Steven Brigham
The website of American Women's Services advertises that some of their abortionists "have garnered national presence on syndicated programming (newspapers, radio and television programs) distributed throughout the country", but I have a feeling that when they wrote that they weren't referring to the coverage of the murder charges brought against two of their abortionists recently.
Steven Brigham and another of American Women's Services abortionists, Nicola Riley were charged with murder. The law that they were charged under is usually used to prosecute people that harm the mother of a baby and, in the process, kill the child. Since the intent of the person killing the child isn't specified in the law, it only makes sense that it would apply to abortionists who intend on killing the child.
The attorneys for Brigham and Riley said prosecuting them under this law was "far-fetched". Nothing could be further from the truth. It applies perfectly. If a person is killed in one instance of the crime, then a person is killed in the other as well. Whether or not that child inside its mother is considered a human being doesn't depend on whether or not the mother wants the child. If I don't like somebody I don't suddenly gain the right to kill that person. That would be absurd, and the argument from the abortionist's attorneys claiming that it's "far-fetched" to view the law this way is equally absurd.
When the charges were dropped, Stuart Simms and Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum, attorneys for the abortionists, made this statement concerning Nicola Riley:
Tonight Dr. Riley and her family have the joy of knowing that her liberty is no longer in jeopardy, but that joy is tempered by the knowledge that her reputation and livelihood have been permanently and wrongly damaged by an ill-considered prosecution...
What about the liberty being denied to the babies killed by her? Why are they worth any less than her? Because they are small? Because their mothers choose to have them killed instead of allowing them to be adopted by the millions of people waiting to do just that? Where is their liberty?
(Photo: The Cecil Whig, Adelma Gregory-Bunnell / AP)
Steven Brigham and another of American Women's Services abortionists, Nicola Riley were charged with murder. The law that they were charged under is usually used to prosecute people that harm the mother of a baby and, in the process, kill the child. Since the intent of the person killing the child isn't specified in the law, it only makes sense that it would apply to abortionists who intend on killing the child.
The attorneys for Brigham and Riley said prosecuting them under this law was "far-fetched". Nothing could be further from the truth. It applies perfectly. If a person is killed in one instance of the crime, then a person is killed in the other as well. Whether or not that child inside its mother is considered a human being doesn't depend on whether or not the mother wants the child. If I don't like somebody I don't suddenly gain the right to kill that person. That would be absurd, and the argument from the abortionist's attorneys claiming that it's "far-fetched" to view the law this way is equally absurd.
When the charges were dropped, Stuart Simms and Sharon Krevor-Weisbaum, attorneys for the abortionists, made this statement concerning Nicola Riley:
Tonight Dr. Riley and her family have the joy of knowing that her liberty is no longer in jeopardy, but that joy is tempered by the knowledge that her reputation and livelihood have been permanently and wrongly damaged by an ill-considered prosecution...
What about the liberty being denied to the babies killed by her? Why are they worth any less than her? Because they are small? Because their mothers choose to have them killed instead of allowing them to be adopted by the millions of people waiting to do just that? Where is their liberty?
(Photo: The Cecil Whig, Adelma Gregory-Bunnell / AP)
RSS Feed
