Pennsylvania mother who gave daughter abortion pill gets prison

Things are what they are, whether we call them something different or not.

Abortion is taking a life of another.

Calling abortion by a different name doesn’t change what has occurred.

According to "Earthquake" Kelley, who went to heaven during an NDE, Jesus' heart really hurts over the condition of these abortions.

While in Heaven, he had a heart wrenching conversation with Jesus about children who have been aborted (@ 19min.).

And as he was leaving he saw three groups of children. The first group of children were those who had died through things like war, the second group of children died through abortion, murder in the womb. Did he have anything to say about those abortions, with that second group of children?

EARTHQUAKE: Yes, he said he sent, had a purpose that they were going to change a lot of things on this earth for the good. And his voice started changing as if it hurt him through his heart and it started trembling as if he were starting to cry. And that’s when I said, “God, you being God I didn’t know that you had this kind of emotion.” You can stop yourself from crying, but it’s not like that, he really, really hurts over the condition of these abortions. And when I saw, as I saw, actually I heard his voice change, and how he was saying I had a purpose for them, I had something that they were supposed to do, and because of sin and the hardness of man’s heart, and not taking me seriously, he said this is serious, he kept saying, this is serious, and as I saw that second group.

www.sidroth.us...

And he said you see that group over there playing? I had an awesome job for them also to do and because of abortion and because of evil and because of things of that nature, and then it was like tears were about to drop out of his eyes and I felt like if one of those tears came out, I thought it would be as big as an Olympic sized swimming pool, I couldn’t deal with it, I said God I didn’t know you hurt like that. And he said, Do you see that group over there running and playing.” And I said “Yes Lord, who are those?” And he said, “Those are the groups that I sent to so called church people, to so called Christian homes who secretly went and had an abortion, who did not trust me, who believed in the ways of the world, who did not believe that I would take care of them and another mouth to feed. So instead of trusting Me they went and they had an abortion.”

And there is even people now who is in the churches and I’m talking to somebody now that may be in a church right now who feels like God has abandoned you, left you he has put you down or whatever and you are listening to the voices, those voices, and I know about voices, trust me, and there is only one voice you need to listen to and that’s the voice of God. Do not destroy that life, because God has placed that, allowed that life to be in you so that life could be nurtured through the things of God so it can grow up and be a great man or woman of God. And God is telling me to tell you, don’t do it, don’t do it, because I’m here as an example of what can happen to a person’s life.

Bishop Earthquake Kelley on Sid Roth

a reply to: Murgatroid

You don't want an abortion, don't have one.

There are many anti-abortionists who support "Right of Choice".

"Right of Choice" is exactly that. It is not pro-abortion. It is the Right for each woman to make her own choice.

As far as Jesus goes, don't care.

a reply to: Murgatroid


Riiiiiight. And we're supposed to believe everything this guy says.... just because he said so?

And how does Jesus feel about all the miscarriages he causes, because there are millions and millions of those in the world. Miscarriages are nothing more than God's abortions. Let's look at logic, shall we? If abortion is murder, and God causes abortions, then God is a murderer. Why would a murderer care about abortions?

First, and I don't know what the laws in Pennsylvania are, but how is it any political parties fault if a clinic providing abortions is to far from anyone? Planned Parenthood and the like are private companies and it is up to them where to put these clinics. As far as affordability, once again these are private companies and they set their prices not the government. I suggest petitioning the insurance companies to cover this, or you can petition congress to add it to the ACA as a mandated item to cover.

As far as this case is concerned she broke the law on many fronts here. Ordering online (not sure if this is legal or not). Administering it herself. I mean if nothing else the manufacturer itself says it should only be used when supervised by your doctor. Not smart.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: AnteBellum

Why is the USA so backward sometimes eh?.

Because most of it is controlled by a bunch of moronic (and homophobic..lol), religious left wing politicians, who believe that the US should be ruled by god's law and "over the top", Christian values rather than by some constitution.

Personally, I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between some of these mentally retarded US preacher/politicians and the WBC..

]originally posted by: XTexan

You haven't read through the thread, have you? Because if you had, you would know that abortion clinics are being shut down, thanks to legislative efforts by Republicans. That means that you may have once had a clinic near you that was involuntarily shut down by law.

As far as this case is concerned she broke the law on many fronts here. Ordering online (not sure if this is legal or not). Administering it herself. I mean if nothing else the manufacturer itself says it should only be used when supervised by your doctor. Not smart.

Desperate people take desperate actions. Is it smart to use a coat hanger or drink Draino when you want to end a pregnancy? Nope. Did it happen a lot when there was no access to abortion clinics? Yep.

TEXAS ABORTION LAWS

After battling the state in court to protect women's health in Texas, on October 31st a panel of three Federal judges allowed unconstitutional abortion restrictions to take effect. The restrictions clearly violate Texas women's constitutional rights and drastically reduce access to safe and legal abortion statewide. What does this mean for you? The restrictions have forced us for now to stop offering medication abortion while we determine our next steps. We are still providing surgical abortion for women who need to end a pregnancy. This fight is far from over. Women in Texas should have access to the highest quality health care, no matter where they live. That is why we will continue to fight to protect women's access to health care across the state. - See more at: www.plannedparenthood.org...

I know this is about PA, but abortion restrictions are happening all over the country ------ especially in the southern states.

If this PA woman and daughter had had access to a local facility, most likely they would have used it.

Shutting down access to abortion is primarily the work of the Christian Right, GOP, TEA PARTY.

Judges to hear Texas abortion case have upheld, rejected similar laws

Two of the three federal appeals court judges appointed Monday to decide whether Texas can immediately enforce parts of its tough new abortion law have ruled recently on similar abortion restrictions — one in favor and one against.

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, an appointee of President George W. Bush, voted on a panel in March to uphold a similar provision in Texas’s tough new law known in House Bill 2.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson, an appointee of President Obama, voted on a panel in July to strike down a nearly-identical provision in a Mississippi law.


[blog.chron.com...]

edit on 10-9-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)

a reply to: AnteBellum


Backward ass weird people - and I don't mean the mom & daughter.

'we don't want big government in our lives telling us what we can and can't do, we want big government telling other people what they can and can't do with their own bodies'

backwards indeed...

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whatever makes you feel better at night...lol...

Jaden

Makes me feel better? I don't have a child and the only time a girl I slept with got pregnant, she had a miscarriage (and it probably wasn't mine since she was cheating on me). So I don't toss and turn at night over abortions since I'm not responsible for any. I still agree with the decision resting solely with the mother and father. If they want to do it, that is on them. Hence the term pro-choice. THEY have the choice, not you or I. If their morals permit it and they feel it is necessary then that is on them. THEY are the ones who are going to have to rationalize it to sleep better at night, not me.

She gave a restricted drug to a minor without medical approval.


Seems a open and shut case here.

Law is the law. Being a woman and pregnant does not exempt you from it.

originally posted by: crazyewok
She gave a restricted drug to a minor without medical approval.


Seems a open and shut case here.

Law is the law. Being a woman and pregnant does not exempt you from it.

Well said. You succinctly put my point out in two sentences. Well done!

No one should be denied birth control or the means to end an unwanted pregnancy.

What they've done to this woman is wrong. All she did was help her daughter.

As the saying goes.... Only in America.

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Stripping away the abortion issues, this woman technically administered a drug to her daughter without prior medical consultation or prescription.

I agree with most of what you say, but this drug doesn't require a prescription. So, it's more like she bought something over the counter and administered it to her daughter. Her daughter had negative reaction and was taken to the hospital.

I'm NOT defending her actions and if I were in her shoes, I honestly don't know what I would do. But what she did was against the current laws and legally, she should be punished, but I don't think she should be jailed.

Think about how jailing the mother is going to affect the 16-year-old daughter! Does she now have to go live with her dad? Does she know her dad? Will she become a ward of the state? Will she be removed from her home, her school and friends?

This woman should've been able to take her daughter to a gynecologist and received the prescription. It's not necessarily laws that create this scenario but pressure from groups.

Agreed!

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: NavyDoc

not only that, people have gone to prison for driving drunk and hitting a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the unborn child.. You can't have it both ways, either it's murder or it's not...

Jaden

There is no choice involved.

I don't see "choice" as being part of our legal definition of murder. "Choice" in murder would more be "suicide" I guess. I think a better charge in the scenario above would be "destruction of private property" in order to be consistent.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But you guys seem to be making her A). a martyr for the cause and B). forget the fact that such restrictions are not just an American issue. Other countries have similar regulations due to the potential life threatening complications of the procedure and/or medication.

I don't care what it seems like to you. "We guys" don't share a brain. My opinion is my own. Don't just lump us together and assume where we stand on this issue. I am not making her a martyr. She's alive and she's proof there are draconian laws in effect in Pennsylvania, as well as other states. I don't care about other country's restrictions. Childbirth is a potential life threatening situation. In fact, it's more dangerous than a safe abortion.

Each person should have autonomy and not have the government making laws that make it harder and harder for women to have this important medical procedure.

If this were about men, their penises and testicles, and whether or not that information should be public and have the government telling you what you can and cannot do regarding your sex organs, or if it was private and between men and their doctor - if we were making laws about how much control you have over your own body, we wouldn't even be discussing this!

Because of the political nature of abortion, clinics were given a pass from the medical standards of care in the US--many other countries have more stringent standards, BTW--that applied to every other clinic that performs moderately invasive procedures.

Abortion should NOT have a "political nature"! It's between a woman and her doctor!

However, abortion IS a political hot bed issue with fanatical and irrational beliefs on both sides of the issue. That is the fact of the matter.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Stripping away the abortion issues, this woman technically administered a drug to her daughter without prior medical consultation or prescription.

I agree with most of what you say, but this drug doesn't require a prescription. So, it's more like she bought something over the counter and administered it to her daughter. Her daughter had negative reaction and was taken to the hospital.

I'm NOT defending her actions and if I were in her shoes, I honestly don't know what I would do. But what she did was against the current laws and legally, she should be punished, but I don't think she should be jailed.

Think about how jailing the mother is going to affect the 16-year-old daughter! Does she now have to go live with her dad? Does she know her dad? Will she become a ward of the state? Will she be removed from her home, her school and friends?

This woman should've been able to take her daughter to a gynecologist and received the prescription. It's not necessarily laws that create this scenario but pressure from groups.

Agreed!

If we are talking about RU486, it does require a prescription.

United States[edit]

Roussel Uclaf did not seek U.S. approval, so in the United States legal availability was not initially possible.[53] The United States banned importation of mifepristone for personal use in 1989, a decision supported by Roussel Uclaf. In 1994 Roussel Uclaf gave the U.S. drug rights to the Population Council in exchange for immunity from any product liability claims.[48][54] The Population Council sponsored clinical trials in the United States.[55] The drug went on approvable status from 1996. Production was intended to begin through the Danco Group in 1996 but they withdrew briefly in 1997 due to a corrupt business partner, delaying availability again.[56][57] Mifepristone was approved for abortion in the United States by the FDA, in September 2000.[58] It is legal and available in all 50 states, Washington, D.C., Guam, and Puerto Rico.[59] It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians, sold by Danco Laboratories under the tradename Mifeprex.

Medical abortions voluntarily reported by 33 U.S. states[60] to the CDC have increased as a percentage of total abortions every year since the approval of mifepristone: 1.0% in 2000, 2.9% in 2001, 5.2% in 2002, 7.9% in 2003, 9.3% in 2004, 9.9% in 2005, 10.6% in 2006, 13.1% in 2007 (20.3% of those at less than 9 weeks gestation).[61] A Guttmacher Institute survey of abortion providers estimated that medical abortions accounted for 17% of all abortions and slightly over 25% of abortions before 9 weeks gestation in the United States in 2008 (94% of non-hospital medical abortions used mifepristone and misoprostol, 6% used methotrexate and misoprostol).[62] Medical abortions accounted for 32% of first trimester abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics in the United States in 2008.[63]

Subsection H[edit]

Some drugs are approved by the FDA under sub-section H, which has two sub-parts. The first sets forth ways to rush experimental drugs, such as aggressive HIV and cancer treatments, to market when speedy approval is deemed vital to the health of potential patients. The second part of sub-section H applies to drugs that not only must meet restrictions for use due to safety requirements, but also are required to meet postmarketing surveillance to establish that the safety results shown in clinical trials are seconded by use in a much wider population. Mifepristone was approved under the second part of sub-section H. The result is that women cannot pick the drug up at a pharmacy but must now receive it directly from a doctor. Due to the possibility of adverse reactions such as excessive bleeding, which may require a blood transfusion and incomplete abortion, which may require surgical intervention, the drug is only considered safe if a physician who is capable of administering a blood transfusion or a surgical abortion is available to the patient in the event of such emergencies.[64] The approval of mifepristone under Subsection H included a black box warning.

It requires close supervision due to potentially life threatening adverse effects. You are incorrect, it was not "Just like giving her a Tylenol." That is patently false and a bit of a flippant way of looking at a very serious act. It was no different than taking coat hanger and perforating her daughter's uterus because she didn't want to drive 74 miles.

Let me point out one quote:

the drug is only considered safe if a physician who is capable of administering a blood transfusion or a surgical abortion is available to the patient in the event of such emergencies.[

This is why a lot of abortion "clinics" have lost their ability to practice--they did not meet standards and were either unwilling or unable to improve standards to acceptable safety levels that ARE ALREADY IN PLACE IN MOST OF THE WESTERN WORLD. That's the point you forget. There is no evil right wing republicans in France or Australia or the UK and they already operate by these higher standards of care.

And think about it. If it didn't require a prescription, she could have just gone to CVS and bought it right in town.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Right of Choice is irrational?