about abortion. It needs to be told, this is why we are in the bind we're in, we're no better than the Mayans throwing babies off of the pyramids for sacrifices. The truth is powerful, if you have the guts to read it.
Why wasn't this news reported here?? This is one of the worst crimes I have heard of in years and the media is too cowardly to report it.
Posted by Maja7, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 10:54 am
Making abortion legal was the primary argument by the Pro-Abortion group to protect women's reproductive rights/lives. Well, that's why this isn't being widely reported. It would taint that very argument.
Posted by mike, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 11:38 am
This is not about abortion. It is about some really awful people preying on a group of uninformed women who needed a solution to a problem. Abortion is legal, but this clinic was not being run within the confines of the law. It says more about the oversight of clinical operations in this community than anything else.
Go peddle your anti abortion dogma somewhere else.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
It is perhaps the lack of access to abortion by lower income people, that led to this so called doctor (he does not have a license) to illegally run an operation that put in danger the lives of women. I read the article on cnn: the guy was performing abortions in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, hurting babies born alive, using as helpers people with no training (even a high school student was employed).
This is all the more reason to keep abortion legal and make it accessible to all women, regardless of socio economic status. If women have access to quality doctors and can have an abortion if they need one, they will not have to use the services of people that run illegal practices.
What this man and his staff did is horrible, and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Abortion should remain legal and accessible to all, and this particular situation should not be used by the anti-choice groups as propaganda.
Posted by mickey, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 20, 2011 at 3:21 pm
That's exactly the kind of thing that will occur with regularity if abortion is outlawed: women dying in high numbers in back alleys. Unless the right-wing zealots are willing to chain expectant mothers to radiators during the span of their pregnancy, those young women will seek illegal abortions with all the horrors that go along with such.
The so-called 'pro-life' movement should better call themselves the 'forced pregnancy' movement. If they themselves weren't such hypocrits, they'd advocate for imprisonment of all women who have had an abortion -- since, on their argument, they ARE killing babies, right? -- which would mean imprisoning 1/3 of America's adult female population. They will not make this argument because they know no one would support it. Hence they present male-based mealy-mouthed denunciations meant only to confuse and guilt-trip young women. Most of these mean-spirited zealots are hopelessly enslaved to a backward religious dogma that they don't have the intelligence to free themselves from.
Posted by M., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 5:52 pm M. is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Indeed this will occur with far greater frequency if abortion is made illegal in this nation. After all removing a woman's right to choose to have an abortion will not prevent people from having abortions it will simply force people to venture into the "medical underground". I'm sure we have all heard the stories of what used to be called back ally abortions, or people going to extraordinary lengths to end a pregnancy which in many cases caused not only the termination of the fetus but also the woman.
Yet, we still have people who insist on going back in time and taking rights away from people. The way I see it, and I'm sure a great many others agree is simply that if you yourself do not agree with abortion, do not have one. There is no need for anyone to force their particular belief models upon any other person, be it individually or on a grand scale such as through government intervention in the form of criminalization and bannings.
I have heard much from the anti abortion side as to why they feel I and everyone else needs to join forces with them. Yet not once was the topic of what will happen to all the babies which can not be taken care of properly. For any number of reasons, financial, mental health, illness, you name it, there will be babies who simply can not be taken care of, and raised in a way which is conducive to providing them with a bright future. So let us look at what will happen to many of these babies.
The unwanted babies forced by law to be born, many will simply be abandoned, or given up. Not that this does not happen today though in a no abortion nation there will be many more of them, so where will they end up I ask. Some will be adopted, and in many cases adoption is wonderful, but there are some potential problems there as well, lack of proper bonding with the new family as one example. Unfortunately not all orphaned babies get adopted by good families, many of them never will, and will end up as long term wards of the state in either group homes, or foster care. That's right, foster care, an over burdened underfunded system ripe with scammers and unfit "parents", again don't get me wrong there are some wonderful foster homes out there, but there are also horror stories, and a great number of foster children can tell you just how horrible the entire system is.
So we make the government ban abortion, forcing it into the underground clinics and fly by nights. We dump countless new orphaned children into our extremely over crowded, underfunded, and ineffective foster/group home programs. With no plan from the proponents of this idea what so ever on how to deal with the influx of unwanted babies. Where will all the new funding come from to meet the new demand, where will the increased oversight come from, where will the money to enforce the no abortion law come from, where will space be made in our prisons for those who get abortions, or even the prison hospitals, where will all this come from?
As I said, any many have said before me. If you do not agree with abortion do not have one. I have also noticed, that the vast majority of the people who I have encountered that are on the anti abortion side of the issue are extremely conservative, which begs the question if one is conservative, and as many conservatives are of the mind set that the government should leave them alone, stay out of their personal business why than would you lobby for the government to outlaw one's right to abortion? Is this not contrary to staying out of someone's personal business? Or is it simply that you want the government to stay out of your business, but people who don't share the same views as you don't deserve that protection.
Needless to say this entire issue disgusts me, Just as any other issue where the question of removing right from people for any reason is asked disgusts me. Be it abortion, gay marriage, freedom of religion, or keeping religion out of government. Yet, I know I won't change anyone's mind about anything. I can present all the facts and information I can get my hands on it won't change a damned thing, because it isn't about reality, truth, or the facts. It is about belief, and belief can only rarely be changed with facts. It is the vary nature of belief that makes it nearly impervious to fact, as a belief requires no evidence what so ever.
Posted by Your dogma just ran into, well, your own karma, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2011 at 11:04 pm
"As I said, any many have said before me. If you do not agree with abortion do not have one. I have also noticed, that the vast majority of the people who I have encountered that are on the anti abortion side of the issue are extremely conservative, which begs the question if one is conservative, and as many conservatives are of the mind set that the government should leave them alone, stay out of their personal business why than would you lobby for the government to outlaw one's right to abortion? Is this not contrary to staying out of someone's personal business? Or is it simply that you want the government to stay out of your business, but people who don't share the same views as you don't deserve that protection."
Yes, so true. How IS it that the conservative/Repubiclan folks cry foul about government yanking away the rights of the individual, yet have absolutely no problem intruding on what is legal and just?
Posted by joe, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 2:46 am
A woman assesses her own personal life and life-options and decides that she has neither the resources nor kinds of support needed for her to bring a child into the world. She uses her own powers of reason in order to make an excruciating personal decision.
How anyone can compare this to "Mayans throwing babies off of pyramids for sacrifices" is beyond me. It seems 'D's' own powers of reasoning have failed and been replaced by uncalled for nosiness and nasty finger-pointing. Sounds like a comparison only the hate-filled Mel Gibson would want to make.
As M suggests, if conservatives get their way, the state will provide even fewer resources for women giving birth out of wedlock. If you want an example of primitive thinking, 'D' takes the cake.
Posted by Maja7, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 9:07 am
I am not simple-minded enough to think that abortion will be outlawed; Pandora's box has been opened. I do not agree with abortion. That is true. But what seems to allude the pro-abortion group is the basic understanding of biology/reproduction.
There are so many options other than abortion: NOT having sex in the first place. Oh, I know it's your right to have sex. Okay. So, if you do have sex, use contraception. Many forms of protection (contraception)are readily available(local high school campus or free clinic) if you don't have medical insurance. There's also the Morning After Pill.....how many more options do you want?
If you are mature enough to be sexually active, then you also must be mature to deal with prevention if you don't want to deal with the possibility of becoming a parent.Hey, if you don't want children, I don't want you to have them. There are too many overwhelmed, preoccupied parents as it is.
You may not agree with my conservative values as I do not agree with your liberal values. Makes no difference to me. Just don't push your agenda that conservatives are hypocrites for not wanting to fund every social program under the sun for the irresponsible,lazy people of our society. Be responsible for yourself and your actions they do affect the rest of us.
Posted by comment, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 11:12 am
"If you are mature enough to be sexually active, then you also must be mature to deal with prevention if you don't want to deal with the possibility of becoming a parent.Hey, if you don't want children, I don't want you to have them. There are too many overwhelmed, preoccupied parents as it is."
Not everyone is willingly sexually active. Think about it. It happens a lot more than we care to talk about in our society.
There is also the case when a couple desire a child and get pregnant and then discover the mother has a condition that would put her at great risk of death or kidney failure to continue the pregnancy. I say let her live so that she can be a mother to her other children rather than sacrifice herself in trying to save the fetus, and I'd be happy to tell Mother Teresa that to her face if she were still alive. She didn't have a monopoly on truth or morals.
Posted by minimum wage taxpayer, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 11:33 am
As a Christian and a Democrat (they are NOT mutually exclusive), I have to agree with Maja7, with the ceveat that abortion needs to be available for doctors to prescribe at their discretion. I grew up with a friend, who had a "California backstreet abortion", and know the devistating effects that can happen when abortion is totally outlawed. I have a problem with my taxpayer money going to fund abortions for those who don't need them for specific health reasons (including rape). If anti-abortionists really want to stop it, they need to get education and free contraceptives into the hands of adolescence and those in impoverished neighborhoods. That is where the real issue is, not with the minority who have to have one because of health or psychological issues.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 11:38 am
"Just don't push your agenda that conservatives are hypocrites for not wanting to fund every social program under the sun for the irresponsible,lazy people of our society. "
I would rather pay for an abortion for a low income person, than having to finance a pregnancy, pre-natal care, and welfare after the baby is born. And don't forget that many people who need abortions are victims of rape and/or incest, and many are teenagers - it is the right thing to provide access to a safe abortion if that is what the person has decided.
As far as social programs, conservatives/republicans are indeed hypocrites. Medicare is National Healthcare for the older people, for instance, and yet you don't see republicans trying to reform that program, they need the vote of all the seniors using it. Medicare is a government run, taxpayer funded National healthcare for the senior citizens. It seems to me that "conservatives" are OK financing certain social programs that fit their agenda, but not others that are quite necessary and fiscally make sense: do the math, it is cheaper to finance an abortion than to finance the pregnancy and the welfare that comes after (for low income individuals)
And if you indeed do not want to finance an abortion for a low income person, why are you so upset about this so called doctor? People who want an abortion will find a way to get it, and the only decent thing to do is to make sure those abortions happen in clean, sanitary facilities, with trained professionals. If we as a society do not provide the means for women to have safe abortions regardless of ability to pay, then doctors like this one will be plenty and back alley abortions will be the norm, many people will die or get hurt because of it. So as a conservative, you would be okay seeing someone die after an illegal and unsafe abortion, as long as you are not bothered with the bill? It does not sound like a good conservative value to me.
"There are so many options other than abortion: NOT having sex in the first place. "
Teaching abstinence does not work, just ask Palin, whose own teenage daughter proved that teaching abstinence is nonsense, and even the children of the most backward thinking people will get pregnant when mom is not looking.
"There's also the Morning After Pill"
Most conservative groups consider this a bad thing too, so I am glad you at least agree with this very necessary pill.
Posted by minimum wage taxpayer, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 12:10 pm
I may be a minimum wage taxpayer, but my husband isn't. I get nothing back, actually a larger percent of my paycheck gets taken off for taxes than my husband's. When I buy anything in this country I pay taxes. I have just as much right to a say in where my tax money goes as any other taxpayer. Wonderful thing about democracy! From your insinuation, the richer the person the more say they should have about where tax money goes! Hope you didn't complain about the taxpayer funded bank bailout - since the CEO's pay more taxes than anyone. No I get no government services either.
Posted by Minimum wage taxpayer, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I would if my husband was rich - LOL! I'll tell him you said so.
We don't even bring in the "average" let alone the "median" income for P-town. The only reason I work minimum wage is that I have disabled child, who I'm primary caregiver for....yet we need my income to provide medical not covered by insurance. I come from poor working class, so does my husband....that is who I identify with. We are able to live here because we are frugal with our money - I support social services for those who really need it, and know the difference between the myth that there are "welfare generations" and the truth of communities stuck in a catch 22 of poverty, poor schools, and no jobs. I believe that we need a more equitable education system, and anti-abortionists would do better to educate and make contraceptives available to impoverished areas. Community research done by UC Berkeley and others has found that many of the teenage girls (who were probably the ones using this doctor) do not feel/believe/think they have a choice. What seems like common sense to us, is not to them. I would much rather my tax money go to contraceptives, education, and other social programs than to fund abortions that are not medically or psychologically necessary (ie: abortions for rape, incest, or health of mother, including teens/children doctors deem too risky). I also agree that girls should NOT have to have parent approval for an abortion, if a doctor (not abortion doctor) agrees that it is appropriate. I never said a word about abortion being outlawed. While I might have a specific belief about abortion, I do not force that on others. I just do not believe taxpayers should pay for "abortion on demand".
Interesting that in Canada, with national health insurance, they don't have these issues.
Posted by mickey, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 21, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Minimum wage taxpayer...
Apologies for seemingly misinterpreting and misjudging you. Really. And I agree with most of what you've stated, but I don't quite understand what criteria you'd use to eliminate some abortion seekers as opposed to others. Isn't this a personal choice, for all women? You're not suggesting some kind of moral formula, are you?
Posted by M., a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 6:13 pm M. is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
My position has always been clear, if the fetus is viable, it should not be aborted, unless the life of the mother is in danger, this period occurs between weeks 20 and 27 even though the percentages show about a 0.8-14% change of survival at that point. I am for strengthening education which include school based and public awareness reproductive and family planning education. I am also for increasing the availability of contraceptives. The morning after pill needs to remain available and have greater accessibility, as part of this there needs to be a much broader dialogue about all of these things so we can start to tear down the ridiculous stigmas associated with reproductive matters. In the end people have sex and that just is not going to change.
I would l love to see a world where abortions were not necessary. This is not the case, nor will it be the case in the foreseeable future at least not in the real world, maybe in fantasy land but not the real world. I do think that it is possible through better reproductive and family planning education to make people less likely to find themselves in a position in which the question of having an abortion comes into play. Part of this is dismantling the stigma surrounding greater access to contraceptives, as well as the above mentioned reproductive education. We need to face reality, people are going to have sex, they always have, they always will, it is a biological urge, and no amount of abstinence training, or dogmatic admonishment will prevent people from having sex. This is why more effective reproductive education needs to be put in place. With abortion still legal and available we can still through education and open communication get the number of abortions performed to a significantly lower level. The notion that comprehensive sex education forces kids to have sex, or makes them more likely to have sex is a laughable argument at best when study after study have shown that the abstinence only programs have had little to no effect in stopping kids from having sex, but have in fact shown a drop in kids who are using contraceptives when they do have sex. So just as many kids have sex as a result of these programs but less of them do so safely. Once again showing that the "everyone put your blinders on and pretend everything is ok" method simply does not work.
I wonder how shocked many of you would be to learn just how few teens, and adults don't know how contraceptives work, let alone why they work. I'm sure you would also be shocked to learn how many people still believe in the old "wives' tale" methods or birth control which I won't list for fear of being deleted. Yet we have reproductive education in place in many of our communities today which is clearly ineffective at best in its current form, and yet there is the demand from the anti reproductive faction to have such education outlawed and abstinence only training applied to our teens. We do not talk about it on TV we do not talk about it at home we don't want it talked about school. Where than will it be talked about, are we to just let the kids figure it out for themselves.
Let's paint this picture, ban abortion, ban reproductive education, decrease the availability of contraceptives as a result of the reproductive education ban, and kill funding for family planning clinics, what than do you expect will happen?
So, go home and just tell little Jimmy and Jane not to have sex "or else" and leave it at that. So what happens when they do, and believe me they will have sex. Will they come to you after you have made it pretty clear that sex is forbidden, and in more severe cases have vomited your dogmatic diatribes about just how evil and dirty sex is, why than would they come to you for help?
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2011 at 10:15 pm
I think that regardless of how much we educate kids and promote contraceptives, some unwanted pregnancies will still happen and women will need access to safe abortions.
I know because my sister had an abortion when she was a teen. Did she know about birth control? Yes, but it happened anyway. Was she foolish for getting pregnant? Yes, but that did not change the fact that she got pregnant and she was only a teen and needed an abortion. If I recall correctly, the abortion itself did not cost that much (I was there when my mom paid). Yes, there were follow-up doctor visits to make sure everything was okay, but it was not that expensive. It would have been a lot more expensive for my parents to have to help my sister with pregnancy and child rearing costs. Thanks to the abortion, my sister went on with her life, finished high school and college, got a great job, got married. Abortion is a personal choice, period.
I believe that all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, should have equal access to a safe abortion with a qualified doctor, in clean and sanitary facilities.
As a taxpayer, I think it makes more sense, financially speaking, to pay for abortions for low income people who want/need them, than it would be to force them to go through with unwanted pregnancies and have to finance the pregnancy and welfare afterwards.
Posted by bewildered, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2011 at 10:54 pm
I do believe in pro choice but as an adoptive parent I am so grateful that so many choose life! I believe that pro life organizations should consider becoming more involved in promoting adoption. So often adoption stories are terrible uncommon cases that may scare prospective adoptive parents off. I would love to see foster care promoted also.
This topic is treated so casually as is sex in our culture. Just look at skins and other show targeting our teenagers. I do believe that these unexpected pregnancy will always happen and are even the norm within reason. The casual way that we speak of this subject alarms me a bit. As though this horror is no big deal. I know most clinics operate properly.
This story breaks my heart. Thank God my beautiful children did not suffer so!
Posted by Real conservative, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 23, 2011 at 11:26 pm
Don't generalize about 'conservatives'. I'm a genuine, real conservative, which means I don't want the government involved in any private lives. Period. And, I'm a genuine real fiscal conservative, which means I don't want to support babies that weren't wanted in the first place. Most of this is the fault of the modern popes, who started the nonsense about pro-creation. He's the primary cause of poverty in most catholic countries like mexico...keep breeding kids you cannot feed....how cruel and uncivil. It is only certain cults and religions that try to bring their personal beliefs into government. They don't even know their own bible, that never mentions abortion except in regard to "VIABILITY"....the ability to survive on one's own. And, to reimubrse a man whose pregnant wife is murdured....for the death of his WIFE who was considered nothing more than 'chattel' personal property, and no mention of any baby. Best to stay out of opining on government and work within the boundaries of your religion as a mother teressa type, but keep your religion out of my government.
Posted by Julie, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2011 at 4:21 pm Julie is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
I am truly impressed by how generally civil this thread has been! Kudos to everyone.
My input is this: I am "Pro-Choice", NOT "Pro-Abortion". Those two descriptions are not interchangeable. The terms used to describe the opposing sides of this issue used to be "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice". I don't understand how "Pro-Abortion" came to be used. I don't know ANYONE who is "pro - abortion". My stance is that the government should not be involved in my (or any woman's) decision whether or not to pro-create.
I would personally have been very unlikely to have an abortion myself specifically because I don't "like" abortion. I've been fortunate however never to have been placed in any sort of situation where I had to consider it. Not everyone is as lucky as I am.
Posted by mickey, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 26, 2011 at 6:12 pm
I respect Julie's use of 'pro-choice' over 'pro-abortion'. Not only does it distinguish itself from the disingenuous 'pro-abortion' claim made by the 'forced pregnancy' side, but it signifies too that the 'forced pregnancy' side desires to limit a woman's right to choose.
Posted by minimum wage taxpayer, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2011 at 6:37 pm
I do believe in a woman's right to choose. I just don't believe that the state (taxpayers) should pay for a "choice" if it isn't medically (whether psychologically or physically) necessary. The state doesn't pay for liposuction and facelifts that aren't necessary, why should it pay for abortions? I have no "moral formula", more economic feasibility. Isn't it better to educate and prevent than to have to pay and have a child (woman) go through this procedure? I really feel that more education, and more availablity of contraceptives (and STD's) needs to take place at a school and community level. Did you know that I could not find out where a student in Pleasanton could go for 'free' contraceptives (I.E. birth control pills) if they couldn't/didn't/wouldn't tell their parents? My guess is Axis Community Health might help. If this is a problem in a generally highly educated town like Pleasanton, what is it like in inner-city neighborhoods?
Posted by mickey, a resident of Dublin, on Jan 27, 2011 at 4:55 am
Okay, minimum wage taxpayer, you only want your taxes to go toward abortions that are 'medically necessary' -- as opposed to 'unnecessary', whatever those might be. But I'm still unclear as to what you might mean by 'unnecessary'. Isn't the question of medical or psychological necessity best determined by the woman who is making the choice? Your criteria seems to imply that physicians or some taxpayer panel of representatives make some sort of determination independent of women's choice. "Let's see," says some deliberative panel, "YOU say you need an abortion, but WE don't think you do. You seem medically and psychologically fit." Imagine, for example, that that panel is made up of Beck, Bachmann and Palin. Doesn't this seem to pull the rug out from under women's right to choose what they want to do with their own bodies? I don't want to eliminate women's right to choose, nor do I think I can trust someone else to make the 'choice' for her. Nor, too, do I want to take 'economic need' out of the equation. I think I do want the state's assistance in order to ensure that women don't resort to back-alley 'remedies' on account of an inability to pay for a safe procedure. No, I still don't think you're being consistent on this issue. 'Need', I think, is always part of the personal thought processes that go into having an abortion. I just can't imagine there are many women who say, 'Oh, I don't really NEED an abortion, but, gosh, I think I'll have (an 'unnecessary') one anyway.'