Charlottesville 3: Capitol steps protesters dislike the deal

Two Charlottesville women are reluctantly leaning toward accepting a plea agreement in a high-profile body-rights protest case, while a third indicates she plans to reject the the deal recently offered in court.

The three were among the 30 arrested in early March on the Capitol steps in Richmond during a protest of legislation passed by the General Assembly requiring an ultrasound before an abortion can be performed. The controversial clamp-down mustered riot-gear equipped officers facing off against peaceful protestors, who were detained for as long as seven hours, among them a 76-year-old man.

The arrests struck such a nerve that House Minority Leader David Toscano scolded Capitol Police in a letter, noting "the images of armed State Police in full riot gear removing Virginia citizens from the Capitol steps is troubling to many of our constituents and potentially places Virginia unfavorably in the national spotlight."

If the Commonwealth wanted to downplay this chapter in its history, a recent move suggests otherwise. The Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney, rather than let a deputy continue the prosecution, has stepped in to lead it.

During the more than three-hours-long hearing in Manchester General District Court May 25, Judge David Cheek rejected the defendants' motion that there was no law or regulation to criminalize sitting on the Capitol steps, according to attorney Wayne Powell, who represents 18 protesters, including the three from Charlottesville.

"This is clearly a First Amendment issue," says Powell. "I'm surprised by the level of desire of the Commonwealth in Richmond to prosecute these cases."

Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring– the man who took over from his deputy– disagrees. To a point.

"Although folks refused to follow instructions, we believe they were there to express their beliefs," says Herring. "I think the best by-product of this would be a close examination of the regs so we can look at how people can protest at the Capitol."

Adds Herring: "I have no interest in anyone getting convicted. It's the same with the Capitol Police."

And yet, while the unlawful assembly charges have already been dropped, Herring won't let the trespassing charges go without a deal: If those charged admit the police acted lawfully in arresting them for trespassing, the judge will take the case under advisement and dismiss it after six months– if there aren't further arrests.

"Why fight with the 76-year-old man who's out on the steps?" says an unhappy Powell. "This was not a rowdy crowd."

The protesters must decide by June 19, and Powell (two of whose clients took an earlier deal to do 25 hours community service) says he's unsure how many people will take the latest deal.

"I am one of the ones holding my nose in accepting the deal stipulating the police acted properly," says Jean Burke, 48, a receptionist at the Charlottesville Free Clinic. "I'm having a hard time with that, but I'm accepting it because of health issues."

She notes that before and after the March 3 demonstration, various groups gathered on the steps of the Capitol without arrest, a situation she blasts as "selective enforcement."

Burke also rejects Capitol Police testimony that the protesters were blocking entrance and egress to the Capitol, particularly since the protest occurred on a Saturday when the General Assembly was not in session.

"It's clear from the photographic evidence," she says, "that we were off to the side and there was a great deal of room."

"I'm ready for it to be over," says Cheryl Oliver, 55, a former Charlottesville Democratic headquarters office manager, "because we have other battles to fight."

Oliver points to a planned June 15 demonstration in Richmond at the Virginia Department of Health when its Board of Health votes on regulations to make abortion-providing women's health clinics adhere to the same standards as hospitals.

"What happens if we are arrested again?" asks Oliver.

One of the Charlottesville Three, however, remains eager to remain in the legal battle.

"I'm not taking the deal," says Abby Guskind, 50, of Keswick. "I don't agree that the law enforcement acted lawfully."

"I want them totally exonerated," says defense attorney Powell, who is handling all the legal work pro bono. He says the regulations are overly broad and notes that even the commonwealth's attorney says they need to be modified.

"There's an easy solution," says Powell. "Dismiss the charges and rewrite the regulations."


You know, this is another lawyer fighting pro-bono for citizens, when no one else will. We are talking about our Constitutional rights as citizens, and it has come to pass that your rights only go as far as you can afford an attorney to defend them.

Thanks Braverman and Powell. Can't wait until more stand up.

It's time we stand up not in the thousands, but the millions, for our right to protest.

The Police followed lawful instructions backed up by written statutes. They were obligated to follow those instructions. So they are off the hook. The Superior made a judgment call that was his to make based on written statutes. So he is off the hook. These women were given ample opportunity to follow the lawful request of a Police officer and CHOSE to do the crime... so put your money where your mouth is and do the time. The state has a right to regulate within reason where you can protest. They were given reasonable alternatives and chose to be defiant. If you want to run with the big dogs then your gonna get bumped,and brusied if you don't want to then stay on the porch. You can't have it both ways.

If you don't like the law then lobby to change it, but just remember that if you get it changed then don't come back and complain when your childs field trip is interrupted by a bunch of skinheads in sheets or anti abortionists with bloddy dolls portraying aborted fetusus.

(I'm going to assume the previous commenter is not the local attorney, Bill Marshall.) As a matter of fact, the police were NOT following any written statute; a statute is something adopted by the legislature and, generally, signed by the executive. At most, they may have been following regulations their own department adopted. Those regulations, as applied here, violated both the Virginia and federal constitutional protections of free expression. U.S. Supreme Court precedent clearly indicates prohibition of non-violent free expression on the steps of a state capitol is unreasonable and unconstitutional. The image of riot police arresting peaceful protesters on the steps of the Capitol building designed by Thomas Jefferson, literally beneath which steps the Capitol gift shop sells bound copies of the Bill of Rights, was shocking to anyone who values liberty, whatever your opinion of the subject of the protests.

Ron, I beg to differ... the state does have the right to issue permits within this Supreme court framework

Interesting that they want the defendants to stipulate that the police were correct in their actions. Could they be trying to avoid a lawsuit for unlawful arrest?

Oh FFS. Some of you need to learn to question authority.

Welcome to the communist state of Virginia .

DONT PLEA Ladies, fight the commies tooth and NAIL !

I am not so sure there were exactly 'statutes' in place Bill and Ponce De Leon. IN addition, it is clear there are strict limitations on these statutes, and just how many limitations can be created by municipalities and state governments. In other words, they can't just give a permit to protest in some off the beaten path location instead of on the steps of the Capitol without a good reason. This was a small group of people who in no way were impeding the flow of traffic, access by anyone, or pressing on to passers by. The show of force and action by the police was absolutely uncalled for and an absolute abuse of police power. They were peaceful American citizens. You want to fine the organizers for moving to a different location? Fine. But arresting them for standing where they had a right as individual citizens to stand is total bull. They had not broken an actual law. They had only violated the so called boundaries of a permit.

If there was a law that we had to jump off a cliff, Bill Marshall would be first in line...

The whole subject of abortion, for or against is nobody's business but the mother and fathers.

It's one of those private issues that should never see the light of day.

The Contsttituional way to address the issue would have been to follow the policemens instructions and then file a complaint. If the complaint was not addressed then file a lawsuit.
These women were acting like spoiled little girls who "don't wanna move... your not the boss of me"

I have zero problems with them following the rules and fixing it through proper channells. If that failed THEN I could see a strategic defiance in front of cameras for the world (and the jury) to see.

I would not jump off a cliff, but I would certainly move aside when given the choice of moving aside and then filing a complaint or being arrested.

These women do not like government having anything to do with their wombs until they want some sap to pay child support for the kid HE didn't want to keep. Then they use the courts QUICK.

and Skin.... the fathers have zero say whether the kid gets aborted or not....

"the fathers have zero say whether the kid gets aborted or not."

Fathers have been having a say for thousands of years by trying to pass or passing anti-abortion laws. They do so while saying stupid things like birth control is the woman squeezing and aspirin between her legs.

If a guy doesn't want to have a kid, all he has to do is make sure birth control is in use.

Bill Marshall...Were you born a tool or has it taken years of practice?

No state, Republic or Commonwealth law should infringe upon any constitutional law and clearly this does. Riot gear, dragging these people off as they did? Really?

Based upon the current legislation that had been entered, passed and some turned back (only when you pointed out the legislation would cost more than save more money) I would bet my bottom dollar had it been Pro-Lifers protesting there - nothing would have been done? Anyone want to take me up on that bet?!!

Look I get it..... if a woman resexes the ex and gets pregnant or a white woman married to a redheaded irish guy gets a little frisky with a black dude and gets pregnant and doesn't want to have to explain why the kid looks like the President then they need to kill the fetus. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor and nobody can change that.

The problem is that there have been over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade and it is highly doubtful that they all were grad students in love whos condom broke and they simply don't want to subject a child to a life of poverty.

Its more likely that they were the offspring of mothers who are okay with their daughters sleeping around and getting rid of the evidence.

If a driver gets drunk and causes an accident they are forced to take classes. If a coed gets drunk and has an "accident" she just gets an abortion and the problem is solved. All the state wanted to do was to make sure she is educated about what she is actually doing to her body and a potential human being. It seems it is obviously too much to ask.

These women like to use the example of an introverted victim who has a seriously compelling reason to have an abortion..... but the legislature was trying to do something about the other 95% who were simply irresponsible.

They believe that by being civially disobedient they are teaching their daughters to stand up for their rights but all they are teaching them is that abortions should be cheap, easy and inconsequential.

If they expended half as much effort teaching their daughters to be a little more careful we wouldn't need the legislation because abortions would be reduced by at least half.

You can blame old white men for this but they could not have been elected without the female vote. So while these women think they represent all women there are thousands more who stayed home and tried to instill in their children the need to be careful.

The next time your at a wedding play a new game.... try and figure out how many of the guys at the Wedding "hooked up" with the bride before she finaly landed the groom.

For the record I am againt the legislation and am for handing out birth control like candy. The reason is that there are simply too many parents who think the status quo is acceptable and it is up to the good parents to double down and teach their children right from wrong even when others don't.

and Toni, I am pretty sure I was born a tool.

"They believe that by being civially disobedient they are teaching their daughters to stand up for their rights but all they are teaching them is that abortions should be cheap, easy and inconsequential. "

Ah. Now the truth comes out in why Bill is really on the case of these women. It has little to do with the Consitution, and much to do with his ersonal opinion on what theya re doing.

I am sorry Bill, but I don't think these women are standing up to teach their daughters to not care about abortions, or that they are cheap, or anything else. They are protesting for a few pretty obvious reasons:

1) Keeping the government out of a private decision between a doctor and patient
2) Not forcing unececcasry procedures on a woman in an attempt to force a different ideology on her.
3) A woman's right to choose.

Look, I don't like abortion as a form of birth control, and there is no doubt that it has been used that way. Much better to simply have birth control available and sex education easily accessible before the fact. But wouldn't you know, the very same small government hypocrites passing this legislation are the same ones who want to keep sex education as far away as possible, and prevent easy access to birth control.

The truth is though, if guys were told they had to go though a penal exam before having sex to prove they are viable candidates, the outcry would be heard around the world. And that's the exact same kind of nonsense we are talking about here.

Regardless of my opinion of why or what these people (not all were women) were expressing, for me, the issue has become their freedom to express themselves at that place in that manner. If we cannot petition our government on the very steps of the seat of that government, what has become of our fundamental freedoms? There was no violence (except by law enforcement) or threat of it. Only about 1/3 of the width of the steps about 1/2 way up the steps to the Capitol was being used. The Capitol grounds were open to the public at that time. These trumped-up unconstitutional charges should be dismissed summarily. That said, I reiterate my profound respect for the protesters who chose not to follow the unlawful orders of the police and respect their decisions on how far to pursue the issue.

Caseonia, the truth has always been out there... I disagree with thier zealousness to make abortions as easy as a haircut (with less repercussions) and I disagree with their choosing to break the law rather than work within it.

They were not barred fromn protest they had avenues for permits and such and chose to b;acl the stairs. Whether they were blocking them enough to warrant a request to move is an administrative matter to e settled for next time. The order to move from the Police was a lawful order and demands respect as such. There would have been no harm in seeking administrative or court relief and if they were unsuccesful then they could make a stand.
They just wanted attention because THEY think that they are right. They are teacing their children to defy authority without regard for the rules of law. They will raise children who are selfish and rthink the rules don't apply to them.

I doubt that they would be so steadfast if the same thing happend to the KKK or prolife nutjobs.

@bill marshall, being a MAN, you wouldn't know but abortions have never been as easy as getting a haircut. BUT if men were the ones that would become pregnant, abortion would be avaiable at Drive Throughs and Convenience Stores. You don't mention any of those 50 million you claim that were the result of rape or incest, many probably unreported.

Trust me, a woman knows what her choices are and MOST struggle with these choices they must make. Perhaps it is the single parent who has two others to feed and knows the deadbeat she was involved with will not support a third? What of these men - even in this area who have dozens of children we all are supporting with tax dollars? Who brag of having 6, 8 or 12 kids all which they have no responsiblity or relationship?

No one is pro-abortion. But what goes on between me and my doctor - my business!

Try struggling with this one - would you - your expecting a WANTED child and are told that your child has a condition that is not compatable with life? You can "birth early" which OBs will tell you the longer a woman carries a pregnancy the more likely she may have complications. They push for this procedure for that reason. Never mind, other conditions the longer the infant is in, the more likely it will cause harm. Doctor's oath - to do no harm. And our VA lawmakers wanted to tell insurance companies they couldn't cover such a procedure? The target is women and their health. Get a clue and quit trying to save "unborn babies" that technically are not until developed.

Until any of you have experience these things - you have no say in the matter. I'm just saying...

C-ville native

1) Just because a man does not posess a womb does not mean he cannot feel the anguish of keeping or sacraficing a child with birth defects. Give that pony a rest. Women do not own pain or anguish.

2) I do know that abortions are easy to obtain. You go to planned parenthood and they hook you up. If it were hard we would not have millions of them performed every year by people too stupid to navigate anything beyond ther welfare system.

3) Men do not control the world, they just run it.Women control over half the wealth and have a majoity of the vote in most places. Women just cannot get a consensus amongst themselves because not all women are comfortable with abortions being looked at as a an inconsequestial thing. Some women think it should be a little gut wrenching to deal with. They feel that that is your conscience telling you to not drink so much or to stop having one night stands.

4) To say that no one is "pro abortion" is an outright lie. Some are so "pro abortion" that they base who they vote for for the entire country on the one issue.

5) You want it between you and your Doctor fine... the legislature wants it between you and your Doctor too. They just want to make sure your Doctor informs you of what you are doing. After all abortiosts are paid by the abortion in most cases and have no interest in your well being over his paycheck. No different than a boob job.

6) I am not against abortion. It has its place in society and I recognise that without it there would be a lot of unwanted children and a lot of heartache. I am against the women in this country who cry victim and claim that mean old white men want to take away their god given right to destroy a fetus without any social or legal ramifications. There are simply too many abortions in this country that could have been prevented by using a little common sense and a little less risk taking..Women want to blame men for every pregnancy when it actually does take two. If a single mother with two kids cannot afford a third then she should get a condom or spend 20 bucks a month on birth control.

7) You can call me a tool and I don't care . I am not looking at this from a religious or conservative standpoint. I don't agree or support the nutjobs that think there should be no abortions. I simply want less and the best way to achieve that (in my opinion) is to make it so that women have to go through an ordeal to get it done. If a woman has a valid reason then she will not be lumped into the same category as the women who take too many risks and sleep around. We cannot tell the difference between the two so all women have to go through a little uncomfortableness for the good of society. These women think it is too much to ask and I don't. If I had to get a prostate exam in order to get a certain antibiotic in order to reduce the abuse of that particular drug then thats what I would do even though I would never be an abuser of the drug.

8) Women saying men cannot understand because we don't have wombs is the same as blacks who say whites cannot possibly understand discrimination. It is a red herring to end a debate and has no substance in fact.

9) When women stand up and try and make an effort to REDUCE the total number of abortions by putting personal responibility as the first order of business then laws like this will be shut down as quick as they pop up. So long as women continue to want to screw up without any repurcussions there will be the votes available to pass laws like this. Does anyone think that if abortions had been reduced by 20% in the last five years because some womans group or Oprah had come out making it a personal responsibilty issue that this law would have even made it out of committee? Doubtful.

Civille native seems to be awefully full of herself. "It's not technically a life untill fully developed?" Are you technically not a woman untill you learn how to love a man?

@Opinionated - cells formed to create a human are not yet human, they have the potential, but they are not.

A 8 week fetus is not a human yet - it can not breathe on it's own nor does it have the capacity to do so. Full of myself damn straight I am. I have had a child diagnosed with a condition so horribly wrong that I was given options - fetal surgery (which was out right surgery then) having them in a hospital that was equipt with the staff and machines to possibly save that child's life or the final choice was to terminate but I had to make that choice within a two weeks because I was 22 weeks pregnant with that child. Results were - traditional route - I watched that child struggle and fight for over a month after almost $2 million dollars in medical bills almost a dozen surgical procedures/surgeries until they died in my arms.

So, I let that life fully develop and I took more than my responsiblity for my children considering my first child's father still owes child support and the child is in their 20s. I single handedly raised that child.

@bill marshall - I never stated that men ruled the world however, I think men long have shuned their parental responsiblities and their hand at birth control. (Not all - but many!) Right now, corporations rule the world, didn't you get that memo?

Legislation constantly put forward in states has been to strip rights away from women. In Kansas they passed law that if a doctor sees from prenatal tests that the unborn child has a condition that is in the risk factor of what many couples choose to terminate, they don't have to tell them that news. So, in my child's case above, I would have gone on to have that child at a Martha Jefferson (ill equipt to handle such a neonate) and she would have died within hours. I could not plan and I could not make choices in my child's care. This is what will be happening in Kansas. The put forth similar legislation here in Virginia too. They also put forth legislation that dictated that insurance companies could not provide late term terminations for such cases?!!!

You spout out abortion figures and what is your source? Don't rely upon the government because there may be and probably are D&Cs included in those figures from missed miscarriages or miscarriages. Our governments do not report birth defects accurately (and I include state and federal.)

I for one do not want this nation to go back to a time where women resorted to back ally abortions. Where the only women who had a choice were those who had money and their doctors would tell them they were having a miscarriage and give them a D&C (abortion). Or some prep girl finds herself pregnant and her wealthy parents send her to Mexico for a week and she comes back 10 pounds lighter, tan and without that worry anymore.

What is moreso the issue you bring up isn't abortion but our society where teen girls emulate MTV. We no longer have sex ed in schools and what we have isn't backed by parents who should be teaching children values and respect. Few are doing this.

Finally do not continue the Pro-life and repubtards smear on Planned Parenthood. As a single parent, I used their services to take care of my "woman's health" not to have abortions. Abortion services are a very small percent of what that organization does. The only reason we see more here in Charlottesville is because aside from Richmond, they are the only clinic that will provide abortion services in this state.

"Legislation constantly put forward in states has been to strip rights away from women."
Translation: Legislation constantly put forward has been to protect a fetus.....

"I for one do not want this nation to go back to a time where women resorted to back ally abortions"
Translation: There are simply too many abortions done in 2012 because women are too carelelss tobe handled in a back alley so we need them legal

"Finally do not continue the Pro-life and repubtards smear on Planned Parenthood"
Translation: Planed parenthood does a lot of nice things to mask their true agenda...they learned it from the drug dealers who hand out pampers in the ghetto so they can peddle their drugs freely.

Wow. I've never even heard of Bill Marshall, let alone met him, yet he knows exactly what I and all of "these women" think about men, sex, pregnancy, abortion, and, well, just about everything! Very impressive, Mr. M.

" drug dealers who hand out pampers in the ghetto"

CItation please.

Here we have the PRESIDENT of ACOG saying in no uncertain terms that lawmakers need to back off when it comes to legislation restricting women's access to health care and mandating unnecessary procedures. But will it fall on deaf ears?

The only thing I "presume" to know is tha there are too many abortions in this country and women crying about their body their choice are not reducing that number.

An abortion is like a car wreck accept that the insurance company will raise your rates if you keep being negligent.

"The only thing I "presume" to know is tha there are too many abortions in this country and women crying about their body their choice are not reducing that number. "

Bill, I am sorry, but that is not knowing, that is an opinion.

You also seem to be confused with getting a result you happen to approve of or not, as the case may be, and what our Constitutional rights mean. Lots of people don't approve of handgun ownership, and argue that letting everyone have a handgun doesn't decrease violence or thefts. Yet, the 2nd Amendment says we can have those guns, regardless of their opinion, and people buy them. The number may ebb and flow, but people will buy them, and they will commit crimes with them.

We can agree that we don't like abortion, but our dislike does not give us the right to abridge the Constitution, or make it harder for women to practice their Constitutional rights. What we can do, is help women have better choices, via education, AND men, so that women don't end up pregnant to begin with, if they don't want to.

Something you are going to have to accept though, is that there is always going to be a small population that simply makes bad choices. They did it before Roe and they are doing it now.

Don't be a hypocrite in this Bill.

"our dislike does not give us the right to abridge the Constitution, or make it harder for women to practice their Constitutional rights"

Is it not these women who abridged the constitution by violating the law? Their rights were not violated.Societies were.Aanyone who wanted to use those steps at that time were. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to protest does have reasonable limitations.Whether they were reasonable or not in this instance should be dealt with through proper channells, not civil disobedience.

Oh no, Mr. M, you presume to know so much more!

"These women were acting like spoiled little girls who "don't wanna move... your(sic) not the boss of me" "

"These women do not like government having anything to do with their wombs until they want some sap to pay child support for the kid HE didn't want to keep. Then they use the courts QUICK. "

"They just wanted attention because THEY think that they are right. They are teacing (sic) their children to defy authority without regard for the rules of law. They will raise children who are selfish and rthink(sic) the rules don't apply to them."

"These women like to use the example of an introverted victim who has a seriously compelling reason to have an abortion"

"So while these women think they represent all women there are thousands more who stayed home and tried to instill in their children the need to be careful "

It's hard to pick exactly what is the most untrue, most irresponsible, and most flat-out absurd thing you said about us, but that last one about us thinking we represent all women is beyond the pale. Not a single one of us who were arrested (men AND women, by the way - yet you seem to have no antagonism towards them, hmmm) EVER claimed that we represent anyone other than ourselves. I defy you to find among our group ANYONE thinks we were representing "all women". You are certainly a master at inserting your own issues (um, serious hostility toward women, anyone?) where they have no place.

"Is it not these women who abridged the constitution by violating the law? "

No. Violating the law is not the same as the Constitution. That is why laws can be found to be unconstitutional. But why am I not surprised that someone who is right thinking misses this?

" Their rights were not violated."

One's Constitutional rights do not vanish just because someone has broken the law, much less stepped outside the boundary of a permit on public property. Nor does that suddenly give the police the right to use inappropriate force.

Civil disobedience is a perfectly acceptable to channel to deal with violations of our Constitutional rights. Just imagine how far all those black people would have gotten had they just tried the so called proper channels 50 years ago.

I wonder if you were stabnding with a bunch of overweight white guys at a protest with your guns, and the police swooped in saying you should be carrying weapons, becasue they might be loaded, just how you would be squealing now.

Dear Jean,

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck don't be upset if people presume your a duck.

I will rephrase for the record

It is my opinion that women who spend their time violating the law because they don't want to accept the CONSTITUTIONAL method of changing the law (legally protesting within reasonable guidleines to influence duly elected officials) are doing so because they have bought hook line and sinker the liberal progressive garbage that has deteiorated the fabric of the country. It is also my opinion that they are merely grown up children who want to get their way and holding their breath won't work so they tried to find something that will work. It is my opinion that the Commonwealth should point this out to them in a Court of law and let them spend a few days in a jail cell so they can read how things are supposed to work in a civilized society. It is my opinion that when women stand up so balatantly for this issue but ignore others that they teach by example that abortion is just a way of correcting a mistake that has no repurcussions and anyone who thinks otherwise is just trying to subjugate women. It is my opinion that this behavior is WHY legislatures are finally saying enough is enough and that while the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal WITHIN LIMITS they did not legalize unregulated abortiin clinics and gave states the RIGHT to regulate abortions within those limits.

It is also my opinion that we have way more abortions in this country because people who expend energy protesting regulations were MISSING IN ACTION when it was time to teach personal reponsibility to their SONS and Daughters about being a little more careful when they are having fun.

I am FOR handing out birth control, mandatory education for teen parents, and ALSO showing high school students what a fetus looks like after 10 weeks so they can be fully aware of what their carelessness can do. I am NOT advocating abstinence, I am advocating personal responsibility and I am advocating using the legilature and the courts to determine what the rules should be. It is my opinion that they should have moved on and filed a complaint and taken it through until they got to the top. It is my opinin that they preferred to presume they could flaunt the law because the dfisagreed with it, and that they believe they are entitled to be treated different than others because they think their issue is more important. It is my opinion that had a bunch of anti abortionists taken up the other half of the steps waving flags with pictures of dead fetuses they would want the Police to arrest the others instead of making both parties move since the entire steps could not be blocked.

Mostly it is my opinion that as a nation we have moved from allowing and accepting abortions as a distaseful and nessasary way of keeping lives from being ruined to having abortions becoming just another way of shrugging off irresponsibile behavior like paying a speeding ticket or taking aleve for a hangover. It is my opinion that in many cases (not all) there should be at least a little shame in getting knocked up because you were too selfish to use birth control. Ideally I would like to see a society where if someone has an abortion it is for one of the examples that the protesters always use, and not because they got drunk and stupid. I want them to still have the RIGHT to have it but should be frowned upon by people peers. It Is no longer politcally correct to form an opinion as to whether the person who had one was irresponsible. or not and that is sad.

So I hope you stand your ground, that the Judge lets you put your backside in jail cell with a civics book for a couple of days and when you come out you use the system to get the law where you want it to be. Like I said, I was not for the ultrasound law. I just think your refusal to move because you think your right to protest has no limits is childish immature and sets a bad example. The Occupy people who refused to leave Lee park are the product of your predecessors (in my opinion)


"liberal progressive garbage that has deteiorated the fabric of the country."

And now it all comes out. You dislike a particular culture, and you are willing to throw as many obstacles as possible in rfont of that culture as it exercises itś Consitutional rights. That shows you really do not understand the bases this country was founded on, or you simply don beleive them.

I am sure though, should laws suddenly disagree with your opinion, you will be squealing about Consitutional Rights. You know the saying "a liberal is just a conservative who has had his/her rights violated."

One day your turn may finally come. So far, you have been the right color, gender, age and demographic to have things go your way. But itś changing, and this country is not sinking into a pit of destruction because of women having the right to choose, or having jobs, or blacks voting, or gays serving in the military. After all, they weren the ones who made the stock market crash - a bunch of white guys did, saying they were doing God's work.

More to the point though, this country is in trouble because the biggest and most selfish I - Me generation has been refusing to pay it forward in the name of tax breaks for 30 years, whilte living off the investments of their parents, and itś finally coming apart. I suspect you are a part of that group.

Thanks God women are getting an education, because somebody in this country needs to. None of the females in my family has had any trouble avoiding abortions, unwanted pregnancies, drugs, alcohol and a slew of other so called vices of the liberal mind set. They range from Conservative to very Liberal. Most have higher educations and have been gainfully employed in humble to elite fields. The marriages have been a mixed bag, but they have all been productive members of society.

I see that as the result of them having opportunity and choices in their lives, with good guidance on finding a focus so they can achieve what they want beyond simply being baby factories. Their sense of self worth is not purely based on if they have a man to have a baby with or sleep with.

Therein lies the secret to what you want Bill, not by trying to deny women their rights to their body.

Old timer... Did you even finish readin my post before you freaked out?

I don;t care if people have sex.. I don't care if women run wall street, shoot the enemy or produce porn films. I am of the opinion that women should be more careful when they drink and have sex so there is no need to have an abortion in the first place. When an abortion occurs the women legally has the choice to kill the fetus but that does not mean that the father is numb and feels no pain or disappontment. Despite the rantings of liberal women a lot of men do care that they are helpless in the circumstance. It does destroy a life . Granted it is not fully developed but if you dig up the cornfield just before the stalk pokes throug the ground you have still killed the corn. It is legal and I am not advocating otherwise but it is a nasty thing to do and it should be taken seriously by all concerned. The overwhelming numbers suggest strongly otherwise.

As for the market collapse it was caused by the educational system not teaching kids basic economics. People spent more money than they could pay back and when they hit their limit and the music stopped it all crashed. Maybe in elementary school they should go back to teaching the three little pigs and building their finacial house out of bricks instead of "suzy has two mommys"

Abnd it was this "me " generation that put in place the EPA, (nixon. republican) and gigantic land purchases for conservation (eagan = republican) and reformed welfare so the system would not collapse under its own weight (gingrichs congress/ republican)

If yoiu want a stellar example of what 50 years of liberal and union rule does go to Detroit... houses sell for 10k, (of course you may want to buy a gun to defend it from the crackheads who are priducts of their liberal education policies)

And once again they were NOT exercising thier constituional rights they were breaking the law. I am unhappy with Obama .Do I have a right to sit in his office and complain to him about his policies or do I follow the law and seek a permit and stay within the regulations that are currently deemed legal by the supreme court ?

We are a nation of laws. If you don't like the laws then get out the vote or challenge the law in court. They were not in a clear and present danger or being denied emergeny medical care where they needed to make a stand they were simply trying to make some noise to an empty building for a photo op. So they basically wasted taxpayers dollars to get some free press. Well they got the fre press so maybe they should go all the way and do some time and we will see how important the issue is,

You can blame white men for all the worlds ills but who would hear you without the phone, telegrapgh, prinitng press, iphone, computer, internet postal service, sateelites, trucks buses planes trains and automobiles and even facebook. But when all that gets your blood boiling remember it was a white guy ( mr carrier) . that invented the air conditioner.

You could try and pass a law sending all of us white guys to the moon but we would need to ride in a rocket invented by a group of white guys getting salaries from taxes that were paid by white guys who made lots of money on wall street running pernsion funds for firefighters teachers policeman and unions.

Imagine a world without those horrible white guys...

"I wonder if you were stabnding with a bunch of overweight white guys at a protest with your guns, and the police swooped in saying you should not be carrying weapons, becasue they might be loaded, just how you would be squealing now."

Well if i did not see an imminent threat (ie i was not in the middle of a riot) I would surrender my weapon or leave and seek redress through the proper channels to fix the problem for the next guy. especially if I was given a choice between leaving or arrest. I have enough faith in my abilities to navigate the system. But then again I am educated enough to know that when you violate the law and that violation impedes on someone elses right you are technically abridging the constituion by sitting your fat butt on steps where people have a right of egress.

The police did not use innapropriate force they begged them to leave.

Civil disobedience is for people to use as a last resort because they have no other resources.... unless this womanfrom keswick mucks stalls for a bigwig i think she may have been able to afford a lawyer to solve the problem.

And nobody has said their rights "vanished" they are getting due process as we speak.

Laws are not to be decided as we go along. They are written down and adhered to until modified. I think that the state should probably revisit the regulations but that does not mean people who openly defied a law they didn't like should walk free.

" are technically abridging the constituion by sitting your fat butt on steps where people have a right of egress."

That's even more ridiculous than the comment you made earlier about drug dealers who hand out pampers in the ghetto so they can peddle their drugs freely. What orifice do you pull this stuff out of?