OK you say, PP may be pro-abort, but we who volunteer there and work there and support them financially and vote for politicians who support PP and write letters and blogs in support of PP and participate in rallies in support of PP and rail against those who want to shut down PP, we are not pro-aborts.

If someone were to say he/she is against capital punishment but does everything to the contrary of that belief except pull the lever, one would be correct in saying despite what the person says he/she really does support capital punishment.

Pro-choice is a term that denotes support of abortion rights, pure and simple. If one supports abortion rights, whether it be even in the most rare of circumstances, that person is for (pro) abortion. That is why the term "pro-life with exceptions" is a fraud.

Posted today on Jill Stanek is one Ms.Camille Paglia who is pro-choice. She writes that: "Hence I have always believed that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful." Nevertheless she is pro-choice because she feels the state does not have the right to "intervene in the biological processes of a woman's body."

Camille's observation helps immensely to bring clarity and intellectual honesty to the issue. The question comes down to not whether one is pro-choice or, be it as it may, "pro-abort." Rather, it seems the pre-eminent issue is if one recognizes being pro-choice is favoring the right of women to engage in murder of their unborn children, as does Ms. Paglia, or if one believes that being pro-choice is a warm and fuzzy thing that does not have life and death consequences.

The "four predicate acts" again? One of them was the testimony of a "Miss Hollywood," who so blatantly lied that she was easily refuted by a news clipping from the LosAngelesTimes.

Obviously a jury believed the testimony of the witnesses at trial.

These so-called predicate acts were never really vetted in the lower federal court in Chicago, and never made it to SCOTUS, probably because NOW's attorneys felt they couldn't be supported. PLAL however, was fully prepared to refute them.

It appears that they were well enough "vetted" that a jury found them credible. As to the issue not making it to SCOTUS, NOW doesn't decide which issues SCOTUS will hear — that's strictly up to the justices.

So why don,t you Aurora pro-aborts just admit the NOW case was a lying frame-up and shut up?

You kids and your "proabout" language. May I point out that virtually no one posting here is pro-abortion. Most, if not all, would counsel (if asked) against having the abortion. The real positional difference is that pro-choice people believe that, in the end, we are all equally responsible for our actions and that no-one has the right to impose their beliefs and views. If, in fact, people were pro-abortion, then they would insist that you have an abortion, for whatever reasons they feel are applicable, regardless of your opposition to it. For example, "pro-abortion" people would demand that anyone testing positive for down syndrome or another disorders must have an abortion, and then have that forced on you through legislation. I think we can agree that this is certainly not the case. Then again, maybe we can't.

Even though we have come a long way since those days one thing has not changed, and that is the right of a person not to have his good name besmirched. When someone tries to take that away, the law recognizes it as a crime. Therefore, attempts to reclaim one's good name should not be viewed as "frivolous" (post 24).

Here is the problem. In both the content and tone of the newspaper ads, Mr. Trombly was trying to turn public opinion against those protesting the opening of the clinic. From day one (prior to the discovery of the Gemini deception) Planned Parenthood, Inc. took pains to "obfuscate", using Federal Judge Charles Norgle's word, and otherwise sidestep normal zoning protocol and deceive aldermen so as to hide the true purpose of the facility. Mr. Trombley bragged about this, saying in numerous interviews and soundbites that Planned Parenthood, Inc. had taken those steps in order to avoid a lot of public opposition and that he wanted to save the contractors and others from having to face all of that, etc, etc. Then to make his case stronger (or so he thought) he tried to link the peaceful and legitimate actions of the pro-lifers and veteran pro-life leaders to those of clinic bombers and violent extremists. This was a desparate attempt to explain why the deception which Planned Parenthood, Inc. had so cleverly concocted was justifiable. But in so doing, Planned Parenthood, Inc. told a whopper about the Scheidlers.

Now for us to believe that Planned Parenthood, Inc. had to make their case in such a public way in order to lobby city officials stikes us as incongruous at best. It is odd that an organization that took so much care to hide the true intent of their plans from city officials just a few short months before, suddenly claims that now full page newspaper ads front and center in the public eye were the only means to lobby those same officials. Whom are they kidding?

Jerry, if you can find where the SCOTUS said there was no criminal conduct on the part of Scheidler I would love to see it.

Student, how about you show us exactly what criminal conduct SCOTUS found Scheidler guilty of? I doubt it exists; otherwise NOW and PPoA would still have a suit pending.

Student, what was Joe Scheidler charged with specifically? I'm guessing he WAS found guilty of that particular charge?

The jury found "that the defendants or others associated with PLAN committed 21 violations of federal extortion law (Hobbs Act), 25 violations of state extortion law, 25 instances of attempting or conspiring to commit either federal or state extortion, 23 violations of the Travel Act, 23 instances of attempting to violate the Travel Act, and four 'acts or threats of physical violence to any person or property."

Now, SCOTUS found Scheidler/PLAN's favor because there was no "robbery or extortion" — NOT because there was no criminal and/or violent conduct.