I'm not sure how I can be guilty of being anti-woman since I are one.

On the form that is required for the doctors to fill out, there is a space to indicate whether or not the fetus was viable.

Then there is a question “Reasons for determining viability” and one potential answer is “No reasonable probability at this gestational age.” Another potential answer is “Ultrasound- extreme immaturity of heart and lungs”. There's no way to interpret the definition of viability as you state it, that they 'might make it to term” with those potential responses. It's obvious that the definition of viability there is that the fetus was at a stage when it might survive outside the womb.

And the fact that the box was checked off for 'serious and irreversible major bodily function' is by virtue of the fact that no other option is provided. What was alleged by the psychiatrist who reviewed the cases is that the actual reasons in the medical records do not substantiate the use of that classification. Obviously I suspect that allegation is true and you do not.

Would you agree with me in the hypothetical case of a doctor performing late term abortions on viable fetuses for reasons of mild mental duress, and claiming that these were serious risks to health of the mother, that this would have been illegal (under the Kansas law) and unethical?

There were no cases in which some psychiatrist said they'd be depressed if they didn't abort. These abortions were said to be necessary to avoid “serious and irreversible risk to a major bodily function.” Now maybe you think they're lying and that Bill Frist should decide: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A…

I'm clear that you denounced Tiller's murder.
And just so you're clear, I'm denouncing your denouncing of Tiller himself. His patients sought medical care from him and he provided it. It is you who devalue the lives of his patients, and would strip them of the right to avoid “serious and irreversible risk to a major bodily function.” I'm PRO-WOMAN !

The fact is though that the majority of Americans do not approve of abortion of viable fetuses, and many of those feel that the only justification is either potential death or very serious physical health risk to the mother. That is clearly the intent of the Kansas statute, and at issue here is whether or not that law has been enforced according to the will of the people of the state.

Unfortunately, as I get dragged into a more lengthy discussion of this than I'd intended because I feel now that I have to defend my points against your rebuttal, there are some who will feel that the negative information I'm presenting is in some way provided to justify his murder, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I did want to see him lose his license and/or face prosecution because I truly believe he was violating ethics and the law- however I condemn the vigilante murder in the strongest terms possible.

Here's what they say, and please everyone, feel free to see for yourself. (I reviewed 2008 only)

In 2008, there were NO 'partial birth abortions.' Zero.
Of the total (10,642), 323 abortions were performed after 22 weeks gestational age. (3%)
Of those, 131 were NOT viable fetuses.
Of the remaining 192, the abortion was necessary to “Prevent substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the woman.

There were NO abortions for mental duress as you've suggested. All were to prevent *irreversible major injury* to the mother. How dare you suggest she should be crippled for life to preserve a *potential* live birth?

Many women lose fetuses before birth. Subjugating a woman's rights to those of a maybe-baby is just wrong, and in my opinion, completely unconstitutional. As I've pointed out, subjugating adult medical rights to the rights of even another adult citizen would be a HUGE step away from individual rights. To do so for an unborn maybe-baby with NO constitutional rights, would be extremism that strips a woman of rights and renders her a fetus incubator for the state, when she's pregnant.

BTW, Dr. Tiller's patients were NOT babies. They were adult women. He has pledged, as have all doctors, to do the best he can for his patients.

Actually we do know that, GD. The state of Kansas since 1998 has required doctors to report on late terms abortion whether or not the fetus was viable and whether or not the mother's life was at stake. The data is here. I've only reviewed the last three years so far, but the numbers were basically 1000 abortions past 22 weeks, with 60 % of them on viable fetuses, and for those three years, ZERO of the mothers were at risk of losing their own life. All were claimed to be health exceptions, not life of the mother. A psychiatrist who reviewed the records has gone on the record saying that there was no psychiatric exam or history done and the doctors involved in Tilley's practice claimed some very frivolous reasons for the health exception (his evidence was not admitted in the trial, so I assume there is some controversy and not everyone will accept the veracity of what he claims, but I just put it out there for your information.)

And since it's always necessary to make this disclaimer, I'll again state that I do not write these things with intent to justify the murder of Dr. Tiller, which I consider to be an immoral and unjustifiable act.

I also have no love of O'Reilly and I haven't watched the segments in question. Unless he was inciting violence directly though, I see no reason that he was any more guilty here than anyone else might be if they express a strong opinion against the actions of another public figure and then the figure ends up targeted. If Dick Cheney ends up assassinated, will those here who have demonized him be held responsible?

Second, there is no one who is more pro-abortion than me. You’ll notice that I didn’t say pro-choice, which is different. In the first trimester, I firmly believe that a number of women who shouldn’t be near a child, let alone have one should be strapped down and forcibly aborted for the good of mankind.

However, I do believe O’Reily was doing his job in informing and publicly shaming this late-term partial birth abortionist. Tiller made a practice of killing perfectly viable human beings (as I interpret when a fetus becomes a person), so I believe he should have been exposed and held up for public scorn. The argument that exposing deviant behavior places the practitioner at risk is probably true, but that is part of the risk someone assumes when they act in a manner that could incite others to violence.

You can’t protect the innocent from nut case murderers, nor can you protect the scum of society.

“Perhaps someone will put a bullet in Orally's ass….”

You’re obviously out of your fuc*ing mind. To make a death threat on a public figure in the comments section of a blog like this shows that you shouldn’t be interacting in society with sane people.

Is this assault meant to give you some sort of liberal “cred” ? Are you trying to impress the left wing with how passionately you view the death of Tiller? Just how stupid can you possibly be?

I have not watched O'Reilly in several years, personally I don't like the Fox/MSNBC approach to the “news”. But unless there is more evidence to draw O'Reilly into this this is all innuendo.

This sums it up exactly, Joe. That kind of media reporting appeals to the basest human emotional response which is mostly irrational and reactionary. Instead of intelligently challenging the ideology, philosophy or plans presented by a person, the media portrays that particular human being as the demon behind the ideology and that person becomes the scapegoat for society's frustration. There are many mentally unbalanced people out there who just need a little push with this paranoid fear-mongering and destructive sensationalism. These media outlets have been getting high ratings and plenty of attention with these antics for years, but at what cost? Is it worth all the distrust and anger that is boiling over in this country between the political parties, much of which is based upon a lot of sweeping generalizations and misinformation on both sides? The ones who rile up a hornets nest just to get attention for themselves are creating a dangerous situation they will have a hard time fixing, especially in regards to what has just happened to this doctor. While I agree that the person who killed this doctor is ultimately responsible for their own actions, I hope this event gives some of these media demagogues a moment's pause to realize what strong influence they may have on their audience. If they keep these tensions rising to a fevered pitch by appealing to only emotions instead of logic and reason, there will be more events like this with people who would rather harm others in a misguided attempt to solve these issues as opposed to trying to work them out non-violently.