People are getting their panties in a knot over the pro-choice law recently passed by the Texas legislature. They wouldn't be in a position to care if their panties had been properly knotted when it counted, but that's all water breaking under the bridge now. The important thing to keep in mind is that the extreme response to the law of the pro-baby killers is unwarranted. Allowing ordinary citizens to collect a bounty of $10,000 on anybody who helps a woman commit an illegal baby murder will not result in a bizarre return of the wild west. Texas is not Florida. Our citizens are responsible people who will apply the law with all of the care and compassion with which it was enacted.
To prove this, I would ask that you consider the following case studies, which portray the application of the law in the truest light.
CASE STUDY ONE: Gus Fring.
Fring, a 17 year-old alternate medications dispenser, posted on the ProLifeWhistleBlower.com web site, that Valida Hartounian had had an abortion eight weeks into her pregnancy. Two weeks into illegal territory. Since the law specifically exempts the potential mother, Fring cited her parents, Christophe and Iolanthe Hartounian, for driving her to the abortion mill, as well as the doctor who performed the procedure, Millicent Valgarde.
As it turned out, Hartounian had what is known as a "hysterical pregnancy." She was never with child. In addition, Fring was her former boyfriend, who told the Dallas Courier and Spittoon that, "I wanted to make her suffer the way she made me suffer. Creaking cowboys, I couldn't even get that right!" The case never made it to trial.
COMMENTARY:
Umm, yeah. Okay, this case study doesn't show the application of the law in the best light. But, it's an aberration. In fact, the law has been applied much more soberly by others, as the next case study clearly shows.
CASE STUDY TWO: Silvio Dante
Heather Windtrop visited an abortuary in the 11th week of her pregnancy. Dante, who sells used cars at his Seventh Circle dealership, told ProLifeWhistleBlower.com that Harrison Fjord-Welles should be prosecuted under the new abortion law because he bought Windtrop a coffee before she murdered her baby.
During the trial, it came out that Fjord-Welles bought Windtrop the coffee three weeks before the baby killing, at which point he did not know that she was pregnant. It was also revealed that Fjord-Welles owned the Alias Flash and Jones used car dealership, situated directly across the street from Dante's place of work. The case was summarily dismissed (although not because the judge wanted to get out and enjoy the nice weather); although he avoided paying the fine, Fjord-Welles was out the fees payed to his lawyer to defend himself.
COMMENTARY:
Okay, I know it doesn't look great, but the implementation of any new law is bound to have some hiccups. You have to give the judges and lawyers applying it (not to mention the citizens who want to use it) time to understand the law's intricacies. Another example should help the reader see the law better for what it is.
CASE STUDY THREE: Tom Hagen
Oil baron Martin O'Sheam was cited by Hagen on ProLifeWhistleBlower.com for allowing his daughter Brilliantine O'Sheam to use his private jet to fly to New York for a weekend getaway that included dining at Sardi's, taking in a show and having a second trimester abortion. After winning the lawsuit, O'Sheam said he would use the money to buy a big screen TV and a WII game system "for my health. Yeah. That's it. To be healthy."
After the trial, O'Sheam complained that he was being targeted because he was wealthy. "The first trial was about me giving breakfast to my daughter the day she left for her abortion. The second trial was about me paying the fee for the clinic. Has nobody in this state ever heard of double jeopardy? Apparently not - this is the 12th case I have lost, each time for a slightly different reason. Can I just put a million dollars into a trust to pay for these ridiculous lawsuits? They're really eating into my work day!"
COMMENTARY:
Okay, forget the case studies. There are plenty that show the law being implemented in a positive light - I just haven't had the luck to find them. Yet. The important thing is that Texas is doing what it has to in order to preserve the lives of unborn babies, so who the ferk are you to judge us?