Lion of the Blogosphere

Planned Parenthood indictments

Pretty funny that instead of indicting Planned Parenthood, the jury indicted the anti-abortion investigators for using fake driver’s licenses.

Of course, being that it’s said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that’s what the prosecutors wanted, we can assume that the prosecutors wanted this outcome. But most people don’t understand anything about grand juries, so this is great propaganda for the pro-choice movement (which I’m in favor of because it prevents crime).

* * *

jesse writes in a comment:

“…the scandal of the videos, though, was the cavalier human body dealing mentality.”

*snorts*

You don’t know many medical professionals, do you? They talk about bodies in ways that would make civilians blanch. And it’s not because they’re mean, or just trying to cope. It’s because the training selects for a certain lack of squeamishness and they spend so much time with dead bodies they lose sight of what makes other people feel sick. And yes, this applies to admin as well. If you want them shamed, you’re going after millions of nurses, doctors, aides, orderlies, receptionists, secretaries, drivers, administrators…It’s moronic. It’s no different from the SJW types demanding their safe spaces.

But, let’s leave that aside. They thought they were in private. They had a reasonable right to expect privacy. They weren’t saying this stuff in front of the stage at a conference. It was a private meal. There’s no difference between that and that guy who owned the basketball team who got kneecapped for being raaaaacist.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 25, 2016 at EST pm

Posted in Law

29 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hell yes, it prevents crime. I donate to PP and I always say a prayer to St. Gosnell. If we only had sterilization for $…

    Mobutu

    January 25, 2016 at EST pm

    • I suspect the worry is that it would be used by the responsible people you really do want breeding. I might take advantage of it on the grounds that five generations of bat-shit is enough. But I’m probably not really the target audience.

      Jesse

      January 26, 2016 at EST am

  2. …for the pro-choice movement (which I’m in favor of because it prevents crime).

    In related news Trump is floating the idea of VP choice Scott Brown!! Veteran with a focus on veterans issues and a pro choice New Englander.

    Hard line conservatives wont like it but maybe hiss military/pro vets background will cancel it out.

    Plus he’s tall, handsome, articulate and is in his mid 50s, not too old.

    Rifleman

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

    • Two white guys on the same ticket with no apologies…I like it. Plus, the last name Brown may bring in some nam votes.

      B.T.D.T.

      January 26, 2016 at EST am

    • If Trump is floating the idea of Scott Brown, he(Trump) may start to see his poll numbers decline. The whole reason for Trump to lie about being pro-life (and all of us here must know he’s lying) is to fool the evangelicals on the one issue he knows they won’t compromise on. By picking a pro-choice New Englander he’s revealing his true colors. If I’m not mistaken we’ve had (self-proclaimed) pro-lifers in both spots of the ticket since 1984. Trump may be popular, but he’s not invincible. His wisest move would be a minority woman like Susanna Martinez,

      Maryk

      January 26, 2016 at EST am

      • How did picking a woman VP work out for McCain or Mondale? Trump is too smart to make that mistake a third time. Trump, more than anyone, knows that he doesn’t win by placating political correctness.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 26, 2016 at EST am

      • MaryK — I believe Cruz will win Iowa, and not Trump, because most of evangelicals like yourself will be voting for him. Cruz has a lion’s share of the support from this demographic. The media is projecting 80/20 Cruz/Trump for their evangelical constituents. The other groups are evenly divided between the two.

        JS

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • “Trump, more than anyone, knows that he doesn’t win by placating political correctness.”

        Maybe I didn’t make my views clear. I didn’t mean he should choose someone who was not qualified in order to placate political correctness. I just meant he should select from a pool of qualified minorities. The fact is there will be a Hispanic on the Democratic ticket either in this election or the next. They are a growing Demographic and we already have a problem winning them over. I don’t say we should change policy to appease them, but putting a Hispanic on the ticket might help. Mondale and McCain had circumstances very different from this year’s nominee. Mondale was running against a successful incumbent who had every advantage – and 1984 was a very long time ago. Palin’s selection didn’t bring in women voters, but not many people in politics, male or female, come across as scatterbrained as she did. And no Republican nominee this year or any year will be running against American’s first black presidential candidate. Gender and ethnicity do matter in elections, even if they shouldn’t. It becomes harder for the media to paint the Republican party and racist and sexist if it has more female and minority candidates. Of course, the media will still try to. It just won’t fool as many people

        Also, since Trump is not really a social conservative, he needs to pick someone who is if he wants to sustain his support among evangelicals. Once the entertainment value of Trump wears off (and it will) he’ll have to start behaving more like a conventional nominee and start cooperating with various segments of the Republican coalition if he wants to keep the party united.

        Maryk

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • “I just meant he should select from a pool of qualified minorities.”

        Mmmm … No. Wrong paradigm.

        Glengarry

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • Trump isn’t “floating the idea of Scott Brown.” Someone in the audience asked if he’d consider Scott Brown and he said he would. An off the cuff answer is completely different than vetting a potential running mate and putting then on the short list.

        Trump may be a social moderate. But there’s no way he’s going to either undermine his support or provoke the opposition by meddling with abortion one way or the other. He doesn’t want to get entangled in the culture war. He’s a nationalist and he’s going to focus on national issues like immigration, national security, trade and the economy. He may try to reform some of the entitlement bureaucracy. But, if he does, it will be a moderate program that compromises privatization for middle class with subsidies for the poor.

        People need to concentrate on the relevant issues and not be distracted by social issues. The ONLY relevant issue for a social conservative should be immigration. Because 75% of immigrants vote Dem. If you don’t stop immigration you’ll lose EVERY conservative issue anyway. And we know he’s serious abut immigration because he’s quietly consulting with Senator Sessions on immigration and just hired Session’s top aid.

        destructure

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

  3. Well using a fake ID is a felony, so I’m all for prosecution…as long as all reporters who use fake ID’s in investigative journalism are prosecuted, and all illegals who acquire or possess a fake ID are prosecuted as well.

    Mike Street Station

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

  4. I’ve always wondered why they don’t just go straight to trial if they have the evidence. Surely, being a juror in a trial and knowing it got past the grand jury would be at least a little prejudicial?

    Jesse

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

  5. I thought the problem with the planned parenthood videos was that it showed that PP doctors/staff were disgusting-not that they were illegal. Bragging about selling baby parts, utterly cavalier about selling human bodies, etc.

    The question of whether such behavior was legal or illegal was secondary.

    anonymousse

    anonymousse

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

    • “The question of whether such behavior was legal or illegal was secondary.”

      That would’ve been the logical and, dare I say it, intelligent way of playing it, but it would’ve required a level of finesse that these people can’t seem to muster. It would’ve been hard to justify keeping it in the spotlight without criminal behavior. They might have had to face awkward questions about what exactly the difference is between them throwing a freaker over someone disgusting their sensibilities and the precious flower SJW types doing the same thing when they’re offended.

      So instead, they had morons acting like PP were criminals, which is something that you really, really have to have good proof to say in public like that.

      The legality of their behavior might well be secondary, but that’s not how the pro-lifers played it and they deserve what they get.

      Jesse

      January 26, 2016 at EST am

      • You say that, but is it true? Again, I didn’t become an expert at the PP videos. But what I know of, they showed doctors joking about body parts and the payoff while eating lunch (I have the vague memory of a doctor bragging about the boy parts he had-perhaps testicles?). I don’t know anything about any explicit arguments that ‘body part selling is illegal-look at the laws they broke’ or somesuch. There may have been some kind of legalistic arguments that accompanied the videos; the scandal of the videos, though, was the cavalier human body dealing mentality.

        anonymousse

        anonymousse

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • “…the scandal of the videos, though, was the cavalier human body dealing mentality.”

        *snorts*

        You don’t know many medical professionals, do you? They talk about bodies in ways that would make civilians blanch. And it’s not because they’re mean, or just trying to cope. It’s because the training selects for a certain lack of squeamishness and they spend so much time with dead bodies they lose sight of what makes other people feel sick. And yes, this applies to admin as well. If you want them shamed, you’re going after millions of nurses, doctors, aides, orderlies, receptionists, secretaries, drivers, administrators…It’s moronic. It’s no different from the SJW types demanding their safe spaces.

        But, let’s leave that aside. They thought they were in private. They had a reasonable right to expect privacy. They weren’t saying this stuff in front of the stage at a conference. It was a private meal. There’s no difference between that and that guy who owned the basketball team who got kneecapped for being raaaaacist.

        Jesse

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • Jesse, we are not talking medical professionals, we are talking about people who harvest the tissue of healthy innocent humans. Quite outside the definition of medical professional.

        howitzer daniel

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

    • Not just disgusting, but also greedy, and in a prole sort of way;
      “I want a Ferrari”?
      That comment alone made me cringe.

      Half Canadian

      January 26, 2016 at EST pm

  6. Could “Trump/Brown” be another Trump master persuasion trick?

    B.T.D.T.

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

  7. get a brain morans!

    hack of hacks

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

  8. What I’ve read is that the pro-life activists are being charged with “Tampering with a Governmental Record and violating the Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs.”

    But Lion says it has something to do with false IDs? Can someone translate the charges into plain English? What are they actually accused of having done?

    Confused in Carolina

    January 26, 2016 at EST am

    • Fake IDs, and illegally offering to buy body parts.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2016 at EST am

      • How can it be a crime to offer to buy something that it’s not illegal to offer to sell?

        Peepul

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

      • I think Sweden (of course!) uses this model for prostitution, actually. The poor exploited sellers need not fear, while the vile buyers must look out.

        Does it make sense, one may ask? Well, one counters, does it have to?

        Glengarry

        January 26, 2016 at EST pm

  9. to troll, the accused should counter that foreign nationals with fake ids aren’t prosecuted, so this prosecution is national origin discrimination.

    dsgntd_plyr

    January 26, 2016 at EST pm

    • Courts have rejected the argument that a law can’t be enforced because it’s rarely enforced. And the defendants, in this case, can’t even claim racial discrimination.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 26, 2016 at EST pm

  10. OK I l’m surprised. The DA Is Republican and in Texas. She’s going against her political interests in this one.

    Alex

    January 27, 2016 at EST am


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: