Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: This only needs folks to be aware of the crime... « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #15 : April 18, 2013, 06:18:49 PM »

What exactly is the point of posting that, dbucfan?


Mr. Milich

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2497
Offline
« #16 : April 18, 2013, 06:31:11 PM »


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #17 : April 18, 2013, 11:54:07 PM »

I simply decided to avoid the rush to hijack the thread and add in an article with a different topic of MY choice. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #18 : April 19, 2013, 03:04:23 PM »

I simply decided to avoid the rush to hijack the thread and add in an article with a different topic of MY choice.

So, no point then? Color me shocked...


gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
« #19 : April 20, 2013, 02:34:38 AM »

CBW, I've stopped responding to you because you are a complete waste of time, you have no real interest in duscussion.  You're a political Java, nothing more, and you don't even have a tenth of his style, you're not even tolerable as entertainment.  But even though the answer to your original question is so patently obvious to any human being only a drooling moron, a troll, or you couldn't see it. I'll point out the obvious:

Gosnel ran an abortion clinic.  Largest provider of and lobbyist for abortion?  Planned Parenthood.
Gosnel got referrals from many other abortion "providers" who wouldn't break the law himself, but sent their victims patients to him to get around the law.  PP is part of this referring community. And what organization provides the loudest voice supporting this community? Yeah, Planned Parenthood.
Gosnell's clinic had multiple violations that were never followed through with and stopped being monitored over a decade ago.  Why?  Planned Parenthood relentlessly lobbies and fights inspections due to a "fear" of now imaginary "TRAP" laws (at least that is their claim, it is more likely a matter of convenience in not having to hold to standards and to pull crap like Gosnell did).
Who thinks what Gosnell did should be legal?  Planned Parenthood (and Barack Obama)

The main problem here is that the media is doing PP's bidding by covering this up as much as possible so that people won't want any "common sense" abortion regulations.  They were happy to parade the corpses of the children of Newtown around with the mighty O when it would "demand a conversation", but they'd prefer to sweep the corpses of these children away when it might start a conversation on something they (and clearly you as well) would prefer to pretend doesn't exist.

« : April 20, 2013, 02:38:30 AM caradoc »

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #20 : April 20, 2013, 11:07:07 AM »

CBW, I've stopped responding to you because you are a complete waste of time, you have no real interest in duscussion.  You're a political Java, nothing more, and you don't even have a tenth of his style, you're not even tolerable as entertainment. 

Well this is ironic, because it seems to me that I am the only one in this thread so far that has tried to have a real discussion. You sure as hell aren't. When anyone with an opposing viewpoint posts anything, you resort to ad hominems and assault their moral compass rather than simply responding to them in a constructive manor. This is the main reason why none of the "defenders of all things liberal" have bothered  to engage you in this post. This isn't an avenue for constructive debate for you, this is your avenue to hop up on your soapbox and pontificate to us about how morally impure the rest of us are. Why would anyone who isn't simply bored, such as myself, even bother to engage you? Short answer, they wouldn't, which is why they aren't.

But even though the answer to your original question is so patently obvious to any human being only a drooling moron, a troll, or you couldn't see it. I'll point out the obvious:

Gosnel ran an abortion clinic.  Largest provider of and lobbyist for abortion?  Planned Parenthood.
Gosnel got referrals from many other abortion "providers" who wouldn't break the law himself, but sent their victims patients to him to get around the law. PP is part of this referring community. And what organization provides the loudest voice supporting this community? Yeah, Planned Parenthood.

Finally, a response from you with some actual meat on it. So do you actually have any evidence that Planned Parenthood, or any other abortion provider actually did refer patients to Gosnell? Or are you simply suggesting that this happened based on pure speculation? Because this hasn't come up in the trial, and the only sources even suggesting that this happened at all are far-right, extreme pro-life websites.

Now, as someone who has attacked the mainstream media for having a hidden agenda, surely I don't have to point out the hypocrisy of only relying on sources that have a blatantly transparent agenda to support your arguments, right?

Gosnell's clinic had multiple violations that were never followed through with and stopped being monitored over a decade ago.  Why?  Planned Parenthood relentlessly lobbies and fights inspections due to a "fear" of now imaginary "TRAP" laws (at least that is their claim, it is more likely a matter of convenience in not having to hold to standards and to pull crap like Gosnell did).

Health inspectors dropped the ball on the Gosnell clinic. That much is true. What Planned Parenthood had to do with that is more BS speculation on your part.

Who thinks what Gosnell did should be legal?  Planned Parenthood (and Barack Obama)

No they don't. You made that up. Just like pretty much everything else you've said in this thread.

The main problem here is that the media is doing PP's bidding by covering this up as much as possible so that people won't want any "common sense" abortion regulations.  They were happy to parade the corpses of the children of Newtown around with the mighty O when it would "demand a conversation", but they'd prefer to sweep the corpses of these children away when it might start a conversation on something they (and clearly you as well) would prefer to pretend doesn't exist.

What are some "common sense" regulations that you would like to see proposed, caradoc?


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #21 : April 20, 2013, 07:46:42 PM »

OPINION Updated April 18, 2013, 8:11 p.m. ET
Back-Alley Abortion Never Ended
The Kermit Gosnell murder trial challenges a traditional defense of Roe v. Wade.

By JAMES TARANTO

Safety is one of the most potent defenses of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that imposed a national policy of abortion on demand. Women had abortions even before it was legal to do so, the argument goes, but restrictive laws forced them to go to back-alley quacks. In this view, the story of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist on trial for the murders of one woman and seven infants, is a cautionary tale about illegal, not legal, abortion. The facts tell a different story.

Back-alley abortion was indisputably a problem before Roe. Deep in the 281-page report that accompanied the 2011 indictments of Gosnell and his staff, the Philadelphia grand jury recounted an example from the city's history.

Associated Press
Dr. Kermit Gosnell
It was called the Mother's Day Massacre—the brainchild of Harvey Karman, an eccentric California man without medical training who had served 2½ years in prison for performing illegal abortions in the 1950s. Karman teamed with a young Philadelphia doctor who offered to perform abortions on 15 impoverished women, each between four and six months pregnant, who were bused to the Philadelphia clinic from Chicago on Mother's Day 1972.

What the women didn't know was that they were guinea pigs for a device Karman had invented, which he called the "super coil." He had tested it only on wartime rape victims in Bangladesh, where he had traveled under the sponsorship of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Complication rates were high, and little wonder. A colleague of Karman's Philadelphia collaborator described the contraption as "basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball. . . . They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman's uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, . . . the gel would melt and these . . . things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus."

Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto on the murder trial of Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell.
As in Bangladesh, the Philadelphia experiment was a failure. Nine of the 15 women suffered serious complications. One needed a hysterectomy.

The following year, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. It would be 37 more years before the Philadelphia doctor who carried out the Mother's Day Massacre would go out of business. His name was Kermit Gosnell.

The advent of "safe, legal abortion" didn't interfere with Gosnell's back-alley career. The grand jury's account suggests that other abortionists treated him less as an outlaw than as a niche player in the abortion market. He earned a bad reputation in Philadelphia but received referrals from across the Eastern Seaboard. Many of the women dispatched to him were "well beyond" 24 weeks pregnant, the legal limit in Pennsylvania.

"Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits," the grand jury reported. "His patients came from several states, including Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, as well as from Pennsylvania cities outside the Philadelphia area, such as Allentown. He also had many late-term Philadelphia patients because most other local clinics would not perform procedures past 20 weeks." The woman Gosnell is accused of murdering with a drug overdose, 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, came from Virginia and was referred by a clinic either there or in the District of Columbia.

The grand jury did not name any of the clinics, hospitals or doctors who made referrals to Gosnell, except for a Delaware clinic where he also worked part-time. Its narrative suggests, however, that "legitimate" abortionists routinely availed themselves of Gosnell's services to help their patients evade legal and ethical limits on late-term abortion. This may be a fruitful subject for legislative investigation, either in Harrisburg or Washington.

According to the grand jury, Gosnell's method of "abortion" in these late-term cases was infanticide, plain and simple. He or an untrained staffer would induce labor, deliver the baby alive, and then perform the procedure they called by the chilling euphemism "snipping"—slashing the infant to death with scissors to the neck and spine. "Over the years, there were hundreds of 'snippings,' " the grand jury found. But bodies had been disposed of and files destroyed, so the evidence was sufficient to prosecute in only seven cases. One of those victims, a neonatologist testified, was a boy of "32 weeks, if not more, in gestational age." That is, his mother had been at least 7½ months pregnant.

Why were these horrors allowed to persist for decades? Even if the infanticides had been concealed, there were ample other irregularities in the clinic's operations, including filth, unsanitized instruments, unqualified staff and dangerously inappropriate use of drugs. When the clinic was finally raided in 2010, it was the result of a federal narcotics investigation.

Part of the reason for the regulatory failure was simple bureaucratic indifference or incompetence. Inspectors from the Pennsylvania Department of Health visited several times between 1979 and 1993, noted problems, and didn't bother following up. But after 1993, the inspectors never reappeared until the 2010 raid. The reason was political.

In 1994 Tom Ridge, a pro-abortion Republican, was elected governor, succeeding the antiabortion Democrat Bob Casey. According to the grand jury, Ridge administration officials "concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased." The new policy did away with all regular inspections of abortion clinics. Mr. Ridge's lassitudinous approach was bipartisan, continued by his successor, Democrat Ed Rendell, who resumed the inspections only after the 2010 raid.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Gosnell and have already obtained guilty pleas from eight of his former staffers. The grand jury's report should also be seen as an indictment of America's post-Roe abortion industry. Its indifference—at best—to legal limits made possible the deaths of untold numbers of babies, lending credence to the argument that legal abortion is a slippery slope to infanticide.

Meanwhile, the claim that Roe v. Wade made America safe from back-alley abortion stands exposed as a cruel hoax, and a deadly one for women and children alike.

Mr. Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for WSJ.com. A longer essay about the Gosnell case and Roe v. Wade appears at http://on.wsj.com/Gosnell.

Easy connections for one without an agenda

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #22 : April 21, 2013, 11:30:28 AM »

Since partisan reports are all we are going to roll with here...

Jill Filipovic   
guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 April 2013

By now you've hopefully heard about the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a Pennsylvania doctor who allegedly ran a filthy health clinic where he performed illegal abortion procedures. Gosnell is accused of killing seven premature babies and one woman, among other crimes. Pro-choice and lefty journalists covered Gosnell years ago, when the grand jury report detailing the allegations was initially filed. Now the trial is underway, and anti-abortion activists are insisting there's been a cover-up by ideologues intent on averting honest discussion about the case in order to suit a cynical political agenda.

They're right. But the ideologues doing the cover-up are on the "pro-life" side.

Coverage of shocking crimes often plays out the same way: there's a lot of coverage when charges are first filed or an arrest is made, and then again, when a verdict comes down. While Nancy Grace and cable news may offer wall-to-wall coverage of a handful of trials every year, for the most part, reputable national publications cover news when it happens, which isn't in a state court trial play-by-play. Local media does that.

That's exactly what's happened during the Gosnell trial. When the grand jury report was first filed, it got attention from almost every major writer who covers reproductive rights and gender issues – Amanda Marcotte at Slate, Michelle Goldberg at the Daily Beast, Katha Pollitt at the Nation, Kate Harding at Salon, Lori Adelman at the Grio. Mainstream media, too, covered it: the New York Times, CNN, NPR, CBS, the Washington Post, Time magazine. That was in 2011. Now that the trial is underway, local Pennsylvania media has covered it, with reporter Tara Murtha doing a particularly thorough job. When a verdict is handed down, it will undoubtedly be in the national spotlight again.


So why are anti-abortion activists claiming that no one is covering the trial? And why are usually reputable, fairly moderate male writers believing them?

The goal of "pro-life" activists isn't to draw attention to an illegal butcher in order to protect women and babies. The braying about Gosnell is a ploy to shame the media into covering the issue from the anti-abortion perspective, conflating the illegal procedures performed by Gosnell with safe, legal abortion. That conflation is necessary for the pro-life side to use the media coverage to promote unnecessary regulations of clinics, purposed solely to make abortion less accessible, and advocate for the very things that allowed Gosnell's clinic to exist in the first place.

Understanding why women went to Gosnell requires understanding just how inaccessible abortion is for low-income women, who are disproportionately women of color, and for rural women. The most common reason women give for terminating a pregnancy is economic: they can't afford a child. A majority of women seeking abortions already have at least one child, and know exactly how difficult and rewarding parenthood can be. Forty-two percent of women who terminate pregnancies live below the poverty line, and another 27% live close to it, meaning nearly 70% of women who have abortions are already living in financially perilous circumstances.

Low-income women who rely on Medicaid and Title X for their healthcare aren't able to use federal funds to pay for abortion, thanks to the anti-choice Hyde Amendment, which segregates abortion out into a unique category of medical procedures that poor women must fund out of pocket. Things aren't necessarily better for women with private insurance: eight states have laws on the books that prevent private insurance companies from covering elective abortions. Ongoing attacks on Planned Parenthood and funding for contraception have also made it more difficult for low-income women to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Anti-abortion terrorists have succeeded in scaring a good number of doctors, nurses and staff out of working at abortion clinics, either by flat-out shooting doctors and bombing facilities or by engaging in extended harassment and intimidation campaigns. Ninety percent of abortion clinics report experiencing some type of harassment. Without employees willing to risk their lives, clinics close, and women have to travel farther – and spend more money – for care. Eighty-seven percent of US counties have no abortion clinic, and women in vast swaths of the country have to travel hundreds of miles in order to obtain an abortion. Once they get to the clinic, they can at times be greeted by a crowd of aggressive protesters. At least one woman said she went to Gosnell's clinic to avoid the anti-abortion mobs outside a more reputable one.

Anti-abortion ideologues have also succeeded in passing laws that require doctors to tell women outright lies about abortion that no reputable medical organizations back – for example, that abortion causes breast cancer, that fetuses feel pain or that women who terminate pregnancies have long-term mental health problems.

Twenty-six states have mandatory waiting periods, where women are treated like incompetent children and forced to go home and think about their requested abortion for 24 or 48 hours. Since patients are required to have the initial consultation in person, that means that a woman traveling for an abortion either has to make the trip twice in a few days or stay for multiple nights in a hotel. For low-income women, those added costs for gas, the bus, childcare and housing, in addition to the cost of the abortion procedure itself and lost wages from a day or three off of work, can be prohibitive.

Scraping together several hundred dollars or more, when several hundred dollars is more disposable income than you usually see all year, takes weeks or months. It requires borrowing money from friends, pawning jewellery or unnecessary items, working overtime, scrimping on food, or doing whatever necessary to put aside a few dollars at a time. While a woman is desperately trying to save up money to end a pregnancy, the pregnancy progresses, and abortion gets both more complicated and more expensive. Impediments to abortion don't actually decrease the abortion rate, but they do increase the late-term abortion rate, and they do make things more difficult, shameful and expensive for women seeking to terminate pregnancies.

One in three American women will terminate a pregnancy in her life. Many of these women could be helped by universal healthcare, contraception coverage, sexual health education, affordable daycare and a variety of other policies routinely promoted by feminists and opposed by pro-life Republicans. But instead of giving women the tools to both prevent unintended pregnancy and care for wanted children, the "pro-life" right dedicates its money and effort making abortion more difficult and more dangerous. The goal isn't the promote life; it's to punish women.

That's where the Gosnell case comes in. Troy Newman, a pro-life leader and the president of Operation Rescue, is among the loudest voices sounding the Gosnell alarm. He's also talking about how Gosnell is a gift from God to the pro-life movement. What Gosnell is accused of doing in his clinic is horrifying and illegal, which is why he's on trial. The illegal acts with which he's been charged are no more an indictment of safe, legal abortion than one child-molesting doctor is an indictment of all pediatricians.

But pro-lifers like Newman are glad Gosnell exists, because they can use him to tar all abortion providers. These are the folks who want abortion to be dangerous, gruesome and unregulated. Of course, they're thrilled that they finally found a real villain.


The senior policy advisor of Newman's organization, by the way, is a "pro-life" activist who served two years in federal prison after pleading guilty to conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic. That woman, Cheryl Sullenger, is also a regular contributor to LifeSite News, a leading anti-abortion website. It's not that there are bad apples in the anti-abortion movement; the bad apples are the movement.

We shouldn't be covering Gosnell just because a handful of anti-abortion loudmouths demand we do. We should cover Gosnell because the case is newsworthy, which is why so many media outlets did cover it when the grand jury report was filed. In covering the case, we should also look at how to prevent future Gosnells. The pro-choice movement has an answer: remove the barriers that made vulnerable women go to Gosnell in the first place. Make safe, early abortion accessible and affordable, and help women prevent pregnancy in the first place. The pro-life answer is to double down on abortion restrictions and outlaw the procedure wholesale, a move that would do little more than create many more Gosnell-style houses of horror.

The Gosnell case is a story precisely because it is unusual. Before abortion was legal across the country, women dying from botched abortions wasn't particularly newsworthy. Legal abortion in the United States is today one of the safest medical procedures around. It becomes dangerous when it's outlawed or functionally illegal, and when women are desperate and shamed.

Widespread adoption of pro-life laws created one Gosnell. We shouldn't make more.
« : April 21, 2013, 11:32:22 AM CBWx2 »


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #23 : April 21, 2013, 11:45:18 AM »

Was Jill Filipovic telling the truth? Well, here's one of the articles she referenced....from 2011, when the indictment was first handed down.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Horror Show
Katha Pollitt
January 27, 2011

Blood-spattered floors. Cat feces. Broken equipment. A 15-year-old giving anesthesia. Two women dead, countless more maimed and injured. Third-trimester fetuses delivered alive whose spines were then severed by the doctor. This was the Women’s Medical Society in West Philadelphia. This is what illegal abortion looks like.

That’s right. Illegal abortion. A great deal has been written about Dr. Kermit Gosnell and the shocking conditions and practices at his facility, which was closed last March after a drug raid, and is back in the news because a grand jury has indicted him and nine employees for murder in the deaths of one woman and seven infants. There have been many calls for further restrictions on abortion, much revulsion expressed at post-viability abortions, much blame cast on prochoicers for supposedly doing nothing to stop him. But it has not been pointed out often enough that what Dr. Gosnell was doing was illegal in Pennsylvania. It is not legal to perform abortions after twenty-four weeks. It is not legal to slit the necks of born-alive fetuses at any age, much less at thirty weeks or even more. It is not legal for untrained, unlicensed employees to perform medical procedures.

Now prochoicers are being blamed for this rogue operator. The grand jury report suggests that Tom Ridge, Republican governor from 1995 to 2001, discontinued inspections because prochoicers claimed they were too burdensome. The ones I talked to were skeptical. “We never lobbied against inspection,” Carol Tracy of the Women’s Law Project, which represents clinics in Pennsylvania, told me by phone. She pointed out that under Ridge’s Democratic predecessor, Bob Casey, who was famously opposed to legal abortion, Gosnell’s clinic was inspected three times, and each time serious problems were found. Nothing was done. Perhaps it’s relevant that Gosnell’s patients were poor, many of them immigrants—like 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar from Nepal, with whose murder Gosnell has been charged—who may not even have known that safe and legal abortion is available here.

On Slate, William Saletan agreed with the grand jury’s criticism of the National Abortion Federation, which rejected Gosnell’s 2009 application for membership, for failing to alert state authorities to the terrible conditions at his facility. In her organization’s defense, NAF head Vicki Saporta says, “What we saw didn’t meet our standards, but they’d cleaned the place up and hired an RN for our visit. We only saw first-trimester procedures.” Others did alert authorities about problems at the facility, though. A doctor from the Children’s Hospital hand-delivered a complaint to the Health Department after numerous patients returned from Gosnell’s facility with venereal disease from unsterilized instruments. The department never responded. As the grand jury report noted, the department was also alerted by the medical examiner of Delaware County that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old who was thirty weeks pregnant. And the department was informed of Mongar’s death at Gosnell’s hands. Brenda Green, executive director of CHOICE, a nonprofit [PRO-CHOICE ORGANIZATION] that connects the underinsured and uninsured with health services, told me it tried to report complaints from clients, but the department wouldn’t accept them from a third party. Instead, the patients had to fill out a daunting five-page form, available only in English, that required them to reveal their identities upfront and be available to testify in Harrisburg. Even with CHOICE staffers there to help, only two women agreed to fill out the form, and both decided not to submit it. The Department of State and the Philadelphia Public Health Department also had ample warning of dire conditions and took no action.

It might seem odd that Pennsylvania, where antichoice legislators have laden abortion with restrictions, should have been so uninterested in the Women’s Medical Society. But actually it makes perfect sense. As Carol Tracy put it, “The problem here was that Pennsylvania has always focused on eliminating abortion, not on abortion as healthcare.” In fact, as she points out, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, the primary vehicle for regulating abortion, is part of the criminal code. “Since abortion isn’t seen as medical care, they didn’t have the appropriate locus for oversight.”

What fueled Gosnell’s business were the very restrictions the legislature was so keen on passing—parental notification, waiting periods, biased counseling and, most important, a ban on state funding for abortion for low-income women. Would women have gone to the Women’s Medical Society if Pennsylvania paid for abortion with Medicaid funds? Would they have had late procedures if they could have afforded earlier ones? Maybe some underage girls went to him to avoid the parental notification rules that supposedly protected them. Only women who felt they had no better alternative would have accepted such dangerous, degrading and frightening treatment. In a way, that’s the saddest part—that women didn’t feel they could turn around and leave.

Will Pennsylvania learn anything from this experience? No, says Brenda Green. As I write, the state legislature has fast-tracked a bill that will ban any insurance plan that covers abortion from insurance exchanges set up under healthcare reform. That means more women forced to pay for abortion out of pocket—and more customers for unscrupulous providers. “That Gosnell was able to get away with his horrific practice does not prove new regulations are needed,” says Susan Schewel, executive director of the Women’s Medical Fund, which helps low-income women pay for their abortions. “It shows we need to enforce the laws we have.”



dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #24 : April 21, 2013, 04:08:24 PM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/cartoons_of_the_week/2013/15/-11-chip_bok-new_chip_bok_for_04132013.html

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #25 : April 21, 2013, 04:32:52 PM »

Let's hope reality isn't going to break out in Europe...


Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault
 
Jan Grarup for The New York Times
Robert Nielsen, 45, said proudly last year that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.
By SUZANNE DALEY
Published: April 20, 2013

COPENHAGEN — It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy country, but it backfired badly. Visit a single mother of two on welfare, a liberal member of Parliament goaded a skeptical political opponent, see for yourself how hard it is.

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
It turned out, however, that life on welfare was not so hard. The 36-year-old single mother, given the pseudonym “Carina” in the news media, had more money to spend than many of the country’s full-time workers. All told, she was getting about $2,700 a month, and she had been on welfare since she was 16.

In past years, Danes might have shrugged off the case, finding Carina more pitiable than anything else. But even before her story was in the headlines 16 months ago, they were deeply engaged in a debate about whether their beloved welfare state, perhaps Europe’s most generous, had become too rich, undermining the country’s work ethic. Carina helped tip the scales.

With little fuss or political protest — or notice abroad — Denmark has been at work overhauling entitlements, trying to prod Danes into working more or longer or both. While much of southern Europe has been racked by strikes and protests as its creditors force austerity measures, Denmark still has a coveted AAA bond rating.

But Denmark’s long-term outlook is troubling. The population is aging, and in many regions of the country people without jobs now outnumber those with them.

Some of that is a result of a depressed economy. But many experts say a more basic problem is the proportion of Danes who are not participating in the work force at all — be they dawdling university students, young pensioners or welfare recipients like Carina who lean on hefty government support.

“Before the crisis there was a sense that there was always going to be more and more,” Bjarke Moller, the editor in chief of publications for Mandag Morgen, a research group in Copenhagen. “But that is not true anymore. There are a lot of pressures on us right now. We need to be an agile society to survive.”

The Danish model of government is close to a religion here, and it has produced a population that regularly claims to be among the happiest in the world. Even the country’s conservative politicians are not suggesting getting rid of it.

Denmark has among the highest marginal income-tax rates in the world, with the top bracket of 56.5 percent kicking in on incomes of more than about $80,000. But in exchange, the Danes get a cradle-to-grave safety net that includes free health care, a free university education and hefty payouts to even the richest citizens.

Parents in all income brackets, for instance, get quarterly checks from the government to help defray child-care costs. The elderly get free maid service if they need it, even if they are wealthy.

But few experts here believe that Denmark can long afford the current perks. So Denmark is retooling itself, tinkering with corporate tax rates, considering new public sector investments and, for the long term, trying to wean more people — the young and the old — off government benefits.

“In the past, people never asked for help unless they needed it,” said Karen Haekkerup, the minister of social affairs and integration, who has been outspoken on the subject. “My grandmother was offered a pension and she was offended. She did not need it.

“But now people do not have that mentality. They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded. And it has brought us a good quality of life. But now we need to go back to the rights and the duties. We all have to contribute.”

In 2012, a little over 2.6 million people between the ages of 15 and 64 were working in Denmark, 47 percent of the total population and 73 percent of the 15- to 64-year-olds.

While only about 65 percent of working age adults are employed in the United States, comparisons are misleading, since many Danes work short hours and all enjoy perks like long vacations and lengthy paid maternity leaves, not to speak of a de facto minimum wage approaching $20 an hour. Danes would rank much lower in terms of hours worked per year.

In addition, the work force has far more older people to support. About 18 percent of Denmark’s population is over 65, compared with 13 percent in the United States.

One study, by the municipal policy research group Kora, recently found that only 3 of Denmark’s 98 municipalities will have a majority of residents working in 2013. This is a significant reduction from 2009, when 59 municipalities could boast that a majority of residents had jobs. (Everyone, including children, was counted in the comparison.)

Joachim B. Olsen, the skeptical politician from the Liberal Alliance party who visited Carina 16 months ago in her pleasant Copenhagen apartment, is particularly alarmed. He says Sweden, which is already considered generous, has far fewer citizens living on government benefits. If Denmark followed Sweden’s example, it would have about 250,000 fewer people living on benefits of various sorts.

“The welfare state here has spiraled out of control,” Mr. Olsen said. “It has done a lot of good, but we have been unwilling to talk about the negative side. For a very long time it has been taboo to talk about the Carinas.”

Already the government has reduced various early-retirement plans. The unemployed used to be able to collect benefits for up to four years. Now it is two.

Students are next up for cutbacks, most intended to get them in the work force faster. Currently, students are entitled to six years of stipends, about $990 a month, to complete a five-year degree which, of course, is free. Many of them take even longer to finish, taking breaks to travel and for internships before and during their studies.

In trying to reduce the welfare rolls, the government is concentrating on making sure that people like Carina do not exist in the future. It is proposing cuts to welfare grants for those under 30 and stricter reviews to make sure that such recipients are steered into jobs or educational programs before they get comfortable on government benefits.

Officials have also begun to question the large number of people who are receiving lifetime disability checks. About 240,000 people — roughly 9 percent of the potential work force — have lifetime disability status; about 33,500 of them are under 40. The government has proposed ending that status for those under 40, unless they have a mental or physical condition that is so severe that it keeps them from working.

Instead of offering disability, the government intends to assign individuals to “rehabilitation teams” to come up with one- to five-year plans that could include counseling, social-skills training and education as well as a state-subsidized job, at least in the beginning. The idea is to have them working at least part time, or studying.

It remains possible that the cost-cutting push will hurt the left-wing coalition that leads the government. By and large, though, the changes have passed easily in Parliament and been happily endorsed by conservatives like Mr. Olsen, who does his best to keep his meeting with Carina in the headlines.

Carina was not the only welfare recipient to fuel the sense that Denmark’s system has somehow gotten out of kilter. Robert Nielsen, 45, made headlines last September when he was interviewed on television, admitting that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.

Mr. Nielsen said he was able-bodied but had no intention of taking a demeaning job, like working at a fast-food restaurant. He made do quite well on welfare, he said. He even owns his own co-op apartment.

Unlike Carina, who will no longer give interviews, Mr. Nielsen, called “Lazy Robert” by the news media, seems to be enjoying the attention. He says that he is greeted warmly on the street all the time. “Luckily, I am born and live in Denmark, where the government is willing to support my life,” he said.

Some Danes say the existence of people like Carina and Mr. Nielsen comes as no surprise. Lene Malmberg, who lives in Odsherred and works part time as a secretary despite a serious brain injury that has affected her short-term memory, said the Carina story was not news to her. At one point, she said, before her accident when she worked full time, her sister was receiving benefits and getting more money than she was.

“The system is wrong somehow, I agree,” she said. “I wanted to work. But she was a little bit: ‘Why work?’ ”


Anna-Katarina Gravgaard contributed reporting.  And causing a shiver to run up the spine of those wanting increased taxes and entitlements

 And this is simply a different topic some need to know about...
« : April 21, 2013, 04:36:01 PM dbucfan »

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #26 : April 23, 2013, 07:20:13 PM »

More bubbles up

Investigations of abortion clinics too little, too late

Dr. Kermit Gosnell (Getty Images / April 16, 2013)
Dennis Byrne
April 23, 2013

Seven infants were savagely murdered in Philadelphia by a serial killer, prosecutors say. But no one was there to weep for them, to grieve for the loss of what they might have been or to scream at the brutality.

Those innocents were supposed to have been aborted, but when they were born alive, abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell stuck scissors into the back of their necks to cut their spinal cords, at least once making a joke of it, according to a grand jury report.

There may have been hundreds of infants that similarly perished at the hands of Gosnell, but the 281-page report said we'd never know because he destroyed the records. Sometimes in his absence fetuses and viable babies were delivered into toilets, awaiting the angel of death to return, the grand jury said.

DENNIS BYRNE

Such "depravities" scream for answers: How did it happen? Could it happen again? Here, in Illinois?

The report accused the Pennsylvania Department of Health of knowing of Gosnell's dangerous practices and mistreatment of women back to 1972, a year before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide. That would make Gosnell a "back alley" abortionist, but even those in the abortion industry who knew that his later "surgeries" endangered women did nothing, the report said.

"We have no idea how many facilities like Gosnell's have remained out of sight, out of mind of DOH for decades," the report concluded. The department inspected Gosnell's clinic only "sporadically" from 1978 to 1993 and never again until 2010. Why? Because "officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions," the report said. Added an agency lawyer, "People die."

Nothing was done until federal agents raided the clinic because Gosnell allegedly was peddling drugs from there. They were astonished at the carnage and filth.

The abortion industry tut-tuts it all as a deplorable, yet a single, isolated incident. It ignores the clinics being investigated for botched abortions or hazardous facilities in Alabama, New Mexico, Minnesota, Maryland, Colorado and Florida. There may be more, since abortion record-keeping is abysmal.

Even Illinois, by law, doesn't keep records of infants born alive during an abortion, an Illinois Department of Public Health spokeswoman said in an email. Amazingly, Illinois abortion clinics hadn't been inspected for up to 15 years before the Gosnell case broke, an Associated Press investigation found.

Finally, the state health department acted. Of the state's nine "pregnancy termination special centers" (they only do surgical abortions before 18 weeks of gestation), the department ordered two temporarily closed for violations that seriously "threaten the public interest, health, safety and welfare." Some supervisory, sanitation and other violations sound eerily similar to Gosnell's. Worse, the Women's Aid Clinic of Lincolnwood failed to perform required post-surgical CPR on a dying patient.

In a fog of excuses for their failures, that clinic and the Northern Illinois Women's Center in Rockford surrendered their licenses last year. That's two out of nine clinics with serious health and safety problems — 22 percent of the state's pregnancy termination centers. Hardly isolated incidents.

Then there is last year's Tonya Reaves case; she allegedly bled for more than five hours from a uterine perforation in a Planned Parenthood office in Chicago before paramedics were called, too late to save her.

Astonishingly, the state health department doesn't regulate Planned Parenthood — the nation's largest abortion provider. Under Illinois law, they are defined as doctor's offices that are regulated by the Illinois Department of Professional and Financial Regulation. In an attempt to discover precisely what happened to Reaves, the Pro-Life Action League and the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, filed a complaint Feb. 7 demanding an immediate investigation of whether substandard practices led to Reaves' death. And how is that going? The complaint seems to have disappeared down a bureaucratic black hole.

There's a third level of abortion providers regulated under the Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act, but I don't have room to try to explain this nonsensical tripartite of Illinois abortion regulation. I believe the fragmentation was intentional.

It's the result of a controversial and farcical consent decree in a legal challenge by the Rockford clinic of improvements in Illinois abortion laws that resulted from a 1978 Chicago Sun-Times and Better Government Association investigation. It found serious health and safety conditions in abortion clinics — similar to some of the stuff found in Gosnell's clinic — and uncovered the deaths of 12 women of which state health officials were ignorant.

Today, who can confidently say exactly how carefully abortion clinics are regulated and inspected? Where are the independent audits, newspaper investigations, legislative hearings and proposals to strengthen those regulations? The abortion industry remains one of Illinois' most powerful lobbies, frustrating any attempt to further protect women and infants from exploitation of the likes of Gosnell and who knows who else? Whether from apathy or outright hostility against pro-life advocates, we've placed too much trust in abortionists and their friends to regulate themselves.

Dennis Byrne, a Chicago writer, blogs in The Barbershop on chicagonow.com. dennis@dennisbyrne.net

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46058
Offline
« #27 : April 26, 2013, 12:17:06 PM »

BUT... geez this is low hanging fruit one would think - even acknowledging those who are involved

Officials found guilty in Obama, Clinton ballot petition fraud
By Eric Shawn
Published April 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.

Former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic party Chairman Butch Morgan Jr.  was found guilty of felony conspiracy counts to commit petition fraud and forgery, and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe was found guilty of felony forgery counts and falsely making a petition, after being accused of faking petitions that enabled Obama, then an Illinois Senator, to get on the presidential primary ballot for his first run for the White House.

Morgan was accused of being the mastermind behind the plot.

According to testimony from two former Board of Election officials who pled guilty, Morgan ordered Democratic officials and workers to fake the names and signatures that Obama and Clinton needed to qualify for the presidential race. Blythe, then a Board of Elections employee and Democratic Party volunteer, was accused of forging multiple pages of the Obama petitions.
"I think this helped uphold the integrity of the electoral system," the prosecutor, Stan Levco told reporters.

“Their verdict of guilt is not a verdict against Democrats, but for honest and fair elections,” he said.

The scheme was hatched in January of 2008, according to affidavits from investigators who cite former Board of Registration worker Lucas Burkett, who told them he was in on the plan at first, but then became uneasy and quit. He waited three years before telling authorities about it, but if revelations about any forgeries were raised during the election, the petitions could have been challenged during the contest. A candidate who did not qualify with enough legitimate signatures at the time, could have been bounced from the ballot.

The case raise questions about whether in 2008, then candidate Obama actually submitted enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the primary ballot.
“I think had they been challenged successfully, he probably would not have been on the ballot,” Levco told Fox News.

Under state law, presidential candidates need to qualify for the primary ballots with 500 signatures from each of the state's nine congressional districts. Indiana election officials say that in St. Joseph County, which is the 2nd Congressional district, the Obama campaign qualified with 534 signatures; Clinton's camp had 704.

Prosecutors say that in President Obama's case, nine of the petition pages were apparently forged. Each petition contains up to 10 names, making a possible total of 90 names, which, if faked, could have brought the Obama total below the legal limit required to qualify. Prosecutors say 13 Clinton petitions were apparently forged, meaning up to 130 possibly fake signatures.  Even if 130 signatures had been challenged, it would have still left Mrs. Clinton with enough signatures to meet the 500 person threshold.

Levco said a total of “100 to 200” signatures had been forged on Obama’s and Clinton’s petitions.

An Indiana State Police investigator said in court papers that the agency examined the suspect Obama petitions and "selected names at random from each of the petition pages and contacted those people directly. We found at least one person (and often multiple people) from each page who confirmed that they had not signed" petitions "or given consent for their name and/or signature to appear."
Numerous voters told Fox News that they never signed the petitions.

"That's not my signature," Charity Rorie, a mother of four, told us when we showed her the Obama petition with her name and signature. She was stunned, saying that it "absolutely" was a fake.
Charity told Fox News that her husband's entry was also a forgery, and that they have never been contacted by investigators or any authorities looking into the scandal.

"It's scary, it's shocking. It definitely is illegal," she told us.

Robert Hunter, Jr. told Fox news that his name was faked, too.

"I did not sign for Barack Obama," he told us. As he examined the Obama petition in his hands, Hunter pointed out that "I always put 'Junior' after my name, every time...there's no 'Junior' there
Even a former Democratic Governor of Indiana, Joe Kernan, told Fox News that his name was forged.

“This is a bitter sweet moment for free and fair elections," observed Ryan Nees, the Indiana born Yale “University senior who first exposed the scheme in the independent political newsletter, Howey Politics Indiana and South Bend Tribune.

Nees said the multiple guilty verdicts were "bitter, because a five-person conspiracy succeeded in illegally placing two presidential candidates on the ballot, but sweet because they were exposed, tried for their crimes, and convicted."

Nees previously told Fox News that the fraud was clearly evident, "because page after page of signatures are all in the same handwriting," and that nobody raised any red flags "because election workers in charge of verifying their validity were the same people faking the signatures."

Fox News' Meredith Amor contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-in-obama-clinton-ballot-petition-fraud/#ixzz2RaPmSdMB

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17839
Offline
« #28 : April 26, 2013, 12:20:09 PM »

There's no such thing as voter fraud . .  I know that because I read it right here in The Cove.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
« #29 : April 30, 2013, 09:34:03 AM »

There's no such thing as voter fraud . .  I know that because I read it right here in The Cove.

Um.....in order for it to be voter fraud, the VOTER would have to be the one committing the fraud, smart ones. I mean, if your purpose is to justify putting an additional onus on the VOTER to prove that they are who they say they are in order to VOTE in elections, wouldn't you need to show widespread evidence of VOTERS actually VOTING as people that they are not? Of course not. Who needs logic when you have right wing talking points to support your positions?

What you have here is ELECTION fraud. Fraud committed by election officials. How do you suppose forcing voters to provide picture ID at the polls would have prevented this, prey tell?
« : April 30, 2013, 09:37:05 AM CBWx2 »

  Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: This only needs folks to be aware of the crime... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools