From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Kelly, Tiller, Wichita
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:57:40 GMT

nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>> mills@uga.edu (Kathi Mills) writes:

>>>>>> How many abortion clinics have YOU seen the inside of?

>>>>> None, and that's part of my point: very few people are allowed to see
>>>>> what goes on.  I asked whether Judge Kelly of Wichita, who was so 
>>>>> zealous in guarding Tiller's right to carry on business as usual,
>>>>> ever got to see the inside of Tiller's clinic.  I asked whether any
>>>>> of the federal marshals who so zealously carried out Kelly's orders,
>>>>> ever saw an abortion being performed in Tiller's clinic.  I'm still
>>>>> waiting for the answers.

>> you're missing the point
>> that Judge Kelly upheld Dr. Tiller's right to continue his legal activities
>> and that the federal marshals are sworn to uphold the law, interpreted in
>> this case by Judge Kelly.

> The point, in itself, means little.  Dred Scott
> was the law for a while, Jim Crow was the law for a while.  

Is that so?  Do you mean to say that Judge Kelly and those federal marshals
are zealously upholding the law because they're rabid pro-choicers, not that
they took an oath to uphold the law?

> My point went in quite a different direction.  Judge Kelly
> drafted a proposal that would limit pro-lifers to what kind of picketing
> they could do and still be acceptable to him, and proposed that a neutral
> party report on "what really goes on in Tiller's clinic," to be 
> accompanied by Operation Rescue types doing "community service", like
> homophobes being made to attend sensitivity training sessions.

In my reading of the Wichita story, I was unable to find any mention of this
compromise.  Can you direct me to a source for this information?

Btw, I don't see how one could carry out this compromise, because:

1. The odds for finding a neutral party acceptable to both sides
   seem to be slim-to-none.

2. Such an 'inspection' holds the risk of a serious violation
   of a patient's privacy rights.

> This was totally unacceptable to Tiller's lawyers.  So far as I know, they
> would never let anyone mentioned by Judge Kelly, who so zealously arranged
> for arrests and convictions ...

with the arrestees' "cooperation" of course! :-)

> ... to see the inside of the clinic.  And maybe not even Kelly himself.
> Nor any of the marshals.

> Of course, you can all go on believing Tiller had nothing embarrassing
> to hide.  But his activities, while perhaps legal under Kansas law, 
> were still of a sort that most ordinary people find repugnant.  Perhaps
> some pro-choicers here would too, if they saw them, but they never get
> the chance.

Of course, this speculation that Dr. Tiller has something to hide scores
zero points on the t.a scoreboard.

Perhaps some pro-lifers would find the threats on Judge Kelly's life to be
repugnant as well.  Or the fact that he felt it necessary to accept the
protection of federal marshals.  And don't you feel uncomfortable living in
a country where a doctor feels it necessary to wear a bullet-proof vest and
check his car for bombs every morning?

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    Not those mamby pamby wimp liberal "oh dear someone somewhere
    has done something unnice, I'll call the kare bears..." -- drieux
Newsgroups: talk.abortion